UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

...page 69...

Rramjet, Thank You.

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

Carry on good sir.

Thank you.
I appreciate your saying so.
..and I will!

 

[Marduk]

Thank you.
I appreciate your saying so.
..and I will!

high praise indeed from another nut whos been proved wrong more times than you have

 

[Rramjet]

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.

So you choose to ignore the evidence in this case? I thought you might.

UFO Hunters? You have no sense of humour? Even though I flagged it in my link description?

Here we have a UFO case wherein:

First: That the case is well documented and we do have first hand eyewitness accounts.
Second: It has Iranian Airforce jets chasing a UFO (above Mach2) and THEN being chased and overtaken by the UFO!
Third: The object itself is ENTIRELY "unusual" (for example shape-shifting ability, ability to split apart and rejoin to name but two)*
Fourth: There was radar confirmation of the object as well as the multiple witnesses, both civilian and military (not to mention the pilots)
Fifth: the UFO was able to affect its' surroundings (ie; the instrumentation and functionality of the fighter jets)
Sixth: The UFO(s) seemed to exhibit intelligent control - (fleeing, affecting, and chasing behavious, etc.)

*I note also that the Iranian UFO exhibited many characteristics that preclude mundane explanations – including its’ shape, speed, maneuverability and the ability to join and split apart. For example: “…as he continued in his turn away from the primary object the second object went to the inside of his turn then returned to the primary object for a perfect rejoin. Shortly after the second object joined up with the primary object another object appeared to come out of the other side of the primary object going straight down, at a great rate of speed.” is just ONE of many statements showing human involvement to be HIGHLY implausible.

What do you make of all that Astrophotographer? Here, in this case, is EVIDENCE of a highly unusual UFO - How do you explain it?

 

[SnidelyW]

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

To be fair, Robo, I am not a UFO researcher, and others here are far more qualified to submit best cases. I am not dodging the question in the least, but I will review and reply asap

 

[Akhenaten]

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?

Word of the Week?

 

[Stray Cat]

So you choose to ignore the evidence in this case? I thought you might.

UFO Hunters? You have no sense of humour? Even though I flagged it in my link description?

Here we have a UFO case wherein:

First: That the case is well documented and we do have first hand eyewitness accounts.
Second: It has Iranian Airforce jets chasing a UFO (above Mach2) and THEN being chased and overtaken by the UFO!
Third: The object itself is ENTIRELY "unusual" (for example shape-shifting ability, ability to split apart and rejoin to name but two)*
Fourth: There was radar confirmation of the object as well as the multiple witnesses, both civilian and military (not to mention the pilots)
Fifth: the UFO was able to affect its' surroundings (ie; the instrumentation and functionality of the fighter jets)
Sixth: The UFO(s) seemed to exhibit intelligent control - (fleeing, affecting, and chasing behavious, etc.)

*I note also that the Iranian UFO exhibited many characteristics that preclude mundane explanations – including its’ shape, speed, maneuverability and the ability to join and split apart. For example: “…as he continued in his turn away from the primary object the second object went to the inside of his turn then returned to the primary object for a perfect rejoin. Shortly after the second object joined up with the primary object another object appeared to come out of the other side of the primary object going straight down, at a great rate of speed.” is just ONE of many statements showing human involvement to be HIGHLY implausible.

What do you make of all that Astrophotographer? Here, in this case, is EVIDENCE of a highly unusual UFO - How do you explain it?

As Astrophotographer has already said no PHYSICAL trace found... try again.

 

[Rramjet]

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

Why don't you have a go at trying to explain the Iranian UFO case then...and we'll take it from there?

 

[Belz...]

Come on, rajmet. No one will mind if you say you didn't understand what I said about burden of proof. Just fess up.

 

[Rramjet]

As Astrophotographer has already said no PHYSICAL trace found... try again.

So when a case comes along that you cannot explain in mundane terms, you simply stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away?

 

[RoboTimbo]

As Astrophotographer has already said no PHYSICAL trace found... try again.

But there was physical evidence for the Campeche UFO case, the FLIR video. Oh wait, that proved to be mundane.

But there was physical evidence for the Delphos, KS case, the fairy ring. Oh wait, that proved to be mundane.

Hm, I see why Rramjet likes using cases that don't have physical evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why don't you have a go at trying to explain the Iranian UFO case then...and we'll take it from there?

No need for me to explain it. Ball is in your court, burden of proof wise. How is it alien?

Still waiting for you to explain how the eyewitnesses (trained military observers!) could get it so wrong in the Campeche UFO case.

