UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

What kind of evidence do you expect me to provide you from my computer? If we were on the phone discussing this , you'd say "all he can do is talk"

Ask Rramjet, it was his idea.

 

[carlitos]

chuck - you are cracking me up, man.

If your evidence for aliens is on paper, scan it or post a footnote.
If your evidence for aliens is virtual, link it.
If your evidence for aliens doesn't exist, carry on.
ETA - If your evidence for aliens is physical, take a video or still photo.

bufalo mozzarella

 

[Marduk]

What kind of evidence do you expect me to provide you from my computer? If we were on the phone discussing this , you'd say "all he can do is talk" Also it was a simple unnoticed typo when I entered, I corrected with reply, sue me, arrest me, call your congressman.

Chuck its not difficult to find convincing evidence of something if you look hard enough, just today I broke a story about a genuine ufo conspiracy and have linked to evidence that proves it. I may be the first person in history who's actually done that

I have to thank you for it really, if you hadn't posted your ad hominems at me earlier I would never have made the lucky break that revealed it to me

thanks buddy

 

[chuck4842]

Chuck its not difficult to find convincing evidence of something if you look hard enough, just today I broke a story about a genuine ufo conspiracy and have linked to evidence that proves it. I may be the first person in history who's actually done that

I have to thank you for it really, if you hadn't posted your ad hominems at me earlier I would never have made the lucky break that revealed it to me

thanks buddy

Hey thanks dude! Finally I get some credit. Maybe these earthlings are worthy(humour attempt, I know tongue in cheek)

 

[Paul2]

Ok then
the official rules

1. Replying to waste of time posts from Rramjet is no longer allowed
2. Posting when Rramjet posts some significant and credible evidence of Alien existence inside the earths atmosphere is allowed
3. Rramjet is not allowed to post to anyone unless they specifically address him or his posts will simply be ignored

Agreed. Gosh, wasn't it fun while it lasted?

 

[Marduk]

Hey thanks dude! Finally I get some credit. Maybe these earthlings are worthy

You sir have a monotheistic Godlike intelligence vis a vis the evidence for his existence

 

[Rramjet]

I challenge the UFO debunkers posting in this thread who believe that UFO case reports do not constitute evidence, to go ahead and argue your case as to WHY you do not think that UFO case reports represent evidence. It might even be an interesting debate.

Merely repeating the tired old mantra "Rramjet has presented no evidence" is just repeating ad nauseum a mere belief statement. I am trying to discuss research and evidence here, not belief statements. Research and evidence - Science and logic - that is what I am wanting here, but it seems that so far, very little of either has been forthcoming from the UFO debunking JREF members posting to this thread.

And credit where credit is due, at least Astrophotographer, in his own way, DOES try to mount a case based on the research and evidence.

 

[Marduk]

I challenge the UFO debunkers posting in this thread who believe that UFO case reports do not constitute evidence, to go ahead and argue your case as to WHY you do not think that UFO case reports represent evidence. It might even be an interesting debate.

There are no UFO debunkers in this thread Rramjet, your constant inability to understand this basic premise is starting to get irritating. All we've seen recently is evidence of your hidden agenda with Chuck

Do you have any evidence of aliens yet or not ?

 

[fromdownunder]

I challenge the UFO debunkers posting in this thread who believe that UFO case reports do not constitute evidence, to go ahead and argue your case as to WHY you do not think that UFO case reports represent evidence. It might even be an interesting debate.

Well, as somebody who accepts that UFO's exist, I am willing to state at this point that UFO evidence is evidence for UFOs, and depending upon the quality of the sighting requires an explanation as to what it actually is. And also depending upon the sighting, it requires evidence as to what it actually is not.

I might add that I have yet to see any response on this thread who denies the existance of UFO's, so we seem to be back on Page 1. Well, that was easy.

Norm

 

[Access Denied]

I thought the Zamora case had been dealt with in Nick Pope's book and was apparently cleared up as far back as 2000.

You mean Nick Cook’s book The Hunt for Zero Point? (I always get those two confused) If so, I haven’t read it but I saw his special on the History Channel a while back and I have to say I wasn’t impressed. He’s on the right track of course (terrestrial origin) but in my opinion he goes of the rails with the “secret captured Nazi saucer technology” angle… suffice to say if “flying saucers” (or “anti-gravity”) were a good idea, all aircraft would be built the way by now.

To summarise, experimental tests for the Surveyormoon lander were being carried out in the area at the time of the sightings,

The only link I can find is this one http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm

Yes, Dave Thomas’ article is compelling but like he (and Tim) said, far from conclusive. I was prompted to do some original research into that angle a couple of years ago and I found both some interesting contradictions and corroboration as well as some unusual “anomalies” in the initial investigation by the FBI and Army that ultimately led me to conclude there was a “genuine” cover-up involved… although, ironically, in this case, it doesn’t appear to involve the Air Force and in particular, the head of Project Blue Book (Major Hector Quintanilla) at the time. Anyway, it’s much too complicated to go into here and I’ve yet to publish my complete findings, primarily due to a lack of sufficient motivation, so take that for what it’s worth…

 

[Rramjet]

There are no UFO debunkers in this thread Rramjet, your constant inability to understand this basic premise is starting to get irritating. All we've seen recently is evidence of your hidden agenda with Chuck

Do you have any evidence of aliens yet or not ?

BTW, a debunker is somebody who exposes false claims. If you want to state that I am exposing false claims, then I accept the "debunker" label. However, if you are using it as an epithet then you are totally off base and being far from scientific or reasonable.

What epithet would you apply to the "beings" seen in the Father Gill and Lonnie Zamora cases then? If not "alien", then what?

 

[Stray Cat]

also in reference to your supposed ooparts
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164388
read post 2 please

And also Chuck4842 - Seeing as you brought it up, if you want to get tangled in a discussion about Crop Circles (probably not in this thread as it would be a derail*), take note of my speciality:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5498740&postcount=45

* It would be viewed as a derail because Crop Circles have NEVER provided any evidence of Aliens, which is the topic of this thread.

 

[Stray Cat]

What epithet would you apply to the "beings" seen in the Father Gill and Lonnie Zamora cases then? If not "alien", then what?

Information inconclusive... therefore, if there were 'beings' seen (which has not been established), they would have to remain unidentified.

 

[Marduk]

What epithet would you apply to the "beings" seen in the Father Gill and Lonnie Zamora cases then? If not "alien", then what?

I would apply the epithet "unproven" and "unevidenced" and unidentified, wouldn't you ?
or are you actually claiming now that Aliens are flying around in Blimp shaped craft, can you attest to the evidence of Blimp shaped alien ships on planet Earth at that time or any within easy travelling distance ?

see as far as I know the only Alien Blimps being used during that period were all on the other side of the universe. They did have some in that area a few years before but they had been decomissioned, besides all alien blimp ships have "gay rodeo" printed on the side in big black letters so this couldn't have been one of them anyway


Irony is lost on you isn't it Rroger

 

[amb]

Does the Million Dollar Challenge cover ufology as well? I would assume it does, so why not submit evidence to the Foundation. There's a million bucks there waiting for the claimant if he/she has proof.

 

[Rramjet]

You mean Nick Cook’s book The Hunt for Zero Point? (I always get those two confused) If so, I haven’t read it but I saw his special on the History Channel a while back and I have to say I wasn’t impressed. He’s on the right track of course (terrestrial origin) but in my opinion he goes of the rails with the “secret captured Nazi saucer technology” angle… suffice to say if “flying saucers” (or “anti-gravity”) were a good idea, all aircraft would be built the way by now.


Yes, Dave Thomas’ article is compelling but like he (and Tim) said, far from conclusive. I was prompted to do some original research into that angle a couple of years ago and I found both some interesting contradictions and corroboration as well as some unusual “anomalies” in the initial investigation by the FBI and Army that ultimately led me to conclude there was a “genuine” cover-up involved… although, ironically, in this case, it doesn’t appear to involve the Air Force and in particular, the head of Project Blue Book (Major Hector Quintanilla) at the time. Anyway, it’s much too complicated to go into here and I’ve yet to publish my complete findings, primarily due to a lack of sufficient motivation, so take that for what it’s worth…

Hearsay is “compelling” to UFO debunkers now?!

(Stanford’s thinks…, Phil Klass makes a case…, Quintanilla looked into the possibility… Robinson suggested… Moore thinks… and Moore’s colleague heard from a friend that…)

Oh yeah… compelling indeed! How is it I wonder that UFO debunkers demand evidence at the highest level (even an “extraordinary” amount of it!) from UFO proponents yet when it comes to finding a “compelling” argument to support their OWN case… ANY old hearsay will do! NOT even testimony from witnesses, or quotes from the researchers, just hearsay summaries of what someone might have written about a friend who told them… wow!

Then we end with a claim of the discovery of a “cover-up” being the explanation for the case - but instead of providing evidence for THAT claim, we have “ Anyway, it’s much too complicated to go into here and I’ve yet to publish my complete findings…”

Oh perleeease….!

 

[Furcifer]

I challenge the UFO debunkers posting in this thread who believe that UFO case reports do not constitute evidence, to go ahead and argue your case as to WHY you do not think that UFO case reports represent evidence. It might even be an interesting debate.

Merely repeating the tired old mantra "Rramjet has presented no evidence" is just repeating ad nauseum a mere belief statement. I am trying to discuss research and evidence here, not belief statements. Research and evidence - Science and logic - that is what I am wanting here, but it seems that so far, very little of either has been forthcoming from the UFO debunking JREF members posting to this thread.

And credit where credit is due, at least Astrophotographer, in his own way, DOES try to mount a case based on the research and evidence.

I'm just curious if you're aware that you sound like a cut and paste from ufoskeptic.org? I just stumbled on that site and noticed a striking similarity to everything you say. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it suggests to me you haven't formulated much of your own opinion.

 

[Cuddles]

Does the Million Dollar Challenge cover ufology as well?

Not really. From rule 2 of the challenge:

Anecdotal accounts or records of previous events are not accepted nor considered.

There was at least one UFO claim accepted for the challenge, but that was a claim that the applicant was able to summon UFOs to appear at will (a test never took place since the applicant insisted he be allowed to bring armed mercenaries). Claims like that seem rather unusual though, and aren't really in line with regular UFOlogy of the kind Rramjet preaches, where the best evidence consists of "someone claims to have seen something they didn't recognise 50 years ago".

 

[Jocce]

Finally, this is NOT an “off topic” exploration as some UFO debunkers are now trying to claim. It goes to the very heart of the UFO debunker argument against UFOs being unidentifiable in mundane terms. They seem to require that UFO proponents supply “extraordinary evidence” for their claims. I am simply pointing out that this is an impossible requirement to fulfil if we cannot define “extraordinary evidence!

Never mind that then. Just provide more and better evidence.

 

[Jocce]

Other than testimony, what other evidence would be deemed acceptable?

If I claimed I was able to shapeshift into a unicorn, would a blurry photo of a horselike formation satisfy you and invest in my world tour? We split 30/70.

Like ancient technology, the Bahgdad battery, the Crystal skulls, the pyramids? The Dropa stones.

Maybe, just maybe you should reserch this stuff a little more before you post something else?