UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

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.”

They observed the lack of fins?
Are you sure they just couldn't see the fins? The Gondola?

To my mind, someone who states they didn't see any fins isn't necessarily witnessing something that didn't have fins, only that they are saying they didn't see fins.

Besides, they saw at least one fin. The top one, the one I have already shown to be the most prominent one to see in various blimp photos.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Spin it however you like dude, but nobody, I say again, NOBODY, believes you.

It doesn't matter that you believe that you're the greatest presenter of unassailable evidence in the history of blimps, the fact is that you are unable, for various reasons. to convince anyone.

Can't you see that even if everything you say is actually 100% true, you have still failed?

 

[Stray Cat]

Point spectacularly missed again Rramjet...

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

If indeed they couldn't see the gondola... the blimp has a smooth rounded bottom (why are we making a blimp sound sexy like this)

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

If they couldn't see the shape clearly but determined it from it's silhoutte, the two shapes match almost exactly.

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

And yet the overall outline shape matches almost exactly.

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?

Here (once again) is a period photo of the Goodyear blimp... It's logo wasn't as clear and colourful as it is on today's modern blimp:

Can you see the logo on the blimp furthest away? If the above photo had been taken with the blimp at an altitude of 5,000 feet, would the logo be easier or harder to see? Would the angle of view make the gondola easier or harder to see?

And then there's always the possibility it wasn't the Goodyear blimp but one of the Navy reserve blimps that were in operation along the East coast during 1949.

 

[EHocking]

...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.

Because it was not a Googyear blimp in 1949 it was a silver aluminium skinned US Navy or USNR K Class blimp, with relatively small writing on it.

After all they got the drawings of the Good Year blimp WITHOUT the logo?

You know perfectly well that Stray Cat put the images of the Goodyear blimp up for silhouette comparison NOT colour/size. Why do you ignore the fact that the colour photos show a blue and yellow Goodyear blimp when the eyewitness accounts stated it was silver?

Why? Because you are playing at disengenuous obfuscation, that's why.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, are you totally abandoning your claim to be a scientist? I think it would be in your best interest and you can start fresh with that part of your slate clean.

 

[GeeMack]

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

None of the "evidence" you've presented can even remotely be accepted as legitimate, objective evidence to support your claim that aliens exist. It's a series of arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, lies, circular reasoning, attempting to shift the burden of proof, and a virtual Whitman Sampler^TM of other logical fallacies and flawed arguments. But, as everyone else here has noted, you haven't offered a single speck of actual evidence to support that claim. You haven't got a thing, Rramjet.

So again I ask, yes or no, do you have any evidence to support your claim that aliens exist? Any actual objective evidence, not the ignorance, incredulity, and lies that make up the bulk of all your comments so far?

And I'd still like to know if you have any ideas why, since you seem to think your "evidence" is substantive and compelling, you've been wholly incapable of convincing even one other person here that your claim is true. Could it be that your communication skills are so sub-par that you just can't assemble a cogent, understandable case? Maybe it's a conspiracy, and all of us mean old skeptics are PMing each other to pretend to agree that your arguments are built on ignorance and incredulity? Or how about this. Is your argument simply as unsupportable as it seems to be? Any ideas why you just aren't getting anywhere?

 

[GeeMack]

Spin it however you like dude, but nobody, I say again, NOBODY, believes you.

It doesn't matter that you believe that you're the greatest presenter of unassailable evidence in the history of blimps, the fact is that you are unable, for various reasons. to convince anyone.

Can't you see that even if everything you say is actually 100% true, you have still failed?

Goes to my curiosity about how something could be as well supported as Rramjet believes his claim to be, yet it's apparently impossible for him to assemble a cogent case to sway other people to buy into his beliefs. Is there a professional aerodynamics engineer on Earth who believes these UFOs are flying impossible maneuvers? Are there any accredited psychologists who agree with Rramjet on his claims about people's reliability as witnesses? Does one single expert in lighting and optics support his claims about what can and can't be seen under what conditions? Obviously Rramjet is, for some reason or other, simply incapable of convincing anyone. Why doesn't he get someone who can communicate effectively to help out here where he has clearly failed?

 

[Nonpareil]

Goes to my curiosity about how something could be as well supported as Rramjet believes his claim to be, yet it's apparently impossible for him to assemble a cogent case to sway other people to buy into his beliefs. Is there a professional aerodynamics engineer on Earth who believes these UFOs are flying impossible maneuvers? Are there any accredited psychologists who agree with Rramjet on his claims about people's reliability as witnesses? Does one single expert in lighting and optics support his claims about what can and can't be seen under what conditions? Obviously Rramjet is, for some reason or other, simply incapable of convincing anyone. Why doesn't he get someone who can communicate effectively to help out here where he has clearly failed?

