UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Marduk]

Very well, Ramjet. Since you are completely unwilling to review your flawed notion of burden of proof, I don't think there's any choice but to label you as willfully ignorant. And since this means you are incapable of changing your mind on this issue, discussing with you is pointless.

seconded


until hes able to accept that the Rogue River sighting was most probably a blimp, whats the point

 

[Wolrab]

Not to minimize the believability of the pilot, but if someone is a junior officer at the time of the Shaw, then later, a General after the revolution, they certainly must know how to spin a yarn, shift blame, or make themselves look damn good. IIRC, the military suffered horrendous purges after the Ayatollah's took over.

 

[Jocce]

Here he describes that what he thought could have been a missile fired at him from the UFO coming toward him.

We know that russians and americans can fly and fire missiles. Now, all you need to do is to prove that the aliens have the technology necessary to do that. It would also be great if you could show that alien bases were located within flying distance of Teheran at the time of the incident. If you can do this, you might have something to build a credible case around.

 

[Rramjet]

Very well, Ramjet. Since you are completely unwilling to review your flawed notion of burden of proof, I don't think there's any choice but to label you as willfully ignorant. And since this means you are incapable of changing your mind on this issue, discussing with you is pointless.

MY flawed notion of the burden of proof?

I have asked you SO many times now to point out WHAT IS wrong with my conception… but you IGNORE that question EVERY time I ask it. Is that because you HAVE no answer for me?

I claim “aliens” and you rightly ask me to provide evidence for that claim.
YOU claim “mundane” and I rightly ask you to provide evidence for that claim.

So… what don’t YOU get about that Belz?

And none of this is evidence supporting the claim that aliens exist. Just more incredulity and ignorance. Anyone surprised?

So we have a UFO that can shapeshift, display intelligent control (flee, outrun and chase F-4s), affect its environment (disable and disrupt an F-4 as well a civialian airliner avionics), “jump” from location to location, split apart and rejoin… and you don’t consider that remarkable at all?

Just because you are incredulous and wilfully ignorant does NOT make the event any less remarkable.

Indeed, if after over 750 postings a guy can't come up with a single piece of evidence to support his claim, refuses to understand some of the simpler concepts of skepticality, and repeats the same feeble arguments from ignorance and incredulity as if he expects anyone to accept them as valid, there exists little hope. But then that was quite apparent somewhere around 90 pages and 3600 posts ago.

I have been presenting evidence all along to support my claims. You have produced… nothing!

“Simpler concepts of skepticality”? Ha! Now what precisely might they be GeeMack? The burden of proof? I present evidence to support my claims while the UFO debunkers cannot come up with any EVIDENCE to support their own claims. My reliance on first hand witness accounts – rather than the UFO debunker’s reliance on unfounded assumption and supposition? What else you got Geemack?

What have identifying military aircraft got to do the proving we have aliens roaming around our skies?

Good question amb. It was the UFO debunkers in this thread that brought up the whole thing. Why don’t you ask them?

I would say that a craft from another world would look nothing like anything we can imagine.

OMG! Do you even read what I have posted about all this? Your statement here makes some pretty wild, utterly unfounded assumptions. Do you pretend to know “alien” technology now? Besides, I have NEVER claimed “from another world” as you seem to ignorantly assume. And just because your “imagination” is limited… besides your imagination is irrelevant… we have eyewitness descriptions to inform us about what UFOs look like…where have you been all thread amb?

If this craft were to appear in our skies, it would immediately be recognized for what it is. No ifs or buts.

“Recognised for what it is”? And just WHAT would that be amb?

until hes able to accept that the Rogue River sighting was most probably a blimp, whats the point

You have ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that Rogue River was a blimp and more… the eyewitness descriptions describe an object with characteristics that do NOT match a blimp! It really is that simple. Keep your head in the sand if you want, but all you will see is sand.

