UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm on the right list, though I found the relevant posts to be TL;DR and only looked at a few links. Then when 'it could have been a blimp' became silly I gave up.
And I stand on the view that it would be amazing if evidence of aliens was found, but so far the evidence is always 'hidden away by authority' as far as the believers all report on the various ufo sites. So this thread hasnt convinced me.
 
Astrophotographer said:
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.
Click to expand...

He isn't speaking to me. My posts always put the burden of proof at his doorstep and that's the one thing he can't handle.
 
I have something I'd like to say about the burden of proof, mainly for the lurkers, because I doubt Rramjet will take any notice, but I'll address it to Rramjet anyway.

Rramjet, you keep saying that we have a burden of proof. But the truth is that we don't. We have absolutely no burden of proof whatsoever.

This is because you started this thread by saying that you had evidence, which places the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders. As the "opposition", all we are obliged to do is ask questions about your evidence, which is what we are doing.

Some of us have gone to the trouble of actually doing things that you should have done, such as running through any numerical calculations in your links, or finding sample pictures, or full information on blimp activities. But in reality we don't need to do any of this.

All we have to do to blow holes in your case is to ask questions that you can't answer to anyone's satisfaction. We do not have to offer alternative hypotheses, or prove any counter-points to your arguments, we just have to cast the smallest shadow of doubt on your evidence. And let's be frank here, casting shadows of doubt on your evidence is fairly bloody easy. In fact, they're pretty well covered in doubt shadows before we get going.
 
Akhenaten said:
ohnoes!


Gremlins in Zeplins!
Click to expand...
Sorry, it was pointed out before that Rramjet aliens are actually gremilns. And here's the evidence. At the left, artistic rendering of the critters from a sighting presented by Rramjet as evidence of aliens. Right- a gremlim.

wooooooooooo.jpg
 
Well, gremlins apart, regarding the Brazil UFO chase- Rramjet seems to have complained about Astro's remmark from a friend in Brazil...

Now, I am from Brazil and that UFO chase came right on the vaning stages of my UFO beliefs. I could make a couple of comments on the material presented, but it would be utterly useless when it comes down to convince a die-hard UFO believer.

I suggest, however, a search on my posts regarding my own "UFO sightings"; they might provide a hint or two, especially one aboard a Navy ship with multiple witnesses...
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
Oh, but that is what I find so amusing - I have been showing evidence. And that is why so many people here have gotten a little excited about this whole thread. Not only have I been presenting evidence, the evidence I do present threatens the JREF member’s faith based belief systems and so they need to do whatever it takes to deny the evidence. Hence … statements like the one you just posted.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. No one's agreeing with your evidence or its interpretations, but somehow you, out of thousands in the last 60 years, will prove that aliens exist ?

Galileo complex, perhaps ?
 
I stopped following this thread some time back - about page 5. Just wondering if anyone has posted any evidence yet?!
 
Red3 said:
I stopped following this thread some time back - about page 5. Just wondering if anyone has posted any evidence yet?!
Click to expand...

nup, come back in 50 pages

while we're here I'm going to make a prediction

Rramjet will never post any credible evidence

now we see if I win a million quid yes ?
:D
 
Red3 said:
I stopped following this thread some time back - about page 5. Just wondering if anyone has posted any evidence yet?!
Click to expand...
Oh most certainly. A number of us have posted solid, irrefutable evidence for plausible mundane explanations of UFOs.

Counter evidence for aliens has not been forthcoming.
 
wollery said:
I have something I'd like to say about the burden of proof, mainly for the lurkers, because I doubt Rramjet will take any notice, but I'll address it to Rramjet anyway.

Rramjet, you keep saying that we have a burden of proof. But the truth is that we don't. We have absolutely no burden of proof whatsoever.

This is because you started this thread by saying that you had evidence, which places the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders. As the "opposition", all we are obliged to do is ask questions about your evidence, which is what we are doing.

Some of us have gone to the trouble of actually doing things that you should have done, such as running through any numerical calculations in your links, or finding sample pictures, or full information on blimp activities. But in reality we don't need to do any of this.

All we have to do to blow holes in your case is to ask questions that you can't answer to anyone's satisfaction. We do not have to offer alternative hypotheses, or prove any counter-points to your arguments, we just have to cast the smallest shadow of doubt on your evidence. And let's be frank here, casting shadows of doubt on your evidence is fairly bloody easy. In fact, they're pretty well covered in doubt shadows before we get going.
Click to expand...

Oh I notice. Don't you worry about that! I am currently putting together a little something using the available evidence and I will post that sometime tomorrow. Then we will see if there remains a "shadow of doubt" and if there are any holes left to "blow" and where the burden of proof then rests. Until then, I will let you all get back to your comfortable complacency. ;)

Until tomorrow then, talk among yourselves. Happy chatter.
Roger.
 
