UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rramjet said:
So Ji is not ruling in or ruling out anything (your contention is “ruled out” and you ridicule me for not investigating properly…huh!). Ji’s contention is that the journalist claimed “UFO” when he did not include “flying” in his description! A matter of semantics. NOT a matter of debunking the object itself.:).
Click to expand...

You are so full of it. The astronomer saw bright spots near the corona. End of story. Your proclamation that this was an astronomer UFO sighting is just plain BS and you had no idea what you are talking about. You continuously display a lack of scientific ability. The film had NOTHING to do with what the astronomers reported from the observatory but you are too dense to recognize that.

As for the Tombaugh piece, he never refuted what Menzel wrote. Your quotes are selected from previous years. Therefore, it seems Tombaugh concluded what he saw was something terrestrial and not extraterrestrial. If he had concluded they were ET, why not write a paper about it? Why not get involved with investigating UFOs? The real reason is because he felt there was probably a logical explanation for what he saw, which did not involve ET.

Rramjet said:
Yeah, sure, just another UFO, don’t know what would become of us if someone actually started paying attention to the pesky things!.
Click to expand...


Again, a failure to provide data. We have no knowledge of the skill level of the amateur astronomer and therefore we have no idea if he was knowledgable about the things in the sky. I recently dealt with a research balloon sighting by an amateur astronomer. He claimed it was a craft of unknown origin. I pointed out that it was actually a research balloon he was observing which was airborne at the time and in the direction he was observing. It had generated UFO reports in other areas. The point being here is that even though the astronomer thought he was viewing some ET craft, it was something more mundane. This case here you presented has very little value because we don't know any details. End of story. It is worthless.


Rramjet said:
I would appreciate a link that actually worked!.
Click to expand...

The link does work for me. If you have problems with that one go to the main page and use the link to SUNlite 1-3.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite.htm

Nobody has told me the link does not work in the two months it has been there. If your computer does not work, I suggest you examine your browser settings.


Rramjet said:
Oh gee, merely “unidentified lights in the sky”? Strange, you would think that working at NIGHT, as they do, they would have more than that…no, wait…did I say working at night..?!
Click to expand...

If you actually researched this stuff you would discover there is a difference between and "unidentified light" and an alien spaceship. Many usually are related to satellite glints (like the 1980s "Ogre" sightings in Aries) or spacecraft operations (like spy satellites engine operations).

Rramjet said:
Well… I guess you really have not read my answers on this have you. I have stated numerous times WHY I understand the evidence points toward “alien”. But why should I repeat it again and again? You would just ignore it again and again. If I feel like it I might (again), but in the meantime, why don’t you review my answer to this question in my numerous posts.
Click to expand...

Based on the response here, you are not very good at presenting your case. When is that study of yours gong to begin? The world wonders.....
 
Pure_Argent said:
:/

Garrette makes a good point. Of course, we could always dig through the thread to find the rebuttals to Rramjet's arguments - or maybe the best few posts by EHocking, Vortigern99 and Stray Cat - and re-post them, but that would require quite an investment of time and energy that I'm not sure that I want to make.
Click to expand...


Actually Rramjet hasn't provided any arguments per se to support his claim that aliens exist. The total of his case so far has been descriptions of events that he can't believe are possible within his understanding of plausible mundane explanations. His incessant stream of arguments from ignorance and incredulity are simply not evidence. They are his opinions. No need to refute them. Pointing out that his screeds aren't evidence is enough.

Regarding his sub-claim that he has eliminated all possible mundane explanations for any particular incident, all that needs be shown is that there is some legitimate doubt, some remotely possible explanation that carries even the slightest bit more weight than "it must have been aliens". Astrophotographer, EHocking, Vortigern99, Stray Cat, and others have done a fine job of showing that there is some doubt, and that some (or many) Earthbound mundane explanations might apply to any of the incidents Rramjet has described. They've certainly gone way above and beyond the call of duty.

But it really is as simple as this: We know as a historical fact that blimps existed on Earth in 1949 (for one example), and we know no such thing as a historical fact about alien craft. So it goes full circle. Rramjet would have to demonstrate that aliens exist in order to claim that aliens are a plausible explanation for any heretofore unidentified flying object. Instead he's using the fact that some sightings remain unidentified, and that he can't imagine or wilfully ignores all mundane explanations, to suggest that aliens exist. He's got it exactly backwards, opposite of how real science and logic works.