Well, to be fair to Rramjet, I doubt that he would be able to find any of the experts on these subjects who would be willing to dedicate their free time to trying to convince a group of skeptics that aliens have visited the Earth.
And, on a completely unrelated note, I apparently reached 2,000 posts a while ago without even realizing it.



[/derail]

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

I have demonstrated how witnesses can be wrong a majority of the time when it comes to UFOs. You ignore this. I point out that since a great number of UFO cases have eyewitness misperceptions, then it is logical to think it could be the case here. Otherwise we are stuck. You can not prove the witnesses were accurate in their observations and I can not prove they were not. However, I have studies that show people can make mistakes. You have yet to provide studies or proof that witnesses can never make mistakes.

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.

This is all based on one thing - the accuracy of the witness testimony to disprove the glare hypothesis. You do realize that the witnesses viewed the object for an ESTIMATED time period and not the entire time was with binoculars. According to Loftus (Eyewitness testimony), witnesses often overestimate time spans. Therefore the time period was probably much shorter than described. Given that the best estimates put the angular size at about a half degree (and these estimates are just Wild guesses), how can one state these observations are reliable or accurate.

Have you demonstrate it is impossible to get a reflection of such an object? That would put a better argument.

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

I am suggesting this is a possibility and had a long time ago but you ignored my posts on the Catalina film, which, IMO, is a good example of how people perceive a disc when the object is not a disc.

 

[GeeMack]

Well, to be fair to Rramjet, I doubt that he would be able to find any of the experts on these subjects who would be willing to dedicate their free time to trying to convince a group of skeptics that aliens have visited the Earth.

Of course I fully agree. But even that raises some interesting questions. Have these people lived a life insulated from this supposedly solid evidence that aliens exist? With all the experts in relevant fields, actual scientists who do study and understand things like optics, how the mind and memory works, aerodynamics, and such things, why haven't any of them found anything compelling in any of Rramjet's link spam? Surely they have heard of this stuff through other channels. Surely if all these cases really do constitute evidence that aliens exist, Rramjet can't be the exclusive holder of the knowledge. Surely you would think, if there was anything to it, given that none of this material is new, there would be real scientists working on real research assembling all this real evidence into a cogent presentation. Could it be that many these experts have been exposed to this "evidence" and haven't found anything in it worthy of further pursuit?

 

[Nonpareil]

Of course I fully agree. But even that raises some interesting questions. Have these people lived a life insulated from this supposedly solid evidence that aliens exist? With all the experts in relevant fields, actual scientists who do study and understand things like optics, how the mind and memory works, aerodynamics, and such things, why haven't any of them found anything compelling in any of Rramjet's link spam? Surely they have heard of this stuff through other channels. Surely if all these cases really do constitute evidence that aliens exist, Rramjet can't be the exclusive holder of the knowledge. Surely you would think, if there was anything to it, given that none of this material is new, there would be real scientists working on real research assembling all this real evidence into a cogent presentation. Could it be that many these experts have been exposed to this "evidence" and haven't found anything in it worthy of further pursuit?

I can't remember if it was King of the Americas, Rramjet or SnidelyW, but one of them stated that the governments of the world were covering up the facts about alien visitation as it would throw the world political situation into chaos.

 

[Belz...]

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.

That's why I said you are dishonest. Nobody here is making a claim except you. You refuse to accept this, either because you don't understand it, or because you are playing an equivocation game.

 

[Belz...]

You know perfectly well that Stray Cat put the images of the Goodyear blimp up for silhouette comparison NOT colour/size.

When I saw Cat's post, I somehow knew that Ramjet would pick on the logo and colours. He's that dishonest.

 

[RoboTimbo]

That's why I said you are dishonest. Nobody here is making a claim except you. You refuse to accept this, either because you don't understand it, or because you are playing an equivocation game.

He and KotA started threads at the same time with the same theme and the same premise: to shift the burden of proof to skeptics and away from themselves. They both knew they couldn't defend their wild claims so tried to play the avoidance game. They were only able to keep that up for a limited time.

So, Rramjet, how do your seven points make it alien?

 

[Akhenaten]

Well, to be fair to Rramjet, I doubt that he would be able to find any of the experts on these subjects who would be willing to dedicate their free time to trying to convince a group of skeptics that aliens have visited the Earth.

I completely don't understand it myself. Usually when you start pissing to windward you realise your mistake straight away and stop, but some people just keep right on with it.

And, on a completely unrelated note, I apparently reached 2,000 posts a while ago without even realizing it.

Yay! Congratulations, Silvery One.

 

[EHocking]

He and KotA started threads at the same time with the same theme and the same premise: to shift the burden of proof to skeptics and away from themselves. They both knew they couldn't defend their wild claims so tried to play the avoidance game. They were only able to keep that up for a limited time.

