UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Withnail]

...Clearly indicate to any reasonable person making a rational judgement based on the available evidence, that neither the binoculars nor the location or viewing position would have detrimentally affected the ability of the witnesses to describe the object.

I agree, neither the binoculars nor the location of the viewing position affected their ability to describe the object (afterall they were just talking at that point). However, the conditions may have had an effect on their ability to see the object accurately. This has been show by others to my satisfaction. I have also read your counter-arguements and find them rather silly. It is hard to take you seriously at this point. You seem to feel anyone questioning your "evidence" is unreasonable and irrational yet time and again they bring up points you never considered. This forces you to quickly pretend you had considered the points and then throw out some statement about rational people and obvious observations that are not at all obvious.

Consider the boat; you were obviously caught off guard when the boat was mentioned because you had no idea there was a boat. At some point you realized you were acting the fool in denying the boat and went back and read that, indeed, they were in a boat. Opps! Then you scrambled around looking for any reason to discount the boat as having any affect on viewing the object. But all you got again is some speculation and the statement "If you don't agree with me, you are irrational." Finally, you then expect people to give serious rebutal to your off-the-cuff speculatoins. Silly.

 

[Withnail]

Rramjet says:
You have NO idea how stable the boat was. You have NO idea even what KIND of boat it was. It might have been a catamaran type with extremely wide outriggers, making it an inordinately stable object.

Inordinately stable? We are talking about a boat in the water, right? This statement is another example of how what is clear and irrefutable to you is silly to me. Not flawed, not debatable; silly. As in, why should I take you seriously?

 

[SnidelyW]

Could you provide a link to a case where a UFO was later positively identified as alien?

Thanks in advance.

This will be at the top of page 65 for you every time you visit this page, waiting for your answer.

I am just returning to the thread after an absence for professional reasons. My apologies if I reference something which may have been previously discussed in the recent posts. I am endeavouring to read the last 20 pages of posts.

Here is a link to a case which I think comes pretty close to being positively identified as 'alien'

http://www.ufoskeptic.org/marshall.html

Note that both Deputy Sheriff Johnsons watch and the electric clock in the patrol car were both running 14 minutes slow.

I'd like to hear opinions from the skeptics on the considerable damage done, damage which could not be explained by automotive experts who examined the vehicle, as well as the other aspects of this well investigated case, including the 'missing time' issues.

 

[GeeMack]

Rramjet says:
You have NO idea how stable the boat was. You have NO idea even what KIND of boat it was. It might have been a catamaran type with extremely wide outriggers, making it an inordinately stable object.

Inordinately stable? We are talking about a boat in the water, right? This statement is another example of how what is clear and irrefutable to you is silly to me. Not flawed, not debatable; silly. As in, why should I take you seriously?

Actually the fact that Rramjet has no idea how stable the boat was, whether it was a canoe or a catamaran, a rubber raft or a cabin cruiser, goes to the fact that he can't possibly state with any certainty that the witnesses had ideal conditions. His claim, which he backs with his lack of knowledge of these kinds of details, only serves to increase the doubt about his certainty regarding the accuracy of their sighting.

He doesn't even know if the binoculars were $14.95 Sears specials or $400 Leupolds. And he doesn't care, because those details, important to people who want an objective analysis of the situation, are wholly unimportant to the faithful who make claims and offer nothing more than their arguments from incredulity and ignorance to support them.

He doesn't know what material covered various parts of a blimp in 1949 or whether it was painted glossy or flat. He doesn't know if there was pollen in the air that day, or humidity, or pollution. Funny how after he started out so confident and sure about his claim, it turns out he really doesn't know much of anything at all about the Rogue River sighting.

 

[GeeMack]

Here you go, Rramjet... The Catholic Church is working with you to support your claim that aliens exist!

VATICAN CITY -- E.T. phone Rome. Four hundred years after it locked up Galileo for challenging the view that the Earth was the center of the universe, the Vatican has called in experts to study the possibility of extraterrestrial alien life and its implication for the Catholic Church.

"The questions of life's origins and of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe are very suitable and deserve serious consideration," said the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, an astronomer and director of the Vatican Observatory.

[Link to entire article...]

After all, everyone knows the Catholic Church is a bastion of clear thinking, good science, skepticism, and sanity. Their position on invisible magical beings is, of course, that they do exist and that no legitimate scientific objective evidence is required to back that claim. Right up your alley, Rramjet.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I presented the evidence you wanted... the "coefficients of reflection" you wanted... and you then ignore that completely! You ask me to present the evidence, I DO, and you completely ignore it!

I saw mylar and that was it. Aircraft are not made of mylar and neither are the "kites" (i.e. aluminum radar reflectors). You have not presented angles of incidence and reflection. You call them red herrings, I call them investigating the possibilities. This is something you don't seem to be interested in doing.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I am just returning to the thread after an absence for professional reasons. My apologies if I reference something which may have been previously discussed in the recent posts. I am endeavouring to read the last 20 pages of posts.

Here is a link to a case which I think comes pretty close to being positively identified as 'alien'

http://www.ufoskeptic.org/marshall.html

Note that both Deputy Sheriff Johnsons watch and the electric clock in the patrol car were both running 14 minutes slow.

I'd like to hear opinions from the skeptics on the considerable damage done, damage which could not be explained by automotive experts who examined the vehicle, as well as the other aspects of this well investigated case, including the 'missing time' issues.

How has it been positively identified as alien?

 

[GeeMack]

I am just returning to the thread after an absence for professional reasons. My apologies if I reference something which may have been previously discussed in the recent posts. I am endeavouring to read the last 20 pages of posts.

Here is a link to a case which I think comes pretty close to being positively identified as 'alien'

http://www.ufoskeptic.org/marshall.html

Note that both Deputy Sheriff Johnsons watch and the electric clock in the patrol car were both running 14 minutes slow.

I'd like to hear opinions from the skeptics on the considerable damage done, damage which could not be explained by automotive experts who examined the vehicle, as well as the other aspects of this well investigated case, including the 'missing time' issues.

Who are these "automotive experts"? Are they the same guys who repair your car after you've been in an accident? Do they have names? Is there a name of some particular engineering firm, or uh... body shop where they work?

How has it been positively identified as alien?

Seriously, SnidelyW, how?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Nice attempt AstroP... but I will merely let the readers view the report for themselves and they can make up their own minds whether your assertions stand up against the research in that study. I recommend the study to any interested party (debunkers and UFO researchers alike) - it makes extremely interesting reading!

Yes it does and it points out the heart of the problem. Those performing the study recognized it but you consistently ignore it. This quote from that very report is most telling:

It must be emphasized, again and again, that any conclusions contained in this report are based NOT on facts, but on what many observers thought and estimated the true facts to be.

This has been repeated here time and time again. In the report you find so precious, it is repeated as well. For some reason you wish to totally ignore this and then state you have "accounted for" any errors but have yet to describe how you can do this.

 

[SnidelyW]

How has it been positively identified as alien?

An examination of the vehicle was conducted by experts from the Ford Motor Company, and their names have been posted in several accounts of the incident, should you care to read further.

Regarding 'evidence'. This is where skeptics and UFO proponents seem to differ, in that I am willing to use reasoning based on conjecture- since there was no other reasonable explanation of the events.

We can dissect specifics until the cows come home, but, as some people here have noted, until both skptics and UFO proponents can agree on a standard of evidence, agreement will be unobtainable.

I am fully aware that for you to accept the existence of alien technology, you may require a landing on the White House lawn at high noon, covered by television cameras from all major networks, and a subsequent interview of the occupants.

For me, my standards of evidence are different.

 

[Astrophotographer]

You still have yet to answer post 2532 and present evidence for your claim:

And we HAVE moved on since that time. We understand a whole lot more about the UFO phenomena (for it seems unlikely there is a “single source
and
We also understand more about the physical and psychological conditions that lead to misperceptions AND we CAN account for them when we investigate UFO cases.

I asked you to list all the advancements in our understanding of UFOs since the time the book was written. I also asked if you could describe the methodology involved in accounting for misperceptions. Feel free to provide evidence for your claims.

 

[Astrophotographer]

How did they eliminate the possibility of a hoax by Johnson himself? There is the possibility that Johnson screwed up somehow and he used the claim of a UFO to explain his error. Bending a radio antenna and smashing a head light takes no great effort.

 

[SnidelyW]

Regarding the announcement from the Vatican Observatory, the fact that the Vatican is now publicly admitting the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life means that they are open to the idea of speculation too.

I quote one of the participants;

"American professor Chris Impey reflected on the implications of an encounter with an intelligent life form, saying, "if biology is not unique to the earth, or if life elsewhere differs bio-chemically from our version, or if we ever make contact with an intelligent species in the vastness of space, the implications for our self-image will be profound.”

“It is appropriate that a meeting on this frontier topic be hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The motivations and methodologies might differ, but both science and religion posit life as a special outcome of a vast and mostly inhospitable universe. There is a rich middle ground for dialogue between the practitioners of astrobiology and those who seek to understand the meaning of our existence in a biological universe,” Impey added."

 

[GeeMack]

Regarding 'evidence'. This is where skeptics and UFO proponents seem to differ, in that I am willing to use reasoning based on conjecture- since there was no other reasonable explanation of the events.

Okay, so you're willing to develop your arguments from ignorance and incredulity, too. Conjecture means, of course, a guess. At least you acknowledge that you don't care about legitimate objective evidence.

 

[Jocce]

Here is a link to a case which I think comes pretty close to being positively identified as 'alien'

http://www.ufoskeptic.org/marshall.html

Hmm, what is it with you and Rramjet that makes you post links to articles on the web and claim it's evidence?

There's a lot of general descriptions paired with some super accuracy on irrelevant data (radioed headquarters, at 2:19 a.m. f ex). together with some gasping about "No cause could be found for the event". He smashed into something for f's sake! There's nothing in this short article that would raise anyones eyebrow other than that someone claims it's a ufo.

 

[GeeMack]

I asked you to list all the advancements in our understanding of UFOs since the time the book was written. I also asked if you could describe the methodology involved in accounting for misperceptions. Feel free to provide evidence for your claims.

Well since SnidelyW thinks guesses, ignorance, and incredulity meet his standards of evidence, you might be disappointed if he actually responds.

For me, my standards of evidence are different.

Obviously.

 

[Jocce]

Regarding 'evidence'. This is where skeptics and UFO proponents seem to differ, in that I am willing to use reasoning based on conjecture- since there was no other reasonable explanation of the events.

Thank god scientists doesn't work like that. In real science, a helluva lot of work is done in making sure to provide and source every piece of data that is necessary for others to repeat and hopefully confirm, the results. Why can't you people do that?

ETA: Maybe Snidely isn't a scientist so he's excused. Rramjet on the other hand...no excuses.

 

[RoboTimbo]

An examination of the vehicle was conducted by experts from the Ford Motor Company, and their names have been posted in several accounts of the incident, should you care to read further.

Regarding 'evidence'. This is where skeptics and UFO proponents seem to differ, in that I am willing to use reasoning based on conjecture- since there was no other reasonable explanation of the events.

We can dissect specifics until the cows come home, but, as some people here have noted, until both skptics and UFO proponents can agree on a standard of evidence, agreement will be unobtainable.

I am fully aware that for you to accept the existence of alien technology, you may require a landing on the White House lawn at high noon, covered by television cameras from all major networks, and a subsequent interview of the occupants.

For me, my standards of evidence are different.

But my question remains. Where was it confirmed to be aliens responsible for the occurence? Why was it not fairies or garden gnomes or ball lightning or hobbits or deputy Johnson hoaxing the event to hide something he did that would have gotten him into trouble? Once you can definitively put those questions to rest, I have a couple of others.

SnidleyW, what did you think of the Campeche FLIR video of the UFOs taken by the Mexican Ministry of Defense personnel in post 2582?

 

[SnidelyW]

Regarding the announcement from the Vatican Observatory, the fact that the Vatican is now publicly admitting the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life means that they are open to the idea of speculation too.

I quote one of the participants;

"American professor Chris Impey reflected on the implications of an encounter with an intelligent life form, saying, "if biology is not unique to the earth, or if life elsewhere differs bio-chemically from our version, or if we ever make contact with an intelligent species in the vastness of space, the implications for our self-image will be profound.”

“It is appropriate that a meeting on this frontier topic be hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The motivations and methodologies might differ, but both science and religion posit life as a special outcome of a vast and mostly inhospitable universe. There is a rich middle ground for dialogue between the practitioners of astrobiology and those who seek to understand the meaning of our existence in a biological universe,” Impey added."

So, it seems we are seeing speculation endorsed by the astrobiologists.

So my question now becomes- if speculation on the existence of alien life forms is now accepted by top researchers in astrobiology, then what is wrong with me speculating the damage done to Deputy Sheriff Johnsons car had no other reasonable explanation other than aliens?

 

[Jocce]

So my question now becomes- if speculation on the existence of alien life forms is now accepted by top researchers in astrobiology, then what is wrong with me speculating the damage done to Deputy Sheriff Johnsons car had no other reasonable explanation other than aliens?

There's a world of difference between speculating in the existence of alien life forms and speculating that one of them crashed its ufo into a patrol car because "I can't think of other explanations". It just seems silly to me *shrugs*.