Not to minimize the believability of the pilot, but if someone is a junior officer at the time of the Shaw, then later, a General after the revolution, they certainly must know how to spin a yarn, shift blame, or make themselves look damn good. IIRC, the military suffered horrendous purges after the Ayatollah's took over.

Sure…sure buddy…a Major who is a squadron leader is a “junior pilot”? And YOU are now an expert on the career path of a Royal Iranian Air Force pilot now are you? “Shaw” you are! Huh!

We know that russians and americans can fly and fire missiles. Now, all you need to do is to prove that the aliens have the technology necessary to do that. It would also be great if you could show that alien bases were located within flying distance of Teheran at the time of the incident. If you can do this, you might have something to build a credible case around.

My kid brother can fly and fire missiles! You are suddenly (with amb) an expert on “alien” technology? What illogical nonsense! First people pretend UFOs don’t exist, but then when it suits them, they claim to know about the technology that they operate by! Illogical woo at the highest level.

I have consistently presented evidence to support my contentions. YOU even used to have a go of providing evidence to support your own claims Jocce. What has happened to you? Run out of arguments against my contentions and now simply resort to the non-arguments of ridicule? Shame really, I had high hopes for your intelligence Jocce… you are sinking into the illogical antirational, antiscience debunker mire faster than even I could have predicted…

 

[Marduk]

You have ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that Rogue River was a blimp and more… the eyewitness descriptions describe an object with characteristics that do NOT match a blimp! It really is that simple. Keep your head in the sand if you want, but all you will see is sand.

I knew you'd say that,
thats why you
FAIL

 

[Astrophotographer]

I am presenting the first hand witness accounts. Please tell me Astrophotographer WHAT evidence Klass uses to base his accounts on? (I have answered your questions about the avionics systems – please do me the reciprocal courtesy of answering mine about Klass’ sources.

I am referencing the MUFON papers. What are you referencing when you talk about the first person interview by Pirouzi (Edit: I see you are using an interview written by Cathcart made after the Enquirer article was written - did Pirouzi change his story?)? As best I can tell the accounts published by the Enquirer are based on the interviews with Pirouzi (starting on page 63 of the MUFON papers pdf file). Are you now stating that those accounts are invalid or inaccurate? If so, what parts can we say are valid and accurate? What makes you the ultimate authority and deterimining this? In the interview you cite, Pirouzi still states the jet was near the Afghan border (150 miles away heading back after heading there, which is not over Teheran as the general claimed). He also describes seeing the UFO (for a few seconds as a light) only 500 feet above the jet as it passed near the tower (in contradiction with the Mooy report).

As for the interference, I am curious as to why nobody in the entire city had malfunctioning equipment (i.e. television, radios, cars, etc) if the UFO could present such a large electromagnetic interference. Why were only certain aspects of the craft affected? You are stating that it was the same exact distance and the same equipment but that does not seem to be the case in your list. Sometimes it is nav aids, other times it is weapons, and other times it is communications gear. However, the aircraft seemed to remain airborne and flew normally. If the UFO wanted to actually interfere with the aircraft, why not shutdown the power generation and make the jet drop like a rock.

Until you can actually demonstrate Jafari's true rank at the time, I think it is in question since the reports at the time indicated he was a LT. If Jafari states he was a Major, that is not good enough when we have information that indicates his rank may have been something else. People have lied about their military service before in order to make a story better and it would not be beyond reason that Jafari may be exaggerating a bit here.

 

[Belz...]

MY flawed notion of the burden of proof?

This:

I claim “aliens” and you rightly ask me to provide evidence for that claim.
YOU claim “mundane” and I rightly ask you to provide evidence for that claim.

I've repeated enough times WHY this is wrong. Go back and read it again if you're interested. Otherwise stop playing the ignorant.

 

[tsig]

We know that russians and americans can fly and fire missiles. Now, all you need to do is to prove that the aliens have the technology necessary to do that. It would also be great if you could show that alien bases were located within flying distance of Teheran at the time of the incident. If you can do this, you might have something to build a credible case around.