 

[Marduk]

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?

even your example is baloney, no one ever believed the earth was flat. That was invented by Washington Irving
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Irving#Impact_on_American_culture

In his biography of Christopher Columbus, Irving introduced the erroneous idea that Europeans believed the world to be flat prior to the discovery of the New World. Borrowed from Irving, the flat-Earth myth has been taught in schools as fact to many generations of Americans.

so again, full of wrongness.

 

[Rramjet]

Come on, rajmet. No one will mind if you say you didn't understand what I said about burden of proof. Just fess up.

Would that be the one that goes:

I make a claim.
You demand evidence for that claim.
I provide the evidence as requested.
You make a claim.
I demand evidence for that claim.
You deny that you have any obligation whatsoever to provide evidence for that claim.
I then label that hypocritical.

You mean THAT burden of proof Blez?

 

[Marduk]

Why don't you have a go at trying to explain the Iranian UFO case then...and we'll take it from there?

golly gosh, how many times has this self proclaimed scientist attempted to shift the burden of proof now ?

 

[Marduk]

Would that be the one that goes:

I make a claim.
You demand evidence for that claim.
I provide the evidence as requested.
You make a claim.
I demand evidence for that claim.
You deny that you have any obligation whatsoever to provide evidence for that claim.
I then label that hypocritical.

You mean THAT burden of proof Blez?

actually it goes
You make a claim.
We demand evidence for that claim.
You don't provide any evidence.
We point out that you haven't provided any evidence
You then label that hypocritical because you know you have no other recourse but baloney.

thats the way I'm seeing it, shall we vote on how many others here have my eyes ?

 

[GeeMack]

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.

You don't actually think a whole bunch of people speculating on something unsupported by evidence will ever somehow become knowledge, do you? Speculate from now to the end of time and you'll have what you started with, unsupported guesses. Gathering evidence is, well, obviously how you get evidence. It might help to recognize that ignorance and incredulity are pretty much unrelated to evidence. Discard the subjective stuff that comes from your ignorance and incredulity, and see what you have left. So far, discarding Rramjet's arguments from ignorance and incredulity, what we have left is, from the perspective of objective science, nothing.

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.

And then you'd have, just like in the case of people speculating that unidentified flying things might be aliens, a whole bunch of people speculating. There would be no contribution to actual knowledge.

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?

First, and obviously, speculation had nothing to do with the fact that the Earth is round. Second, the Earth was reasonably understood to be round by many cultures long before Columbus risked sailing off the edge. It was speculation without the application of real science that made some people believe the world was flat. The problem was speculation. The solution was science. Your flat Earth example doesn't support what you think it does.

Is there a science teacher there at your high school, SnidelyW, who you get along with and who can sit down with you and teach you about the scientific method, how hypotheses are developed, what constitutes evidence, and such simple concepts? Make an appointment to meet with that teacher after school someday. Have a long discussion about science, real science, and how the process really works. Then come back and get involved in this conversation again. Armed with that new understanding, your arguments might have more substance than the simple ignorance and incredulity they're built from now.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip... 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?

A nitpick-

Columbus was not the guy who proved Earth is "round"... Has he circled the Earth?

Proof dates way further back in time. Google for Eratosthenes.

Don't get me wrong, but constant repetition of mistaken notions and myths by the part of fringe subjects' proponents can be a bit annoying and usually damage to their credibilities and causes.

ETA:
CRAP! That Sumerian/Babylonian/whatever god/demi god/hero/whatever beated me again!
I blame intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world. They bended space/time, delaying my reply.

 

[MattusMaximus]

high praise indeed from another nut whos been proved wrong more times than you have

Rramjet and KoA have just retreated into a true-believer bunker mentality, so I think that arguing with them further is simply a waste of time.

I agree with whomever suggested it on the last page: let this thread die. It's long past its prime, and it isn't even very funny or entertaining to read anymore - just plain sad, really.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Would that be the one that goes:

I make an extraordinary claim.
You demand extraordinary evidence for that claim.
I provide the garbage evidence as despite what was requested.
You make a no claim.
I irrationally demand evidence for that lack of a claim.
You deny that you have any obligation whatsoever to provide evidence for that claim You then laugh at me.
I then label that hypocritical.

You mean THAT burden of proof Blez?

Fixed it for you. Bold added by me.

 

[Stray Cat]

So when a case comes along that you cannot explain in mundane terms, you simply stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away?

Why don't you have a go at trying to explain the Iranian UFO case then...and we'll take it from there?

I can explain it in one word: UNIDENTIFIED