UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

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

so again, full of wrongness.

Since you quote Wikipedia:
"Various cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including ancient Babylon, Ancient Egypt, pre-Classical Greece and pre-17th century China. This view contrasts with the realization first recorded around the 4th century BC by natural philosophers of Classical Greece that the Earth is spherical."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth)

Who's wrong now Marduk?
Perhaps you should do a little research in future?

Besides you completely miss SnidelyW’s point.
Science can only advance if we create speculative hypotheses about the unknown.
The more speculative hypotheses are generated, the better chance we have that one might be correct.
Of course we do not create these hypotheses in a vacuum, we have historical knowledge to guide us – accepted wisdom if you like.
HOWEVER, that “knowledge” (accepted wisdom) could just as easily lead us astray.
That is where Snidley’s “flat earth” comes in.
In certain cultures at certain times, THAT accepted wisdom lead them astray in being able to create hypotheses about the world.
Thus when it comes to UFOs, it is entirely acceptable to create speculative hypotheses. (ET being just one among many – even “mundane” is merely another speculative hypothesis when it comes to UFOs)
Once we have these hypotheses, we can test them against the evidence to see if any meet the standards to become plausible explanatory hypotheses.

I hope I have not misrepresented SnidelyW here …I am sure he will let me know if I have

 

[SnidelyW]

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.

I think that when you take the time to review the particulars in this incident, you will notice that 'smashed into something' was discounted by the automotive experts from Ford Motor Company, who were called in to examine the automobile in totality.

I do not understand why you believe you have the argumentative right to make such unsubstantiated claims as 'smashed into something' and not be called into account by other skeptics.

I would think that other skeptics would be concerned at your cavalier and seemingly cursory examination of the investigation.

I for one, am delighted.

 

[Rramjet]

I can explain it in one word: UNIDENTIFIED

Ah yes, good, but WHAT was this UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object doing?

It was exhibiting characteristics that place it outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural AND technological world.

I therefore contend that makes it "alien" to the natural and technological world.

That is the Iranian UFO represents an "alien" entity.

It is not merely unidentified, it is also "alien".

 

[RoboTimbo]

Ah yes, good, but WHAT was this UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object doing?

It was exhibiting characteristics that place it outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural AND technological world.

I therefore contend that makes it "alien" to the natural and technological world.

That is the Iranian UFO represents an "alien" entity.

It is not merely unidentified, it is also "alien".

What part of "unidentified" do you not understand?

 

[GeeMack]

Ah yes, good, but WHAT was this UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object doing?

It was exhibiting characteristics that place it outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural AND technological world.

I therefore contend that makes it "alien" to the natural and technological world.

That is the Iranian UFO represents an "alien" entity.

It is not merely unidentified, it is also "alien".

... according to your argument from ignorance and incredulity. Anyone surprised?

 

[GeeMack]

I think that when you take the time to review the particulars in this incident, you will notice that 'smashed into something' was discounted by the automotive experts from Ford Motor Company, who were called in to examine the automobile in totality.

Dent. Smashed into something? Magic?

I do not understand why you believe you have the argumentative right to make such unsubstantiated claims as 'smashed into something' and not be called into account by other skeptics.

Dent. Smashed into something? Magic?

I would think that other skeptics would be concerned at your cavalier and seemingly cursory examination of the investigation.

Dent. Smashed into something? Magic?

Do you know what caused the dent, SnidelyW? Do you have any evidence that it was caused by some particular thing?

 

[TjW]

Ah yes, good, but WHAT was this UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object doing?

It was exhibiting characteristics that place it outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural AND technological world.

I therefore contend that makes it "alien" to the natural and technological world.

That is the Iranian UFO represents an "alien" entity.

It is not merely unidentified, it is also "alien".

If you don't know what it was, how can you place it outside the boundaries of the blah-blah?

The incident in Mexico with fighter pilots and oil rig fires had professional pilots convinced it was something outside the limits of blah-blah.

Turned out, it wasn't.

 

[SnidelyW]

Probably you don't understand Spanish?

About Assertion 3: We may not see anything weird on that video, now, but the pilots were extraordinary excited and confused by what they were watching. For them at that time it was certainly a weird experience.

About Assertion 6: There are indications on the pilots onboard conversations that strongly suggest they attributed intelligent behaviour to those lights. In two occasions they referenced the lights as objects "chasing" them.

You see, in hindsight everything is easy. But let's imagine for a moment that we didn't have the video footage, but only the witnesses' word on this.... Then, the "Campeche Case" would've become another classic extraordinary unsolved UFO incident, backed by the "trained", "expert", etc. voice of Air Force pilots.

There are good cases and there are poor cases, and everyone is capable of attributing UFO characteristics to ordinary objects.

I see your point with crystal clarity.

If I may point to the more broad concept here- if there is so much to disbelieve about UFO/alien intelligence, and attendant observations of same, as the skeptics claim, how is it that these pilots made the jump from oil rig flares to UFO's in the first place? They clearly had some belief that the existence of intelligent, powered, flight devices out of their realm of understanding were not just possible, but likely to be seen.

That is the salient point here- that the body of UFO evidence, the sheer volume of it worldwide, had convinced trained military aeronautical professionals to 'see' UFO's where oil well flares were burning.

The skeptics may discount specific cases, but the evidence continues to pile up faster than it can be dismissed by accurate and dispassionate study, forcing skeptics to begin to dismiss UFO evidence 'out of hand' with increasing regularity.

We can present case after case which has already withstood rigourous examination at the time of occurrence, or shortly thereafter, and has defied debunking attempts.

Cases of UFO evidence continue to pile up daily, as more and more people come forward with personal experiences. Governments of several nations, in part as a response to the growing understanding of this volume of evidence, declassified their records of state sponsored investigations.

The Vatican sponsored a gathering of dozens of the worlds leading scientists in the nascent field of astrobiology, and presented to the world their belief that alien existence is possible.

See where the wave is going? Paddle against it as you wish, but if you refuse to acknowledge the wave, and learn to surf, it may pick your beliefs up and smash you into the beach with pitiless force.

(yeah, yeah I mixed my metaphors a bit - I know.)

 

[Stray Cat]

Ah yes, good, but WHAT was this UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object doing?

It was having a nice cup of tea with a pink unicorn?
Or playing scrabble with an Iranian farmer who has since been gagged by the military?
Or... we simply don't know what it was therefore anyfurther speculation is just simply speculation.

It was exhibiting characteristics that place it outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural AND technological world.

'It' was unidentified... what it was doing is not known.

I therefore contend that makes it "alien" to the natural and technological world.

Then you are taking a blind leap into the murky world of unsupported speculation.

That is the Iranian UFO represents an "alien" entity.
It is not merely unidentified, it is also "alien".

So how are you going to take your speculation and build a hypothesis which you can then prove?

Let's see a working plan as to how you will take future events using your prediction of alien origin and back them up with repeatable tests and observations.

 

[SnidelyW]

Dent. Smashed into something? Magic?




Dent. Smashed into something? Magic?




Dent. Smashed into something? Magic?

Do you know what caused the dent, SnidelyW? Do you have any evidence that it was caused by some particular thing?

Please read the case particulars before attempting to discount my postings.

 

[GeeMack]

Please read the case particulars before attempting to discount my postings.

Jesus H. Christ. Why is it that people who have nothing but arguments from ignorance and incredulity have such a hard time answering a simple yes or no question?

Yes or no, SnidelyW, do you know what caused the dent? Do you have any evidence that it was caused by some particular thing?

 

[Stray Cat]

If I may point to the more broad concept here- if there is so much to disbelieve about UFO/alien intelligence, and attendant observations of same, as the skeptics claim, how is it that these pilots made the jump from oil rig flares to UFO's in the first place? They clearly had some belief that the existence of intelligent, powered, flight devices out of their realm of understanding were not just possible, but likely to be seen.

It speaks volumes about 'trained military personnel' being able to believe in nonsense and says nothing about the thousands of folk tales regarding UFOs.

 

[SnidelyW]

It speaks volumes about 'trained military personnel' being able to believe in nonsense and says nothing about the thousands of folk tales regarding UFOs.

Your assertion about 'thousands' of folk tales may be accurate- I am in no position to debate that.

I think though, that my assertion that ubiquitous belief of UFO/alien existence permeating the aeronautical threat assessment of professional pilots is valid.

Not only is it valid, but strong enough to cause them to report it.

I leave the military professionals to debate with you regarding your 'believe in nonsense' statement.

 

[Belz...]

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?

No, the one that I've taken the time to explain to you about three times now.

WE have no burden of proof because WE are NOT making a claim. We are simply stating that since you have NOT eliminating alternative explanations, the fact that you are positing an unknown to explain this phenomenon is unwarranted.

Somehow I doubt you'll even read that.

 

[Marduk]

Since you quote Wikipedia:
"Various cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including ancient Babylon, Ancient Egypt, pre-Classical Greece and pre-17th century China. This view contrasts with the realization first recorded around the 4th century BC by natural philosophers of Classical Greece that the Earth is spherical."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth)

Who's wrong now Marduk?

had to ask didn't you, once again you are wrong, as snidely referenced it as something that columbus proved wrong, that was the point, Columbus knew the earth was spherical because everyone knew the earth was spherical, he didn't shock the world by proving it wasn't flat. Snidely being a student of a low grade school system like yourself assumed that what he was taught was the truth. Over here in Europe we know better. Of course I knew you would try and twist the facts to make it look like a win for you, but now as everyone can see, you just lied again didn't you. for shame Roger, you are showing everyone that ufologists just lie and lie and lie because they're used to doing it in the absence of any real evidence. Where there is none you just make it up don't you and hope no one more intelligent than you is watching. intelligence = hated debunker doesnt it

Perhaps you should do a little research in future?

Ok so would you like me to show you how the Babylon, Ancient Egypt, pre-Classical Greece and pre-17th century China really viewed the earth Rramjet.
like this, not that its even relevant.

how flat is that ?
see Rramjet, even when you think you know something its soon proven fallacious, this amounts to the fact that really you know nothing but ignorance
and i'm laughing at your "superior intellect", big huge guffaws they are too

 

[Stray Cat]

I think though, that my assertion that ubiquitous belief of UFO/alien existence permeating the aeronautical threat assessment of professional pilots is valid.

Did those pilots at any time state they thought the UNIDENTIFIED objects were of alien origin?
Or were they seen simply as unidentified flying objects?
Because I think the exact same response would have come from them if they had thought the objects were American USAF jets sneaking into their airspace.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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

Do you have the radar tapes? No. Therefore, the evidence is anecdotal.
Do you have the maintenance records for the aircraft? No. Therefore, the evidence is anecdotal.
Do you have any photographs, gun camera footage, etc.? No. Therefore, the evidence is anecdotal.

Most of the "evidence" is based on what people say happened and could be in error. How do we know that the aircraft just did not fail because of poor maintenance? How do we know that the radar contacts were actual radar contacts or just spurious returns that looked like a radar contact? How do we know that a missile/photon torpedo/whatever was fired at the aircraft or the pilots just thought this was the case when they saw some sort of astronomical event (like a meteor)? All of these are questions we can not answer because the evidence is less than adequate to draw any conclusions. It is unidentified and that is all you can conclude.

We also have to consider the context under which this event occurred. The Shah of Iran had a secret police that did not take kindly to pilots of the Shah's air force making mistakes or breaking aircraft. If the pilots/technicians erred, what better way to shift blame than to say it was all because of a UFO. I am not saying this is what happened but it is a scenario that might have occurred and far more likely than an alien spaceship firing photon torpedos at aircraft that seem to miss.

 

[Hindmost]

I think you are confusing energy with time here!

How much energy did it take to shoot the Voyagers out of the Solar system (to one day) reach another star system?

You also forget ion drives etc. No "hollow earths" there!

Besides, time is a relative concept.

You are stating "No aliens" because physics precludes it. All I am stating is that you don't know what might be discovered that might make it possible...after all, it IS possible with our current technology...time is the only factor... and that is an entirely subjective "concept".

And this is what I mean by no imagination. You are simply stuck in the1950s with your "chemical rockets" and your fixed concept of time.

And you also pretend to KNOW alien technology (no EM signals indeed!) How do you KNOW that aliens communicate by "EM signals" in the first place ...because SETI says so? Bunk!

The voyager probes will take more than 40,000 years to get to another star system...they have Pu238 thermal reactors with an 85 year half life--won't provide energy for much longer. Where is the energy for life support even if there is hibernation and a 100 times faster craft. (you can't create energy in interstellar space and there isn't much hydrogen.)

I did not specify chemical rockets must be used..so that is a strawman. I was demonstrating and equivalent amount of energy. It doesn't matter if it is chemical or nuclear...Force still equals mass time acceleration and you need energy for the force part. By the way, our rockets are not much different now than the Apollo rockets.

Ion drives still require energy for ionization...they have very low trust...but can trust for long periods. The shuttle's main engines are pretty much toast after about an hour or so--that is why ion drives give an advantage for exploring planets nearby. However,they still need to thrust something out the back due to conservation of momentum--so, how are they going to carry all that xenon?

I will accept fusion powered rockets for your aliens...and D-D reactions--even muon induced. But you have to tell me why we never managed to sense any gamma rays and where they are storing all the D. Add how they shield themselves from cosmic rays and their own fusion reactors with really small space craft.

On the EM thing: are you indicating aliens use "subspace" radios? They never had flash lights or radios. They can cross interstellar space but cannot make a cell phone call. The EM spectrum is very useful...they will have mastered it.

The nearest star is 7000 times further away than Pluto.

glenn

 

[GeeMack]

Hey SnidelyW, regarding my simply worded questions in Post 2766 and Post 2771, yes or no, do you know what caused the dent? Do you have any evidence that it was caused by some particular thing?

 

[Correa Neto]

Check this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3683010&postcount=55
Yep, I know its an anecdote; you should not take it as if it were anything other than an anecdote. It may give you a hint, however, on how military people can also make mistakes. They are humans just like we all.

Some more bits of info:
1. The UFO was sighted for two consecutive nights, roughly at the same hour. At the first night, I was asleep and missed it. The night after, I stood at watch, and people were already talking about UFOs right before the sighting. One guy -who happened to be on his watch duty (no idea if thats the actual word in English)- was even talking about an USO sighting.

2. The "UFO" was described as an aircraft emmiting multicolored lights following the ship IIRC. Not an exact description; it was mostly interpretative, but it gives hints on how UFO descriptions may not be faithfull to what was actually seen. Imagine it sexed up by a National Enquirer reporter.

3. The discussions on UFOs started because our destination (Trindade Island) was the place of a famous UFO picture case. This shows you how people can be previously influentiated, eventually without even realizing this happened.

4. I still held some beliefs in UFOs back then and I also discussed the subject, so I may have my share of guilty when it comes down to create the "mood" for an UFO sighting.

5. I could not "see"the UFO, only a star. One guy was particulary convinced he was seeing an UFO and attempted to convince others- and he managed to do so. Too bad for him this time he decided to wake up the ship's commander...

So, can you see? This aborted UFO case could easilly "evolve" to become one of Rramjet's links. Shades of Rogue River anyone?

BTW, its one of the posts about my UFOs experiences I said pages ago that could be interesting to check. And yes, it was one of the milestones towards skepticism. There's another one, also linked to an UFO "sighting".