Interesting how the aliens always stay just a step ahead of human technology.

 

[AWPrime]

So we have a UFO that can shapeshift, display intelligent control (flee, outrun and chase F-4s), affect its environment (disable and disrupt an F-4 as well a civialian airliner avionics), “jump” from location to location, split apart and rejoin… and you don’t consider that remarkable at all?

You don't have solid evidence of any of this. And also all of the above can be explained by human error or the technology that they had at the time.

 

[GeeMack]

I've repeated enough times WHY this is wrong. Go back and read it again if you're interested. Otherwise stop playing the ignorant.

He's not playing.

 

[tsig]

[
I claim “aliens” and you rightly ask me to provide evidence for that claim.
YOU claim “mundane” and I rightly ask you to provide evidence for that claim.

So… what don’t YOU get about that Belz?

I'll lay 50/50 odds you don't win the lottery and I'll buy you the ticket. Name the lottery name your price.

 

[Rramjet]

I am referencing the MUFON papers.

Of course you are! You STILL have NOT answered my question. I gave you the courtesy of answering your questions to me. Yet you do not answer my questions! I asked what Klass’ was using as evidence (since you stated that MY evidence was no better than his)…but you have NOT answered this question. More…you DO NOT state which MUFON “papers” you are referencing…

What are you referencing when you talk about the first person interview by Pirouzi?

I am referencing the John Checkley interview which is dated 1/25/77 and begins on p. 85 (of 113). THIS is Pirouzi’s first hand account…

As best I can tell the accounts published by the Enquirer are based on the interviews with Pirouzi (starting on page 63 of the MUFON papers pdf file. Are you now stating that those accounts are invalid or inaccurate?

The account you reference is NOT Pirouzi’s interview. It is a SECOND hand interpretation of the event using selected quotes from Pirouzi.

If so, what parts can we say are valid and accurate? What makes you the ultimate authority and deterimining this?

Any part that does NOT quote Pirouzi directly is second hand and thus MIGHT be inaccurate. ANYONE can determine the ultimate truth of what I say in relation to this.

In the interview you cite, Pirouzi still states the jet was near the Afghan border (150 miles away heading back after heading there, which is not over Teheran as the general claimed).

I love the way you continue to rely on the second-hand accounts and PREFER those OVER the first hand accounts. Your hypocrisy in this matter knows no bounds Astrophotographer. MORE..you again revert to historical revisionism. Pirouzi stated NO such thing!

He also describes seeing the UFO (for a few seconds as a light) only 500 feet above the jet as it passed near the tower (in contradiction with the Mooy report).

Again…Mooy’s is a summary report, Pirouzi was “the man on the ground”!

As for the interference, I am curious as to why nobody in the entire city had malfunctioning equipment (i.e. television, radios, cars, etc) if the UFO could present such a large electromagnetic interference. Why were only certain aspects of the craft affected?

Why don’t you ask the aliens why they only targeted potential threats to them? I am sure they could give you the answer you seek…

You are stating that it was the same exact distance and the same equipment but that does not seem to be the case in your list. Sometimes it is nav aids, other times it is weapons, and other times it is communications gear. However, the aircraft seemed to remain airborne and flew normally. If the UFO wanted to actually interfere with the aircraft, why not shutdown the power generation and make the jet drop like a rock.

Actually you again try to misrepresent what my claims are. They are NOT nor have they ever been as you state. Again, you are better asking the aliens why they did not destroy the F-4s. How should I know. I have NEVER pretended to know the motivations of the aliens. You seem to find their actions unusual. You then pretend you know what motivates them and you also what “normal” behaviour is for them. What utter nonsense you come up with Astrophotographer. Woo at the highest level!

Until you can actually demonstrate Jafari's true rank at the time, I think it is in question since the reports at the time indicated he was a LT. If Jafari states he was a Major, that is not good enough when we have information that indicates his rank may have been something else. People have lied about their military service before in order to make a story better and it would not be beyond reason that Jafari may be exaggerating a bit here.

