UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Belz...]

Say, Ramjet. Could you at least confirm that you understand my posts about burden of evidence ?

 

[Correa Neto]

Your statements simply deny the evidence… For example:

CCTV UFO (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=CCTV+UFO&search_type=&aq=f)

Besides, thousands of UFOs are caught on film every year - by all sorts of cameras. You simply deny the evidence before your eyes!

Deny the evidence? I thought you were trying to apply scientific parameters to UFOlogy, thus I am searching for evidence above a certain quality standard. To date, UFOlogy produced none that I am aware of.

You try to counter my point by mis representing it and dumping links without any further research work is far from this. Where's your scientific training?

Later, after Marduk pointed something wich is not an UFO among the search results, you wrote

I have NO DOUBT that some will be hoaxes,

In other words, you didn't care to check what you presented as evidence; you didn't care trying to remove the bad data points from the data set. Instead of ackowledging the error you wrote:

...snip...that does NOT mean that genuine UFOs have not been captured via the medium in question

An appeal to ignorance, as expected associated with special pledge request and the standard ad hom against skeptics and "mainstream science".
Typical UFOlogists' methodological SNAFU. Where's your scientific training?
Note that you've been making the very same mistakes since your first posts here. As examples, I present the facts that among the links you posted at the OP of this thread there are hoaxes and the complaints about "rat packing" you've been making.

Try this: compare the available footage of recent fireballs with the material you presented. Compare quality and provenance. Tell us who wins.

Now, what about addressing seriously the points I raised at post 2686?

And we don’t have to invent conspiracy theories to understand why radar cases (for example) rarely make the public domain. First, what radar installation is geared toward UFO investigation? There is simply no provision for investigating anomalous radar blips if they are thought to pose no threat to other aircraft. Second, given the nature of the debunker community, what radar operator would willingly risk their job given the scathing attacks usually launched by debunkers should they ever go public with any claims? Let alone confidentiality agreements signed as a condition of employment. Who needs the grief caused in these situations? Given the level of abuse I have endured in this forum from simply recounting cases and arguing for the evidence… who would willingly place their name on the public record with any such claim? No conspiracy theories needed at all!

Oh, of course you don't have to incent conspiracy theories... They already exist and you have, more than once appealed to them. Not to mention those you wrote above.

You claim there is "no provision for investigating anomalous radar blips if they are thought to pose no threat to other aircraft". I say this is a poor excuse, especially if you take in to account the very UFO lore you promote, since there's more than one alleged case of radar contact with UFOs followed by interceptors being scrambled and near collisions with airliners. Do you have evidences of some investigation which showed these anomalous blips pose no threat?

If radar contacts were as common as suggested by UFO lore, there would be enough data to trigger serious investigation. CAs would not apply. Not to mention that people often "come out" when it comes down to safety.

Remember also that there are military radars covering large parts of the globe. Where are the military data and the investigations on UFO radar contacts? Will you invoke some conspiracy to hide alien presence from the public?

And tell me, where are the contacts from satellite/space junk tracking networks? Also hidden by conspiracies, CAs and fear of being ridiculed by the evil debunker community? Where are the UFO sightings (and pictures) from the many satellite-spotting enthusiasts and amateur astronomers? Also hidden by conspiracies, CAs and fear of being ridiculed by the evil debunker community?

You know what it takes to side what you call the "debunker community" with UFOlogists? Reliable evidence. Got some?

Please stop complaining about "the level of abuse you receive in this forum". The heat you are receiving is due to the poor quality of the evidence you are presenting as well as the flawed processes you use to defend your positions and build conclusions on UFO evidence. Remember, you claimed to have scientific training, thus we expect a higher quality level on your evidence and reasoning. Not to mention that I fail to see “abuse” from our part, despite your frequent attacks against skeptics. Check your first posts and see how soon you started to complain against “rat packing tactics”. Now, if you can’t stand the heat...

You can start trying to gain some points by addressing the issues I raised at post 2686.

 

[Correa Neto]

An interesting discussion of physical evidence cases can be found here:

(http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_3_vallee_2.pdf)

This is a very good beginning for those wanting to understand the issues surrounding physical evidence cases.

At last, as I expected, Rramjet uses Vallée as source.

So, please tell me, using your scientific training...

The claim “UFOs can only be explained by intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world" has the embedded claims that something actually lies “outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world” and that this something is intelligent and able to cross the boundaries between Jacques Valée’s Magonia and our natural world.

Remember that razor? Which explanation would it cut? "Intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world" or mundane (but not correctly identified for a number of reasons) objects/phenomena and/or hoaxes?

And, by the way, the Society for Scientific Exploration (http://www.scientificexploration.org/), who publishes the Journal of Scientific Exploration, is

...snip... a professional organization of scientists and scholars who study unusual and unexplained phenomena. Subjects often cross mainstream boundaries, such as consciousness, ufos, and alternative medicine, yet often have profound implications for human knowledge and technology.

Side by side with material defending UFOs and bigfoot, it also hosts a talk on "Straightforward and Obvious Disproof of HIV/AIDS Theory" and other crackpottery. Is this what you call science, Rramjet?

You should aim higher than Society for PseudoScientific Exploration and Journal of PseudoScientific Exploration if you do have (good) scientific training.

 

[amb]

Next he will produce something from George Adamski.

 

[King of the Americas]

...page 69...

Rramjet, Thank You.

The time, energy, and research you've put into this thread is greatly appreciated.

Carry on good sir.

 

[Correa Neto]

Well, he already wrote about nordic-type UFOnauts, the classic Venusians described by Adamski. Believe it or not, but back in my UFO-buff times (70's to mid-80's), I met people who were highly taken within Brazilian UFO community (the "scientific UFOlogy" types, not the "esoteric UFOlogy" ones) who still considered the possibility that some material from Adamski was not faked...

 

[pakeha]

Next he will produce something from George Adamski.

This George Adamski^WP?

Adamski said that the photographs of the far side of the Moon that were taken by the Soviet lunar probe Luna 3 in 1959 were fake and that there were cities, trees, and snow-capped mountains there instead.[12]

 

[SnidelyW]

I hate to sound like a broken record but Hendry discussed the Delphos case in his book (pages 130-132). Rather than showing his comparisons, I will summarize. He listed the characteristics of the Delphos ring and then listed the characteristics of a 'fairy ring". The comparisons were similar. Hendry writes:

This exercise is less an attempt to identify the Delphos soil as a fairy ring as it is a demonstration that even this celebrated physical-trace case does not exhibit characteristics that point the way to unique, mysterious origins.

Therefore, the Delphos ring by itself is nothing unusual and appears to have an earthly explanation.

I think it is rather limiting of you to think that just because you think you have debunked part of the incident, you have debunked the entire incident.

It seems as far as you are concerned we should ignore the four other accounts of the UFO, the temporary blindness suffered by the primary eyewitness, the broken tree limbs, the substance on the trees, the numbness experienced by the mother of the primary eyewitness, along with the ring itself.

It is interesting to see skeptics leap to unsustainable conclusions. I hope your fellow skeptics take note.

 

[Marduk]

I think it is rather limiting of you to think that just because you think you have debunked part of the incident, you have debunked the entire incident.

It seems as far as you are concerned we should ignore the four other accounts of the UFO, the temporary blindness suffered by the primary eyewitness, the broken tree limbs, the substance on the trees, the numbness experienced by the mother of the primary eyewitness, along with the ring itself.

It is interesting to see skeptics leap to unsustainable conclusions. I hope your fellow skeptics take note.

you don't see that as an indicator to how much credibility rests in the rest of the evidence then, so if you were on a jury and a suspected murderer had been caught lying in court, you'd believe everything else he said after hed been caught lying would you.

I hope you fellow nuts take note, you want to believe so you ignore tha facts. thats not scientific at all is it snidely. In this case the ground pattern made by the ufo turned out to be fungus, the boy claimed it was made by a flying saucer, so he lied, his mother claimed to have seen it too, so she lied, the other three witnesses were also family members, who also claimed to have seen this mystery fungus propogating saucer, so they lied.

There are no credible witnesses to this and the only physical evidence turned out to be fungus. They didn't report it for over a month either, think they used that time to get their story straight. Police investigations always place less relevance on evidence taken after witnesses have had time to confer, but for you nuts, the opposite seems to be true, why is that, well obviously, unless you do that you got nothing have you, a patch of fungus and a bunch of lies. This is the typical standard of evidence presented so far in this thread. Makes you proud does it ?
like did you miss the fact that they clearly had a camera to have taken a picture ten minutes after the saucer departed, yet they didn't think to use it when it was there. Big baloney


btw how long have you know Rramjet ?

 

[Rramjet]

What evidence? Where’s this “Memorandum of Record”? Show it to me.

Look. This is ridiculous. Would you accept Phillip Klass as a source?