To KotA's credit though, he has been known to acknowledge that some of his pet theories hold no water when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
At least he is capable of conceding that his initial opinion on a topic is wrong once shown to be incorrect.

It can be quite a battle with KotA, but at least there is a degree of hope that during a conversation with him he will accept good evidence and is willing to be educated.

So, Rramjet, how do your seven points make it alien?

 

[EHocking]

When I saw Cat's post, I somehow knew that Ramjet would pick on the logo and colours. He's that dishonest.

Yes, I owe LissaLysikan an apology over that topic from a post waaaayyy back.

 

[Jocce]

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.

You got evidence that prove that it was shifting shape, splitting apart and rejoining again? Wow, why didn't you say so!

I thought you only had second and third hand summaries of what some eyewitnesses thought they saw. You know, those same eyewitnesses who from their own account was so blinded by strong light that they could hardly see in the pitch black night when this happened.

Put the evidence on the table then.

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

Like arguments from ignorance and incredulity. I'm pretty sure both I and several others has pointed that out already.

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!

It's not possible to prove a negative. Sorry, I thought you knew.

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!

They got no reliable data so they couldn't tell how high or big it was. Check the final report and see for yourself.

<snipped lots of drivel I dealt with already>

 

[Toke]

To KotA's credit though, he has been known to acknowledge that some of his pet theories hold no water when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
At least he is capable of conceding that his initial opinion on a topic is wrong once shown to be incorrect.

It can be quite a battle with KotA, but at least there is a degree of hope that during a conversation with him he will accept good evidence and is willing to be educated.

Yes, I recall him acknowledge that google earth's lines in the ocean bed could be data artefacts and not Atlantis.

 

[Rramjet]

I have demonstrated how witnesses can be wrong a majority of the time when it comes to UFOs. You ignore this. I point out that since a great number of UFO cases have eyewitness misperceptions, then it is logical to think it could be the case here. Otherwise we are stuck. You can not prove the witnesses were accurate in their observations and I can not prove they were not. However, I have studies that show people can make mistakes. You have yet to provide studies or proof that witnesses can never make mistakes.

Jus because witnesses CAN be mistaken does not mean the ARE mistaken. Witnesses CAN be VERY accurate. That is a point YOU seem to miss. You also miss the fact that we KNOW the conditions under which witnesses can be mistaken and we CAN account for those conditions when making an assessment of the cases. I do NOT have to prove the witnesses are accurate. All I have to do is show that the conditions were such that known sources of inaccuracy are minimised or eliminated. I DO NOT claim witnesses can never make mistakes. For you to keep repeating this assertion is irrational in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

This is all based on one thing - the accuracy of the witness testimony to disprove the glare hypothesis. You do realize that the witnesses viewed the object for an ESTIMATED time period and not the entire time was with binoculars. According to Loftus (Eyewitness testimony), witnesses often overestimate time spans. Therefore the time period was probably much shorter than described. Given that the best estimates put the angular size at about a half degree (and these estimates are just Wild guesses), how can one state these observations are reliable or accurate.

Have you demonstrate it is impossible to get a reflection of such an object? That would put a better argument.

I think you will find that “time” is subjective in SPECIFIC ways. In cases like Rogue River, exactly the opposite phenomenon to that which you mention is apparent. That is longer time intervals actually passed while the witnesses think very short intervals have passed. This is because excitement and “eventfulness” make time “disappear” and most people in such situations believe a shorter time has passed than is actually the case. Thus, given the conditions and knowing the psychology of time perception - it is highly likely that the time interval was actually longer – not shorter – than mentioned. THAT is what I mean by research informing us of what conditions lead to misperceptions AND being able to account for the conditions.

I do NOT have to demonstrate that a reflection is impossible…all I have to show is that given the changing viewing angles it would have been impossible for a reflection to have maintained the obscuring of specific features while allowing similar feature to be viewed throughout the entirety of the period involved. I have done that.

Given the viewing conditions and given the reliability for the witnesses, we have NO reason to suspect that they did not observe and describe the object accurately.

I am suggesting this is a possibility and had a long time ago but you ignored my posts on the Catalina film, which, IMO, is a good example of how people perceive a disc when the object is not a disc.

Then you are simply reverting back to stating the eyewitnesses are 100% unreliable. A claim which NO research supports. For example, there was NO sound associated with the Rogue River object. There were no wings… there was NOTHING about the object as described that would lead ANY rational person to conclude “plane”. You are simply repeating your assertion that “film” with its attended artifacts and misleading depth information can lead people into error. The case of Rogue River bears absolutely NO resemblance to your Catalina film …NONE – it is merely a red herring brought in by you as a distraction in lieu of genuine argument.