Again…you actually prefer a single newspaper account over the first hand witness account? You amaze me sometimes… (no you don’t…). I have stated that there would be NO rational reason for Jafari to lie about his rank, indeed, there are MANY reasons why he would NOT lie. I have stated them many times now. I don’t need to repeat them here. You are like a broken record at this point. Can’t you come up with ANY reasonable argument to refute the evidence in this case?

Finally, you are going to totally ignore my question to about Klass’ sources (that you have cited before and would probably like to cite Klass further if they were legitimate) aren’t you. This is because an accurate answer would place you contentions in a worse light than they already are!

 

[GeeMack]

So Rramjet, why do you suppose you're not able to convince anyone that your ignorance and incredulity are actually evidence to support your claim that aliens exist?

 

[Rramjet]

Istated:
I claim “aliens” and you rightly ask me to provide evidence for that claim.
YOU claim “mundane” and I rightly ask you to provide evidence for that claim.

I've repeated enough times WHY this is wrong. Go back and read it again if you're interested. Otherwise stop playing the ignorant.

Where? No you haven't. You haven't because you cannot refute my logic in the matter. Simple as that.

Interesting how the aliens always stay just a step ahead of human technology.

One step? Pfffhhht!

I stated:
So we have a UFO that can shapeshift, display intelligent control (flee, outrun and chase F-4s), affect its environment (disable and disrupt an F-4 as well a civialian airliner avionics), “jump” from location to location, split apart and rejoin… and you don’t consider that remarkable at all?

You don't have solid evidence of any of this. And also all of the above can be explained by human error or the technology that they had at the time.

We have first hand witness accounts describing those very things!

HOW can they ALL be explained by “human error” and “technology that they had at the time”? Of course they cannot! Go on, give it a go! Of course YOU cannot explain it either!

I'll lay 50/50 odds you don't win the lottery and I'll buy you the ticket. Name the lottery name your price.

You seem to have totally lost your grip on logic here tsig. You cannot change the odds of my winning the lottery merely on your say so. But of course, this is a typical UFO debunker statement, trying in vain to warp reality to suit their own ends! How utterly illogical can you BE? But by now of course I expect nothing else from you all… and you have just proved my expectations of you perfectly.

 

[GeeMack]

Istated: [*more irrelevant blathering snipped*]

You're off topic again, Rramjet. Exactly when do you figure to provide some evidence to support your claim that aliens exist?

 

[JCL]

So we have a UFO that can shapeshift, display intelligent control (flee, outrun and chase F-4s), affect its environment (disable and disrupt an F-4 as well a civialian airliner avionics), “jump” from location to location, split apart and rejoin… and you don’t consider that remarkable at all?

You forgot, uses radar of a Russian design.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Why don’t you ask the aliens why they only targeted potential threats to them? I am sure they could give you the answer you seek…

Hahahaha, this is hilarious.... another example of your "Argument From Ignorance" favorite fallacy.

You don't have a single bit of convincing evidence that aliens exist, and yet, you contend that they do.... hahaha, the ball is in your court, Rramjet. First, you have to introduce your alien friends to us, ....then we could ask them questions.... Burden of Proof, Rramjet!

 

[Belz...]

Istated:
I claim “aliens” and you rightly ask me to provide evidence for that claim.
YOU claim “mundane” and I rightly ask you to provide evidence for that claim.

Where? No you haven't.

Really ? Well, it's bad for you I have an hour to kill:

Your post makes no sense at all. Either you understand nothing of what I said, or you simply refuse to agree with me on any point at all.

Something "known" is something science knows exist. Now, I'm not discussing any specific case until you finally understand that "known" things are favoured over "unknown" things by default.

If you even bothered to read and understand what people write you wouldn't be battling those funky strawmen. What I'm saying is that we must favor the known over the unknown until it is shown that the known cannot account for the observation. It's a pragmatic decision, not a logical one, because otherwise we'd be chasing nonsense most of the time instead of doing actual science.