My bringing this thread up to date was merely to help anyone who jumps in here, 2000+ posts into this mess, to understand that almost nobody accepts the claimant's arguments from incredulity and ignorance as evidence of anything, other than that Rramjet is ignorant and incredulous, of course. We're not score keeping, us-vs-them, our side wins because there's more of us. Not at all. He made a claim. The burden of proof is on him to demonstrate the legitimacy of that claim. Almost nobody, with the exception of a few who also don't understand burden of proof and who also don't understand that arguments from incredulity and ignorance aren't evidence, has agreed with his opinion, his belief that all mundane explanations are impossible for any particular incident.

We're still waiting for even the very first piece of evidence to support the claim that aliens exist.
 
GeeMack said:
Actually Rramjet hasn't provided any arguments per se to support his claim that aliens exist. The total of his case so far has been descriptions of events that he can't believe are possible within his understanding of plausible mundane explanations. His incessant stream of arguments from ignorance and incredulity are simply not evidence. They are his opinions. No need to refute them. Pointing out that his screeds aren't evidence is enough.

Regarding his sub-claim that he has eliminated all possible mundane explanations for any particular incident, all that needs be shown is that there is some legitimate doubt, some remotely possible explanation that carries even the slightest bit more weight than "it must have been aliens". Astrophotographer, EHocking, Vortigern99, Stray Cat, and others have done a fine job of showing that there is some doubt, and that some (or many) Earthbound mundane explanations might apply to any of the incidents Rramjet has described. They've certainly gone way above and beyond the call of duty.

But it really is as simple as this: We know as a historical fact that blimps existed on Earth in 1949 (for one example), and we know no such thing as a historical fact about alien craft. So it goes full circle. Rramjet would have to demonstrate that aliens exist in order to claim that aliens are a plausible explanation for any heretofore unidentified flying object. Instead he's using the fact that some sightings remain unidentified, and that he can't imagine or wilfully ignores all mundane explanations, to suggest that aliens exist. He's got it exactly backwards, opposite of how real science and logic works.

My bringing this thread up to date was merely to help anyone who jumps in here, 2000+ posts into this mess, to understand that almost nobody accepts the claimant's arguments from incredulity and ignorance as evidence of anything, other than that Rramjet is ignorant and incredulous, of course. We're not score keeping, us-vs-them, our side wins because there's more of us. Not at all. He made a claim. The burden of proof is on him to demonstrate the legitimacy of that claim. Almost nobody, with the exception of a few who also don't understand burden of proof and who also don't understand that arguments from incredulity and ignorance aren't evidence, has agreed with his opinion, his belief that all mundane explanations are impossible for any particular incident.

We're still waiting for even the very first piece of evidence to support the claim that aliens exist.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of that. I have followed (much of) the thread. Rramjet's evidence is illusory, and his arguments have been thoroughly dismantled.

My point is that in the latest posts, the emptiness of Rramjet's position has been overshadowed by your list. A newcoming fence-sitter who chose not to read the entire thread might understandably think that the skeptic position consists mostly of saying "Not good enough. See how many people don't believe you?"
 
I am on the right list, but I do not expect anything to come out of it.

Actually that thread was like "groundhog day" that I watched yesterday. Every time I read rramjet post's I was feeling that i was seeing the clock fall from 5:59 to 6:00 and the same music sound again ;).

Maybe somebody other than rramjet can chime in and present what he thinks is the best evidence of Alien ? Otherwise it will be again another groundhog day.
 
My network have been down for 30+ hours.
I have skimmed through and noticed the UFFO Blimperprise :D, and GeeMack's list*.

Have I missed any evidence of aliens?

*I am correctly placed on the, not impressed so far, list.
 
GeeMack has me listed unconvinced and rightly so.
I have stoped reading Rramjets postings about 40 pages ago (to painful to follow his ramblings) but to read the refutations is entertaining.
 
First of all, got me in the right spot GeeMack!

Then...

<rant>

Rramjet said:
ugh...snip...

...but hey, we all have our opinions right…but wait… did I say OPINION? Oh gee, been around JREF too long, where opinion seems to count as fact!
Click to expand...