"Mooy's memorandum-for-the-record was not even classified (that is, stamped 'Top Secret') in the MAAG files. Later, when a copy was sent back to the U.S. and distributed to a number of agencies . . . [it] was classified "Confidential" - the lowest security level. There was no followup investigation of the incident by the USAF or MAAG personnel, according to Mooy. Nor were there any further MAAG dispatches on the subject from Tehran, although the incident was widely publicised in Iranian newspapers.”​

(Klass, P., "UFOs, The Public Deceived", Prometheus Books 1983, chapter 14. p.113)

And from Martin Shough:

“PRECIS: The principal source for this case is a memorandum-for-the-record prepared by Lt. Col. Olin R. Mooy, USAF, executive officer to the chief of the USAF section, Military Assistance & Advisory Group (MAAG), Tehran. The report contains information supplied by Iranian officials in addition to details obtained in a debriefing of one of the Imperial Iranian Air Force (IIAF) aircrews involved, which was attended by Mooy and Colonel J. R. Johnson, USAF, at the invitation of Iranian officials. The debriefing was also attended by, amongst others, Lt. Gen. Abdullah Azerbarzin, IIAF Director of Operations. The debriefing took place on September 19, the day of the incident. Mooy's report was distributed to several US agencies, and copies classified CONFIDENTIAL (some with minor edits in prefatory paragraphs) appear in the files of the State Department, CIA, USAF and DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), the latter with an appended Defense Information Report Evaluation. The complete version follows:

(…)

The only known official US response to the Mooy message is a one-sheet DIA Defense Information Report Evaluation, which allows an analyst to check multiple-option replies to standard questions on the reliability, value and utility of the information with a section for general remarks. The DIRE form indicated that the DIA analyst processing the report considered it to have been "Confirmed by other sources"; that he thought its value to be "High", which the form defines as "Unique, Timely, and of Major Significance"; and that he thought the information was "Potentially Useful". Under "Remarks" the analyst wrote:

An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon:
a) The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e., Shemiran, Mehrabad, and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground).
b) The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force general, qualified aircrews, and experienced tower operators).
c) Visual sightings were confirmed by radar.
d) Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft.
e) There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object).
f) An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the UFOs.”​

(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/narcap_radcat_textwebsite_MShough_12-8-02.pdf)

NOTE: It was Evans who wrote the above evaluation.

What we ALSO know is that Col. Mooy sat in on the interviews with the pilot of the second jet because Jafari, the pilot of the second jet, tells us he did!
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Besides, it is a matter of record that the account is based on first hand sources.

No, it’s not. Read what I posted again.

See above!

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Presumably then you mean THIS “Bob”? (You simply did not make it clear in your first post “which” Bob you referred to).

Yes, that “Bob”… the anonymous one. We already know who Bob Pratt is.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Okay…so you don’t trust Dr Maccabee to have quoted his source correctly. Given who Dr Maccabee IS, I contend this is misguided.

Apparently you don’t know Maccabee’s track record very well…

Track record? You mean worse than the track record of Klass?

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Then…NOWHERE in his research report does Dr. Maccabee mention a “Frank”!

My mistake, I meant “Henry” as already discussed. My apologies for any confusion…

I maintain that if it became necessary, we COULD verify the source. It is not as if none are given and not as if the writer is unavailable for comment.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Jafari was the pilot of the second jet!

Not according to Mooy.

What do you mean “not according to Mooy”? Do you have a first hand document citing Mooy on this? See: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Col. Mooy WAS at the interview with Jafari!

Not according to Mooy.

Ahem…see all of the above! AND Jafari was in the interview with Mooy – he tells us so! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Most likely Col. Mooy was in the interview of the pilots of the FIRST jet as well…and that would make sense.

Not according to Maccabee.

Maybe you are right… I must admit my error here.

“This history is also based on newspaper accounts and on the initially classified (Confidential) U. S. Air Force (USAF) teletype message by Lt. Col. Olin Mooy, that primarily describes the events as recounted during an interview of the pilot of the second jet.

(…)

(Only a second hand, and very shortened, version of the first pilot’s story was available to Col. Mooy.)” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

But in EVERY other contention so far put by you - you have been proven wrong! What is that…about one in…how many? Congratulations. You have finally scored a point. But what was the point of it? I STILL maintain firsthand sources for the case and on the EVIDENCE I am correct.

 

[GeeMack]

I think it is rather limiting of you to think that just because you think you have debunked part of the incident, you have debunked the entire incident.

It seems as far as you are concerned we should ignore the four other accounts of the UFO, the temporary blindness suffered by the primary eyewitness, the broken tree limbs, the substance on the trees, the numbness experienced by the mother of the primary eyewitness, along with the ring itself.

It is interesting to see skeptics leap to unsustainable conclusions. I hope your fellow skeptics take note.

Do you know anything about mycology, SnidelyW?