WHAT ???? I said, clearly, that since the two possible basic explanations for this observation, namely "mundane" and "alien", and discounting "we don't know", the probability that it is something already known to science (hoax, delusion, cloud, blimp, plane, etc.) is much higher than the probability that it is not, if only because we KNOW the things known to science EXIST, which is, obviously, not the case for the things NOT known to science to exist. Therefore it is YOUR burden to show that, whatever it is, it is NOT known to science. THEN, and only THEN can we focus on what it is, exactly.

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.

WE are not making an assertion.

NOBODY is claiming that it WAS a blimp, or a hoax, or whatever. I, and others, claim that you HAVE NOT shown that mundane, known-to-exist alternatives have NOT BEEN ruled out.

THINK about it. Do blimps exist, for instance ? Or do you need me to provide evidence that they do ? Plus, we KNOW that there were blimps in the general area, no matter if some operations were halted during that period. So the possibility of a blimp being the cause has NOT BEEN ruled out. That's why I don't need to make any sort of claim. I only need to show that YOUR claim has no merit.

If you can't understand this, then you don't understand the rules or evidence and burden of proof [...]

YOU make a claim, WE challenge it because YOU can't prove it despite your contention that you can, and because YOU can't dismiss the possibility of alternative possibilities which ARE NOT CLAIMS.

I wake up in the middle of the night and see a man-shaped shadow in the room. I freak out, eventually fall back to sleep, and then come to the JREF forum ranting about CIA people in my bedroom. That's claim X. The skeptics here will reason that there is no evidence for my claim, and rightly so. They say it was probably just a shadow. That's claim Y.

Do you REALLY think that they need to PROVE that it's a shadow ?

Ramjet, that is IRRELEVANT. The point is that "blimp" is a mundane explanation and "aliens" is not, making blimps (and many other mundane explanations for this observation) automatically more probable. No one here is saying that it's a shut case.

Since blimps exist, and we don't know that aliens exist, the default explanation must be a mundane one. If blimps were the only mundane explanation (they're not), then that'd be it until shown otherwise. If no mundane explanation was probable, then you're left with "unidentified", which doesn't help your case anyway. The only way out of this for you is to present evidence of aliens. WE have no such obligation.

I think you're just abusing the term "burden of proof", here. In fact, I'm pretty sure you understand what it means and I'm starting to think you're not arguing entirely honestly, here.

Enough ?

That last one, by the way, was post 524 on page 14, back on 16 October!!!

I do not believe that you can honestly claim I haven't explained this to you.

You haven't because you cannot refute my logic in the matter.

An unfalsifiable hypothesis is not a good thing.

 

[AWPrime]

I stated:
So we have a UFO that can shapeshift, display intelligent control (flee, outrun and chase F-4s), affect its environment (disable and disrupt an F-4 as well a civialian airliner avionics), “jump” from location to location, split apart and rejoin… and you don’t consider that remarkable at all?

We have first hand witness accounts describing those very things!

You see your first hand witness accounts are not all that first hand and they are surely not solid evidence.

HOW can they ALL be explained by “human error” and “technology that they had at the time”? Of course they cannot! Go on, give it a go! Of course YOU cannot explain it either!

OK.

shapeshift, [snip], “jump” from location to location, split apart and rejoin…

Observation (human) error, it quite common to see things and behavior that aren't there. Or even misreading instruments.

display intelligent control (flee, outrun and chase F-4s)

Piloted by a human or a misinterpretation of natural events.

affect its environment (disable and disrupt an F-4 as well a civialian airliner avionics),

Can be explained by it being a Fighter with a powerful EW suite or bad maintenance and the countries of the ME are quite well know for bad maintenance.


And guess what you don't have any evidence to rule these things out.

 

[GeeMack]

I do not believe that you can honestly claim I haven't explained this to you.

For him to make a claim, honestly, would require that he is capable of honesty.