This crosses the line for me. Again. I came back to the thread when I thought I saw some possibility for improvement in your presentation. But now, because of the last five pages I declare your case d e a d (at least in my eyes).

Why? Because you have not in over fifty pages succeeded in providing a shred of evidence regarding the first requirement to actually back up your claim. Andrew just reminded you of it. It's what so many of us have been asking for so long. Here it is again (thanks Andrew):

Andrew Wiggin said:
First, rule out all mundane explanations for your unknown.
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)

Do you understand that if you bring investigations and papers of cases of UFO sightings (from decades ago) as evidence for aliens you must first of all perform the task of showing how all mundane explanations where ruled out IN THOSE INVESTIGATIONS AND PAPERS. Show us the methodology! Show us the questions, the rigorous, scientific research of those responsible! Quote the relevant parts from the texts!

If you can't do this, don't call them evidence! Because then they are not. If they don't have this info they are only evidence for what you believe to be the case (which was exactly what I, at first, mistakenly thought your claim to be - based on the lack of actual evidence).

We don't need your opinion to get convinced. We need facts! What is so hard to understand about this? I'm not buying your 'published, peer-reviewed scientist' baloney one more second. Sorry to be so harsh, but I'm very angry I've wasted my time here, and actually even tried to defend your position.

Well, it hasn't been a complete waste, since so many people have been kind enough to educate me further in critical thinking skills and the English language (big respect!).

Rramjet said:
I am amusing myself in this forum for the moment. Just because you don’t seem to appreciate that, matters not to me.
Click to expand...

Amusing yourself?

:mad:

Amuse this:


</rant>
 
Last edited:
I've lurked and read all the posts and followed the links. I remain unconvinced as to UFO's being related to evidence of aliens.
 
Audible Click said:
I've lurked and read all the posts and followed the links. I remain unconvinced as to UFO's being related to evidence of aliens.
Click to expand...

Seen nothing here to convince me there was anything "alien" about these events. Although even if we granted credibility to the reports we would seem to be dealing with radically different kinds of craft. So we would have to conclude that the aliens have different craft with different abilitys or we have two races of aliens visiting us.

Occam hangs his head.
 
BTW, Ramjet, the quotes you attributed to me:
The ball is back in your court, burden of proof wise. All of your cases have been refuted.

and

So what was it about those cases that made you (a scientist) so gullible as to believe they were evidence of aliens?

were Robo Timbos. Feel free to get your facts right about who is saying what.
 
Rramjet said:
It is a complete nonsense of course. Moreover it disrespects the people reading the thread because it takes them to be fools.
Click to expand...

Pfft. It seems obvious to me at this point that you are either incapable of or unwilling to understand other people's arguments because you are emotionally commited to your alien visitation theory.

You are hopeless unless you start to doubt yourself.
 
I just was reading how a bright fireball was recorded in Australia by a skycam. It resulted in meteorites being found. Just a month or so ago, another sky cam caught a bright fireball, which resulted in meteorites being found. There are hundreds of these stations in action around the world. These rare bolide/meteorite events are being recorded but for some reason, UFOs (in the sense that actual spaceships/unidentified craft) have not been recorded even though they are reported at a greater frequency. Hmm......I wonder if this means anything.....
 
FramerDave said:
Rather than just dump a pile of links at our feet and expect us to spend hours, if not days, slogging through it, how about doing your own work? Can you summarize what you believe is the best evidence and why? Remember, the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

A cursory read through some of your links shows them to be the same old same old stuff, explained and debunked many times over. To take just instance, there is the link which purports to show us records of alien (however you wish to define the term) visitation in artwork.

To take just two examples, the so-called red flying saucer seen in La Tebaideis just a cardinal's hat, most often associated with Saint Jerome. Then there are the two strange objects on either side of the crucifixion, supposedly astronauts/aliens/ancient pilots or whatever piloting their craft. Simply the sun and moon anthropomorphized.

Some more info: http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_eng.htm

You certainly have quantity; quality is sorely lacking.
Click to expand...

Forgive me for not having read past the first several pages of this thread and skipped around a bit, but this is a great link and I wanted to let FramerDave know it was appreciated. I had no idea anyone had done research like this.

Count me as someone who has found the skeptics' side of this debate informative and the non-skeptics' arguments extremely tedious and repetitive. Of course it may have improved some in the 40 or so pages I missed...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom