Catching up...
Yes I am back...
I've been to some amazing and extraordinary places and have experienced cultures and people "alien" to my own. Amazing experience! But there are issues at hand...
Access Denied (#3076 p.77) A couple of points need to be made.
First I find it interesting that there is a lot of waffle about provenance but in the end it all comes down to the same thing that we already know… Mooy wrote the final draft of the Memorandum for the Record - outlining the “bones” of the case (and we know that he WAS in the interview with at least the second F-4 pilot Jafari - and we have Jafari himself confirming that first hand – and the details of his experiences in the case which confirm the details of Mooy’s memorandum) and Mooy passed that Memorandum to McKenzie who then (after some minor editing) passed it on to the DIA (et al.). Evans then wrote an assessment of the information for the DIA. All that we DO know and it is not disputed by anyone (including Klass). Access Denied thus writes many words about “provenance”, trying to cast aspersions, but in reality adds nothing new to the case at all. The substantial facts of the case remain. Something very unusual and inexplicable in mundane terms occurred. The Iranian Airforce chased a shape shifting UFO, reaching speeds above Mach 2, while the UFO was also able to split apart and rejoin and to disable the Jet’s avionics and weapons systems and chase them in return. No matter how you cut it, this is one very extraordinary and well documented UFO case for which we have official documentation and first hand witness accounts. A solid case with substantive evidential support. The debunkers can use their emotively loaded terminology (Acess Denied uses terms like “(failed) treasure hunt” and “wide eyed” assessment and “basically hand waves away”) but such terms cannot detract from the facts of the case. What we have here is an ostensibly intelligently controlled UFO that is able to perform manoeuvres we are utterly incapable of and is also able to detrimentally affect our own technology. If that gives no-one pause for thought…then no-one is thinking at all!
Access Denied writes “Any lights come on for anybody besides me?” I suggest the lights have gone out for him.
I also find it interesting that Access Denied would take Klass as a “golden” source but not (for example) Dr Maccabee who actually interviewed some of the primary witnesses involved in the case first hand. Double standards? Of course!
“Pfft” indeed!
Belz (#3081, p.78) returns to the “burden of evidence” as if he has not read or understood anything that I have written about it at all. Quite simply if I claim UFOs or aliens, then I must provide evidence. If on the other hand Belz (or others) claim a mundane explanation, they too must provide evidence. Quite simple really. But of course Belz just does not seem to understand this requirement of the debunkers to provide evidence because that would mean providing something the debunkers cannot – evidence for their own unfounded and insubstantive claims (like the “blimp” at rogue River!)
Stray Cat confirms this in post (#3083) “And now I officially retract my previous map, as at this time, there appears to be no evidence of where the blimp flew to after it had done in Salem and Bremerton.
I must also add that Rramjets failure to even look at the evidence must be a (nother) black mark against him. It's very telling that he didn't bother to look... If he had, he could have honestly refuted the claim himself instead of relying on us sceptics to provide the amended information.”
This is of course one of the most inane accusations I have had to bear and goes directly to the heart of Belz’ “burden of proof”. Stray Cat proposed “evidence” for a “blimp” in some magazine or other but failed to provide the precise reference to that evidence. I repeatedly pointed out to him that I could find no such evidence in the magazine in question, and now he has the temerity to claim that I failed to look at the evidence! This is of course a representation of the debunkers peculiar view of the world and the “burden of proof”. I looked for the evidence where indicated, could find none, informed the forum of that fact, and now I am the one who is in the wrong when that evidence fails to materialise? Pfft again!
Marduk attacks Jacques Vallee (and by proxy me) (eg #3112, p. 78) for proposing that what we are seeing in the UFO phenomenon does NOT represent ET. I have stated all along that I also have my doubts about the ET hypothesis and have tried to make that point explicitly on many occasions. I DO contend “alien” but not necessarily “ET”. My definition of “alien” is something that performs outside the limits of what we take to be the boundaries of the natural and or technological world. This of course MAY include the ET hypothesis, but NOT necessarily so. The fact that there is evidence for “beings” who control UFOs also does NOT necessarily mean ET. That this distinction seems too subtle for the likes of Marduk does not surprise me in the least.
Cuddles returns to the fray by calling me a “nut” (#3116, p. 78). Love the fact that he is listed as a Moderator in this JREF forum. Conflict of interest? Not according to debunker logic! He also makes the claim that “I've seen numerous cases where skeptics managed to debunk potential mundane explanations for various sightings.” I’d like him to point to any example where that has occurred in this thread! Of course he cannot. He is flapping his gums but no sense is forthcoming!
Amb returns to the fray (#3121, p.79) with the stupid claim that 99.9% of sightings have a “logical explanation”. This is stupid on two levels. First Blue Book Special report No. 14 (the most substantial scientific report of its kind) found that at least 22% of all sightings could not be explained at all! Second, “ET aliens” is also a logical explanation (given that even the debunkers also seem to believe that life is possible elsewhere in the universe).
On page 79 (and following) of this thread people try to “discuss” cases that are perhaps not conclusive (I say perhaps because I have not researched the cases in question so I cannot be sure – KotA makes some salient points though) yet I note that the discussion of the Tehran incident and critically the Father Gill incident has been “conveniently” dropped. Of course it is easy for the debunkers to point to cases where the evidence is not conclusive, but when it comes to cases where the evidence is conclusive, then they go silent! Typical!
Amd asks an interesting question (#3173, p.80) “Didn't Project Blue Book put an end to this nonsense decades ago?” I simply refer him to The Battelle Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14) (
http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf) and answer his question by stating that far from “putting and end” to it, the project actually showed that there was much, much more to it than most people commonly understand - and that “nonsense” is unequivocally one thing it is NOT.
GeeMack returns (#3200, p. 80) with “Rramjet took the stance that you take, that aliens exist. He wrote hundreds of posts supposedly attempting to provide evidence for that position. Not a single speck of legitimate evidence was included…”
Of course that simply ignores the evidence in the cases I presented – for Example the Tehran case and most latterly the Father Gill case. Of course Geemack is the master of “incredulity and ignorance”, but that does not stop him posting in incredulity and ignorance of the evidence I have presented. Merely stating that what I have presented is NOT evidence does not make it so! It is in fact very good evidence.
I believe also that KotA does NOT actually take the same stance as I do. Perhaps you should get your facts straight GeeMack?
(Hmmm, I can see I will have to do a little research on the case KotA presents and for which the debunkers propose “flock of geese”… Astrophotographer is to be commended for arguing “from the evidence”, KotA makes some very good points - but as I said earlier, I have not examined the case …)
Amd again (#3224)… “There was another called the Condon report. It too also failed to find one single unexplainable sighting.
My I suggest a reading of Carl Sagan's excellent book, The Demon Haunted World. As far as I know it's still in print."
Actually amb is utterly wrong on the first point… can I suggest perhaps he should actually read the report and not just the summary?
…and as for the Demon Haunted World… what can one say… seems to be a kind of “debunker bible” chock full of misguided opinion… well, never let the facts get in the way of mere opinion I say!
Cainkane1 reposts the OP (#3242, p. 82) and makes some claims about plasma energy. Good point. The British UAP study explored this hypothesis in detail and I recommend it for those interested. Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region (Mar 2000)
(
http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/f...aerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm) However, the “plasma energy” hypothesis cannot explain Father Gill’s experience for example.
The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(
http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)
Richard Hall (NICAP)
(
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)
Summary
(
http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/p/papua.htm)
Interview
(
http://www.paranormalinsight.com/rev-william-gills-ufo-encounter/)
Bikwer comes in with “If we dismiss the "historical" references to UFOs…” Hmmmm… typical… let’s just dismiss as much evidence as we can then go on to make a spurious point about UFOs as if that evidence did NOT exist…which of course it patently DOES. He also pretends to know the “mind and logic” of aliens… now if THAT is not an argument from ignorance…!
Marduk (#3275, p.82) seems to imply there is no historical record of UFOs. I would merely point him to the following links (for example)
(
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/general-ancientastronauts.htm)
(
http://www.ufoartwork.com/slideshow_start.php?p=ufoartwork_bc)
(
http://www.ufoartwork.com/slideshow_start.php?p=ufoartwork_ad)
GeeMack states (#3281, p.83) “First, this discussion is about aliens. The OP made the claim that aliens exist and stated unambiguously that he would bring in evidence to support that claim. He hasn't…”
I haven’t? No, I guess you have to ignore Father Gill’s experience then? Perhaps GeeMack could explain the presence of the “entities/beings/humanoids/ whatever…” in that case then?
Czarcasm wants alien artefacts? (#3286, p.83). But we haven’t established “aliens” yet. All in good order…
…and Bikewer (#3285, p.83) still pretends to know the mind of an alien! Perhaps he has been reading too much Sagan and has his sensibilities have been distorted accordingly.
Mike3 asks a question (#3292, p.83) “This is something I find peculiar. What do you mean by "a phenomenon or phenomena that defies our 'realist theory on "objective reality"'"?
Well, for a start we don’t know that “UFOs” don’t represent more than one phenomenon. It could easily be that several are involved. Second the realist theory supposes that we can directly perceive reality… something like “what we see is what we get and that IS reality". I contend that the manifestation of the UFO phenomenon (or phenomena) defies this objective reality. For example gravity defying right angle turns, the ability to “disappear”, the ability to disappear to reappear (seemingly) instantaneously at another location, etc and so on - all seem to indicate that we have a lot to learn about what “reality” actually is.
Snidely proposes (#3303, p.83) that the “skeptics” dismiss the evidence so that:
“What the collective skeptic mind has therefore done in this forum (seemingly the home of the skeptic), by illustrating your ever shrinking definition of 'evidence', (see above) is to essentially move the skeptics to the fringe of the discussion regarding the evolution of the UFO/alien knowledge base.
This banishment to the fringes of information gathering and resultant discussion involves considerable risk, as it becomes almost self perpetuating. The less new information the skeptics are exposed to, the more firmly entrenched they may become with regard to their unwillingness to examine anything other than the 'artifacts' they so desire, and demand to be presented with.
History has shown us that potentates sitting on the throne waiting to be shown 'proof' of ideas and concepts rarely have complete information.
I would posit there are few true 'aha' moments in information gathering. Instead, the slow accumulation of information from various sources slowly building over time will most likely tip the scale of belief in one direction or another.
I think this is where the UFO/Alien situation is today. Over 60 years of modern information collection has been amassed, and patterns have developed regarding shape, size, propulsion, radiation, illumination, flight characteristics, weight, wakes, speed, acceleration, sound, invisibility, weapons, nuclear interest, formation, and time alteration.
So, ridicule, restrict, and discount UFO/Alien evidence as you wish, but the information continues to amass, relentlessly.”
Precisely! The term “burying one’s head in the sand” becomes apt indeed!
Wollery contends (#3307) that “It has been shown for every single case that has been brought in to this thread that the evidence is weak at best.
Take the Rogue River case for example. We have 4 eyewitnesses observing a small shape a long distance away, who can't agree on a number of points, and describe something that is consistent with a blimp, more than one of which were shown to have been in operation in the general area at the time.”
Man, has wollery been asleep when the discussion of Rogue River was occurring? The eyewitnesses ALL agreed on the shape (circular) and THAT shape is definitely NOT like a blimp (cigar shaped)! Moreover, blimps were shown NOT to be operational at Rogue River at the time. This is of course a favourite trick of the holocaust deniers… its called “historical revisionism” wherein the proponents of a point of view simply “rewrite” history to suit their own ends and simply hope that if they repeat their misleading claims enough times nobody will notice that the EVIDENCE refutes their contentions every time they do. …well, we all know that EVIDENCE has never been a strong point of the (so called) skeptics in this forum.
Wollery further contends “How about White Sands? Despite all the hooplah with which Rramjet argued this case it all boils down to one triangulation measurement, for which we have no error margin.”
Again he misses the vital (crucial: critical) point about White Sands that qualified researchers sighted and filmed UFOs. Triangulation has nothing to DO with that fact… and THAT fact cannot be merely dismissed with the “wave of a hand” as wollery attempts to do. Moreover, the researchers DID manage a triangulation… so even here the evidence is against his contentions!
Then of course wollery fails to mention the Tehran incident or the Father Gill case. Not so easy to dismiss THOSE cases is it wollery!
Wollery states “The quality has been shown to be severely substandard.”
I would therefore like to challenge wollery to point out exactly WHERE and HOW the quality of evidence is “substandard” in the Tehran case and the Father Gill case.
Wollery then goes on to relate a “jury service” anecdote that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the UFO evidence so far presented by me… and states “…not all evidence is equal.” Of course… but we DO have compelling evidence for UFOs (and “aliens”) that cannot be so easily dismissed as merely stating that is “not good enough”. Again, I challenge wollery to point out exactly where and how the evidence in the Tehran and Father gill cases is not of sufficient quality.
Wollery states “I'm willing to examine any information you have, but be prepared for me, and other skeptics, to examine it in great detail. If you want to support the idea that UFOs are really alien craft then you'd better have high quality evidence, otherwise it'll be torn to shreds.”
Well then…examine the Tehran case for a start! But of course you won’t will you!
Wollery states “And that's the problem. If we take each case individually then they all fall apart.”
Again I ask: What about the Tehran case. What about the Father Gill case? You simply ignore those cases because you cannot dismiss them! They amount to your “strong evidence” …. I simply ask that you examine the information in those cases as you have promised us you will do!
Wollery: “Some UFOs are cigar shaped, some are triangular, some are saucers. Some are huge, some are tiny. Some appear individually, some in twos or threes, and some seem to come in swarms. Some jam radar, some turn invisible. Some appear over nuclear test sites, while some appear over cities, or the countryside well away from nuclear sites. Some are silent, some are noisy. Some fly in formation and some don't.
I see no pattern in any of it.”
That’s because YOU have not been looking! Simple as that really.
Wollery: “If you have any high quality evidence then please present it, but stop whinging about "skeptics" dismissing evidence out of hand. We've done nothing of the sort. What we have done is to carefully examine the evidence, and found it to be severely wanting.”
I present the Tehran and Father Gill cases and you DO dismiss them out of hand!
Access denied returns with (#3308, p.83)
“1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable and inconsistent…”
That is a completely naive characterisation of eyewitness testimony. We KNOW the conditions under which such testimony is likely to be “distorted” and we CAN account for those conditions in our assessment of the evidence. Much research has been conducted in this field and wollery proposes that (again) we can dismiss such informative research with another metaphorical “wave of the hand”.
Thus, according to the skeptics, seeing is NOT believing and that eyewitnesses are mistaken 100% of the time. This is patently a ridiculous assertion!
“2. Show me just one photo or video of what you believe couldn’t be anything other than an actual alien spaceship.”
This is asking for absolute proof (in a photo no less!) and any skeptic would know that there is no such thing in ANY field of knowledge! (let alone absolute proof in the form of a photo!) Again pure bunk! It is a laughable contention. This is setting the bar so high that NO knowledge is safe… no matter WHAT field of endeavour it comes from!
“3. 3. All NASA “UFO” videos and “anomalous” photographs that I’m aware of have been shown to have perfectly logical prosaic explanations.
4. There is zero unambiguous radar evidence that I’m aware of.
5. There is zero unambiguous physical evidence that I’m aware of.”
Of course the key phrase here is “that I am aware of”! If you bury your head in the sand my friend you will be “aware” of very little indeed. (I will return to the points above in other posts because of course the contentions above are simply untrue… but that will have to wait because wollery still has to examine the Tehran and the Father Gill cases as he promised he would)
“Furthermore, I see no credible reason or evidence for any scientific or governmental authority or institution to reject or suppress any demonstrably unambiguous evidence of “aliens”.”
Oh dear… ignorance of the whole UFO field is contained in just this one sentence. If people wish to discuss UFOs and government secrecy I really wish they would apprise themselves of the facts in the matter. It’s all on the historical record. Of course one of the primary reasons for suppressing “information” on UFOs is that governments feared the “panic” that might ensue and subsequent societal “breakdown”… but of course wollery does not know this because he has never seen the relevant official documentation…well…it is to be expected I guess… talk about accusing me of argument from ignorance!
“I’m pretty sure if anything or anyone is being ridiculed here it is the unwillingness or inability of the “true believers” to consider any alternative explanations for a particular case other than “aliens”… the very antithesis of an “open mind”.”
Again wollery must not have actually read much of the discussion in this thread (let alone have knowledge of the broader research that is extant). If he had he would understand that “aliens” is but ONE of MANY hypothesis (and yes, including the mundane) that have been proposed by UFO researchers and skeptics alike as explanations for UFOs. Get with the program kid!
What wollery said…? Well he stated he would examine the evidence if cases were presented to him. Tehran and Father Gill wollery… let’s see how you go with them!
Cuddles (#3318, p.83) states “Even the UFO proponent who started this thread doesn't believe he has any good evidence.”
Historical revisionism again! I DO have GOOD evidence. I am presenting it! Tehran and Father Gill is where we are up to… your merely stating that those cases are “poor quality” does NOT make it so. If you make such a claim then you MUST support that claim with evidence. (but of course you won’t because you cannot).
Astrophotographer chimes in on the same theme “Nobody is stating there is "no evidence" for UFOs. However, what UFO proponents seem to misunderstand is that the evidence presented is just not good enough.”
Then you must point out precisely where and how the evidence in the Tehran and Father Gill cases are “not good enough”. Merely saying so is NOT good enough. Where are the “phantoms” in these cases Astrophotographer?
Amb claims (#3326, p. 84) that “The same people that believe in life after death, astrology, homeopaths, and ghosts etc seem to be the same people as believe in ufology. Yet most claim to be at least agnostic.”
And of course that is just the type of simplistic belief system I would expect from the (so called) skeptics in this forum. They concatenate a whole heap of unrelated junk together to make an argument against a single aspect. That is NOT clear thinking. It is NOT even skeptical thinking. Funny how the so called “skeptics” suspend skepticism when it comes to their OWN belief systems isn’t it. Hypocrisy? You bet! Are they aware of their own hypocrisy? I doubt it.
I’ll skip a few posts here as Snidely seems to be doing a great job… but reserve the right to return for comment later.
RoboTimbo (#3360, p. 84) contradicts earlier an skeptical post by stating that eyewitness evidence WILL convict a murderer. Hypocracy? You bet!
Puddle Duck (#3362, p.85) then totally misconstrues “attention” … but again he is returning to the argument that UFO witnesses are wrong 100% of the time…pure bunk!
Ughh… enough for now… I’ve skipped a few post but I am sure people will tell me that and reiterate their arguments if they really matters to them.
I want to refocus on the Tehran and father Gill cases. I believe they provide GOOD evidence for:
1. Intelligently controlled UFOs (Tehran case) and
2. “aliens” (at least beings of SOME sort) (Father Gill case).
If the skeptics wish to claim that these cases do NOT provide good evidence for my contentions then they need evidence (or at least a darn good argument) for WHY they believe that.
Over to you!