 

[Astrophotographer]

I think it is rather limiting of you to think that just because you think you have debunked part of the incident, you have debunked the entire incident.

It seems as far as you are concerned we should ignore the four other accounts of the UFO, the temporary blindness suffered by the primary eyewitness, the broken tree limbs, the substance on the trees, the numbness experienced by the mother of the primary eyewitness, along with the ring itself.

It is interesting to see skeptics leap to unsustainable conclusions. I hope your fellow skeptics take note.

I debunked nothing. I pointed out what Allan Hendry, who was the lead investigator for the Center for UFO studies, wrote about this case. The rest is anecdotal and has little bearing on the "physical evidence". If you want to believe that alien spaceships leave fairy rings, go right ahead. I think my fellow skeptics will see the case for what it is.

 

[Marduk]

In case you missed it earlier while you were smoking bananas Roger

One of the most important milestones in theory of mind development is gaining the ability to attribute false belief: that is, to recognize that others can have beliefs about the world that are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#False-belief_task

 

[Rramjet]

And none of these "physical traces" has ever been shown to be anything unusual or 'not of this earth'. NEXT......

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/us_gov_iran_case.pdf)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)
Parvis Jafri interview
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)
Amusing enlightening UFO HUNTERS “reconstruction”
( http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/2HSFvZvzK90-ufo-hunters-parviz-jafari-case.aspx)

Posting the same links over, and over, and over...and over.....and over again is poor form. Additional repetitive posts of links will be considered a breach of Rule 6 and subject to additional Moderation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[RoboTimbo]

I think it is rather limiting of you to think that just because you think you have debunked part of the incident, you have debunked the entire incident.

It seems as far as you are concerned we should ignore the four other accounts of the UFO, the temporary blindness suffered by the primary eyewitness, the broken tree limbs, the substance on the trees, the numbness experienced by the mother of the primary eyewitness, along with the ring itself.

It is interesting to see skeptics leap to unsustainable conclusions. I hope your fellow skeptics take note.

SnidelyW, what is your best case for the existence of aliens?

 

[Rramjet]

One of the most important milestones in theory of mind development is gaining the ability to attribute false belief: that is, to recognize that others can have beliefs about the world that are wrong.

In case you missed it earlier while you were smoking bananas Roger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#False-belief_task

Like your own for example?

 

[SnidelyW]

I speculate that the Pyramids were built by my gardener one Saturday afternoon with the leftover materials from the patio upgrade.

The evidence is there; you just can't see it is all. Ufologists always decry the concept of speculation where my claims about the Pyramids are concerned.

It's just so foot-stampingly unfair.





The Cafflicks are starting from the point of view that the Earth was created by an ET and we are not.. Can you see how that might influence our speculations?

No, the concepts are alien to each other.





It's your fairytale. Make up all the details you like.





Who ya gonna call? ET?

The entire idea of speculation as it relates to this topic is worthy of examination.
I would not decry your speculation as you do mine, but the difference between us is that if I speculate after having seen or examining unexplainable events ad infinitum, I would think that my speculation may lead to others speculating on the same subject, and perhaps, with many people speculating on a given subject, knowledge breakthroughs may occur.
I suppose, if you could convince others to subscribe to your speculative theory regarding your gardeners constructive prowess, you may, someday, be able to uncover substantive evidence to give the speculation some momentum.

I keep turning to the 'flat earth proponents' as a parallel here, and I think it still holds water.
The idea of a round earth had been speculated for centuries, but it took Chris Columbus to actually prove it. Are you now saying that speculation was useless or should have been dismissed, as you seem to be doing with speculation regarding the UFO/alien link?

 

[Marduk]

Like your own for example?

I believe the rogue river ufo to be a misidentified blimp

youve had 69 pages to prove that wrong, very telling that youve been shown to be wrong everytime you tried, shall we take a vote whos wrong on that Roger

roflmao

 

[Astrophotographer]

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/us_gov_iran_case.pdf)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)
Parvis Jafri interview
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)
Amusing enlightening UFO HUNTERS “reconstruction”
( http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/2HSFvZvzK90-ufo-hunters-parviz-jafari-case.aspx)

No physical trace found. Completely irrelevant to the post to which you are responding. Keep trying.

Btw, using "UFO hunters" as a source is really not helping your case in anyway. I can write paragraphs about the completely misleading and erroneous stories they have presented.

 

[Marduk]

I would think that my speculation may lead to others speculating on the same subject, and perhaps, with many people speculating on a given subject, knowledge breakthroughs may occur.

delusions of grandeur is a recognised sign of an impending breakdown yanno