Rramjet said:
Oh I notice. Don't you worry about that! I am currently putting together a little something using the available evidence and I will post that sometime tomorrow. Then we will see if there remains a "shadow of doubt" and if there are any holes left to "blow" and where the burden of proof then rests. Until then, I will let you all get back to your comfortable complacency. ;)

Until tomorrow then, talk among yourselves. Happy chatter.
Roger.
Click to expand...

yada yada yada, youve done that several times, no one was impressed, the available evidence is not going to prove anything, how can you be so obtuse and arrogant to think that you can prove something with evidence thats been available to all the other nuts for years which theyve used to prove nothing but dismal failure.

maybe you should move from proving Aliens to proving dismal failure, theres 50 pages of acceptable evidence here for that already
:D
 
I for one am fraught with dread anticipation. Never in the history of unsupported belief has one dared claim to present the unassailable evidence "tomorrow." Some have promised to present it at a conference, some have declared an unwavering intent to force Congress to "release the files," yay, even some have dared brave the danger of the internet in order to coerce the craven media into confronting the President into admitting that which is obvious to some but invisible to most.

But "tomorrow?" I am agog. The bravery is astounding; the fortitude is boundless. Not even the intrepid Colonel Corso possessed the courage to promise the evidence "tomorrow."

Since first the demon saucer crashed in Roswell I have waited, we have waited, but none could bring us proof "tomorrow." When Betty and Barney Hill refused to profit from their ordeals, even they could not bring us proof "tomorrow." The late Professor Mack who bravely chronicled the evil depradations of countless victims could not present his evidence "tomorrow;" no, friends, that hapless warrior was doomed, like so many before him, to merely write and sell books brimming with the only types of evidence he knew: that which was repeatedly rebutted and that which was forthcoming in the next book.

"Tomorrow?" O, blessed day, after three score years and two our tomorrow is finally here!

Sing his praises and bring your popcorn! Tomorrow is nigh upon us, and proof shall be ours!

I ask only that in addition to the evidence, you also provide the answer to one more question: What in blazes took you so long?
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
Oh I notice. Don't you worry about that! I am currently putting together a little something using the available evidence and I will post that sometime tomorrow. Then we will see if there remains a "shadow of doubt" and if there are any holes left to "blow" and where the burden of proof then rests. Until then, I will let you all get back to your comfortable complacency.
Click to expand...

Why not present it to one of your scientific journals? I doubt you will present anything new that one can not find on the various UFO websites and blogs. Those don't convince, so why should your post convince anybody here? Why is it that genuine UFO scientists like Hynek, Maccabee, MacDonald, Haines, etc. etc. can not convince people but you think you can? I once again quote the Sturrock panel, who was exposed to what was described as the "best available evidence" in 1997 (I bolded the pertinent passages that are important):

It may be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports to extract information about unusual phenomena currently unknown to science. However, to be credible to the scientific community, such evaluations must take place with a spirit of objectivity and a willingness to evaluate rival hypotheses.

The history of earth science includes several examples of the final acceptance of phenomena originally dismissed as folk tales: two centuries ago, meteorites (then regarded as stones falling from the sky) were in this category. The reality of ephemeral phenomena such as ball lightning and sprites was questioned until quite recently.

It was clear that at least a few reported incidents might have involved rare but significant phenomena such as electrical activity high above thunderstorms (e.g., sprites) or rare cases of radar ducting. On the other hand, the review panel was not convinced that any of the evidence involved currently unknown physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence. A few cases may have their origins in secret military activities.

It appears that most current UFO investigations are carried out at a level of rigor that is not consistent with prevailing standards of scientific research. However, the panel acknowledged the initiative and dedication of those investigators who made presentations at this workshop, both for their efforts to apply the tools of science to a complex problem long neglected by the academic community, and for their diligence in archiving and analyzing relevant observational data.

The panel concluded that further analysis of the evidence presented at the workshop is unlikely to elucidate the cause or causes of the reports. However, the panel considers that new data, scientifically acquired and analyzed (especially of well documented, recurrent events), could yield useful information. In this case, physical scientists would have an opportunity to contribute to the resolution of the UFO problem.

Sturrock: The UFO enigma pages 121-122
 
Rramjet said:
Oh I notice. Don't you worry about that! I am currently putting together a little something using the available evidence and I will post that sometime tomorrow. Then we will see if there remains a "shadow of doubt" and if there are any holes left to "blow" and where the burden of proof then rests. Until then, I will let you all get back to your comfortable complacency. ;)

Until tomorrow then, talk among yourselves. Happy chatter.
Roger.
Click to expand...

Oh, I can't wait. I won't be holding my breath expecting you to use actual evidence, however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom