UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

YES! It IS also unidentified to me! NOW we are getting somewhere.

No we're not... we are exactly in the exact same exact place we were exactly in exactly 2459 posts ago... With no evidence of Aliens.

No, I have presented evidence that rules AGAINST ANY of your proposed mundane explanations being plausible. You merely repeating that "It could have been..." gets us precisely NOWHERE. I have presented evidence and argument AGAINST your explanations. The ball is now in your court to show HOW and WHY I might have been mistaken.

Post 2459 in a thread that completely provides evidence to refute your arguments against a possible mundane explanation.
But I've got off that particular merry-go-round thanks and you claiming that you have presented evidence does not make that evidence compelling enough to sway the opinion of anyone else on this thread.

So again: Rogue River UFO is UNIDENTIFIED... where next?

 

[Nonpareil]

Then MOVE ON Astrophotographer. Why are you so unwilling to address my evidence and arguments? You can SAY what you like, but mere unfounded assertion advances us precisely NOWHERE. Address the evidence and arguments! I am not afraid of a truly scientific exploration, you should not be either.

Your arguments have been addressed and shown to be bunk. MOVE ON Rramjet.

 

[JCL]

What I meant - and you selectively snipped because it would refute your statements - is that is is irrational to "explain" one unknown with another unknown. Either a UFO is identified as a mundane object, or it is not, there is no "in between" status.

A UFO is a UFO. It is NOT mundane and it is NOT alien. It is a Unidentified Flying Object.

But not merely from the perspective of the observer. It is also such from the perspective of all who research the case, for if ANYONE can apply a plausible mundane explanation (or an alien explanation) it is then IDENTIFIED (an IFO) and no longer fits the category of UFO.

I think I see part of the problem, the bold part is wrong.

 

[Rramjet]

Saying that it has a mundane explanation does not make it an IFO. Merely stating that is has a possible mundane explanation does not identify WHICH mundane explanation it is. Since we don't know which mundane explanation it is, it is still unidentified.

Then what makes your "alien" contention any better? You are replacing one unknown - "UFO" - with another - "aliens".

I DO NOT contend "alien" for Rogue River. How many times... ughhh. Rogue River is a UFO. Pure and simple.

Why don't you get that it IS irrational to "explain" one unknown with another unknown? PLEASE, go to your search engine and type in "explain" one unknown with another unknown and observe the results. (USE the quotation marks around "explain")

 

[Red3]

I know you probably won't believe me but the article you referenced has substantially little to do with UFO observation. [/B]But again to explain HOW and WHY would take some time because the general considerations DO play a role, but NOT in the way mentioned in the article. Context means a great deal when psychological concepts are examined. A subtle change in context and the human reaction is different all over again. This is what makes creating general laws in psychology SO very difficult. Not to mention Individual differences...

Oh I forgot, UFO's fall into the "special" catagory that don't fall under the same rules as everything else...Just like religion etc. If someone sees something and reports it, it's an eyewitness testimony. The link was to point out some issues surrounding memory and recollection. Regards the rest of your reply I will look at the RR case again. And be more specific.

 

[Nonpareil]

I DO NOT contend "alien" for Rogue River.

Bull. This entire thread has been you trying to offer evidence for alien craft visiting the Earth. You specifically brought up Rogue River under the pretense that it was evidence to support your claims.

How many times... ughhh. Rogue River is a UFO. Pure and simple.

Yes.

Why don't you get that it IS irrational to "explain" one unknown with another unknown? PLEASE, go to your search engine and type in "explain" one unknown with another unknown and observe the results. (USE the quotation marks around "explain")

Rramjet, what you fail to understand is that NO ONE IS ******* SAYING THAT IT WAS A BLIMP. We are saying that a blimp was POSSIBLE. Is the object now an IFO? No. We cannot identify for certain what it was.
But of course you will continue on your merry way and keep up your constant strawmanning while pretending that you actually have a case.

 

[Rramjet]

Suspicion confirmed...

No-one in the JREF is willing to discuss the evidence and arguments. JREF members pretend to be skeptics and to follow the scientific method, but when push comes to shove, then all that we see is "I say it is so, therefore it IS so".

I presented a detailed account of the evidence in the Rogue River case and of the reasons why I drew the conclusions I did from it - and what was the response from JREF? "We tell you you are wrong, so you must be wrong".

Wow, some debating team you would make. You turn a debate into a shouting match. Randi must be proud to have you all as members.

 

[Marduk]

I DO NOT contend "alien" for Rogue River. How many times... ughhh. Rogue River is a UFO. Pure and simple.

Why don't you get that it IS irrational to "explain" one unknown with another unknown? PLEASE, go to your search engine and type in "explain" one unknown with another unknown and observe the results. (USE the quotation marks around "explain")

ok so that comment you made earlier about how both rogue river and the Iranian ufo are evidence of aliens can be discarded then,
along with the rest of your scientific validity

I presented a detailed account of the evidence in the Rogue River case and of the reasons why I drew the conclusions I did from it - and what was the response from JREF? "We tell you you are wrong, so you must be wrong".

No, you presented your opinion based on some unreliable anecdotal evidence which you accepted at face value and some proven facts that you have chosen to ignore. You don't see how your opinion can be wrong do you, your narcissim is stopping you from seeing the facts and as a result you are now slagging off your target audience, good luck with that

 

[Rramjet]

Bull. This entire thread has been you trying to offer evidence for alien craft visiting the Earth. You specifically brought up Rogue River under the pretense that it was evidence to support your claims.

Yes.

Rramjet, what you fail to understand is that NO ONE IS ******* SAYING THAT IT WAS A BLIMP. We are saying that a blimp was POSSIBLE. Is the object now an IFO? No. We cannot identify for certain what it was.
But of course you will continue on your merry way and keep up your constant strawmanning while pretending that you actually have a case.

Okay, then lets test your assumption.

No-one here contends that the Rogue River object was a blimp and everyone therefore agrees that Rogue River is a UFO? Yes?

 

[Nonpareil]

Okay, then lets test your assumption.

No-one here contends that the Rogue River object was a blimp and everyone therefore agrees that Rogue River is a UFO? Yes?

Yes.

Anyone care to object to this? No? I thought not, seeing as the entire forum has been trying to get through to you on this for the last ten some-odd pages.

NOTE: Not contending that the Rogue River object WAS a blimp and contending that a blimp is a POSSIBLE explanation are two entirely different things, by the way.

 

[Rramjet]

Yes.

Anyone care to object to this? No? I thought not, seeing as the entire forum has been trying to get through to you on this for the last ten some-odd pages.

NOTE: Not contending that the Rogue River object WAS a blimp and contending that a blimp is a POSSIBLE explanation are two entirely different things, by the way.

Umm... so you DO contend it was a blimp?
No?
Then, if you say it was possibly a blimp then I have presented arguments that refute that contention. Perhaps you would like to address those now? No..?

 

[Nonpareil]

Umm... so you DO contend it was a blimp?
No?

That's right. No. I contend that "blimp" is a POSSIBILITY. Big difference. Why does this point always pass some three feet over your head?

Then, if you say it was possibly a blimp then I have presented arguments that refute that contention. Perhaps you would like to address those now? No..?

Dude, they've BEEN addressed. Vortigern. EHocking. Wollery. Stray Cat. Myself. Everyone has shown, at some point, at least one reason why your reasoning is bull. "The drawings don't look like a blimp" is a flat-out lie. Your reasons for why it can't be a blimp because there's no gondola have been addressed. The lack of noise has been addressed. The huge discrepancy in witness accounts of speed has been addressed. ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS AS TO WHY IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A BLIMP ARE BULL.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Then MOVE ON Astrophotographer. Why are you so unwilling to address my evidence and arguments? You can SAY what you like, but mere unfounded assertion advances us precisely NOWHERE. Address the evidence and arguments! I am not afraid of a truly scientific exploration, you should not be either.

I would have no problem with an objective view of the "evidence". However, this is not what you are doing. All you are doing is repeating the same claims over and over. Your arguments fail simply because you have no evidence other than "this is what the witnesses state" and then you do not even demonstrate a desire to understand the human component of these reports. It is a flawed analysis from the start and that is why you aren't convincing anybody with your little dog and pony show. I suggest it be you who moves on to another methodology since this approach is failing.

 

[Jocce]

I actually used BOTH the 1948 and 1949 produced documents to make the point. The first document I used was the May 1949 document, the second WAS the June 1948 document. But you totally missed that didn't you!

See what happens when you pollute your posts with irrelevant crap. It's not the amount of words you use, it's the quality of the evidence. Btw, why did you quote and refer to a totally irrelevant document? I'm curious.

 

[Jocce]

Patently we do not ”all agree”. All I am saying is that a UFO is such because it is unidentified by the observers and by all who have investigated the case subsequently. Is that too subtle for you? What is YOUR definition?

By your definition, is there any possibility that a UFO can have a mundane explanation that the research missed?

 

[Stray Cat]

No-one in the JREF is willing to discuss the evidence and arguments. JREF members pretend to be skeptics and to follow the scientific method, but when push comes to shove, then all that we see is "I say it is so, therefore it IS so".

Every single bit of so called 'evidence' has already been addressed, you re-presenting it in a 'wall of text'™ post does not make it anymore valid this time round than it was the other times you presented it.

So instead of reusing the same old unworkable methods of every UFOlogist in history, why not try something different.
To keep doing exactly the same thing over and over and expecting to get different results is not scientific at all.

 

[Akhenaten]

Or what?

Or you will be forever trapped in the circle you pretend you are frustrated with. "Pretend" because THAT is exactly where you would like the argument to stay! You fear the evidence so much you are simply NOT willing to discuss it. A true skeptic does not fear a rational exploration of the evidence.

There is evidence of a green dot in this picture.

Stare at the cross. (as some do)

 

[Marduk]

I suggest it be you who moves on to another methodology since this approach is failing.

or indeed, another website
this one would suit your diatribes fine
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
theyd think you were the UFO messiah over there and agree with you completely that people who use real facts instead of anecdotal evidence are retarded
Your narcissism would love you for it.


alternatively you could stop lying about the evidence.

btw I'd quite happily go on record to say that the Rogue River ufo was a blimp, and nothing more.

 

[Jocce]

I presented a detailed account of the evidence in the Rogue River case and of the reasons why I drew the conclusions I did from it

But your evidence is not conclusive. They do not completely rule out a blimp. You are ignoring every counter argument.

 

[Nonpareil]

btw I'd quite happily go on record to say that the Rogue River ufo was a blimp, and nothing more.

But you don't count.

ETA: Well, actually, at this point I'm pretty much convinced myself. It has been shown to be quite likely that it was, in fact, a blimp. But it has not yet been proven 100%, and, in the absence of more evidence, we cannot say "It was definitely a blimp". We can, though, say "It was very, very probably a blimp", then wiggle our eyebrows meaningfully.