UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

This is the first I've seen of the Whitesands report and it is fascinating. I will probably be fixed on it quite awhile. If a military declassified report after 12 years of being classified isn't considered evidence , a proponents efforts are ruthless and wasted on closed minds.

Evidence? Of what particular thing?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

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.

You must be kidding, right?. In case you're not, the answer to your challenge is in the 100+ pages of this very same thread. Re-read the thread and you'll find that every argument as of why UFO reports don't constitute evidence (I'd add "hard evidence") of "aliens" is in here. Go ahead.....

 

[chuck4842]

Evidence? Of what particular thing?

Of a UFO, if after photographing it, studying it, and still unable to identify it after twelve years. The "particular thing" is and will be until identified , an Unidentified Flying Object according to the DOD's now declassified report.

 

[chuck4842]

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.

LOL! I tried this actually. Not with UFOs but something similar. The protocol requires a supernatural power the applicant posseses. Or something like that, please don't overwhelm me with political correctness if you get my meaning, I'm not going to read up on the foundations legal terms. I have to say his team gave me consideration and I felt I was treated fairly while at the same time given encouragement for my endeavor. It was humbling to say the least.

 

[Stray Cat]

Whats rhe use? All any of us can do is point to links, and or websites supporting our own views, which has already been decided aren't evidence.

Not in themselves evidence no. But when a thoroughly researched website which in turn provides credible verification (maybe in the form of scans of paperwork or geographical, meteorological or chronological data which can then be examined and analysed) of the claims made by the witnesses, publishers of the said website or other people who claim to have done research on any particular case, it can be used to build a case. That is the main difference between posting a 'story' from a website and posting a 'verifiable story' from a website... see the difference?

Think of it like this:
I walk into my local police station and say "I wish to report a crime."
The policeman will no doubt want some evidence... If I tell him "Yes, the crime happened, but the only evidence of it is that it says so on my website" he is not going to launch an investigation. But if I can show him the crime scene and physical evidence that what I say happened, actually happened (maybe a broken window, receipts for stuff that's been taken etc) my story becomes verifiable.

I know about Randis college kid prank on a town and the media circus it created. But for every prank reference you post I'll just reply with a circle that isn't totally explained which is what I'd expect from a more intelligent being, and what a skeptic would say doesn't prove anything.

Just because a circle isn't explained TO YOU doesn't mean it is not explained. That would mostly indicate that you simply don't know enough about crop circles to be armed for engagement in a discussion on the subject... But if you want to give me just one example (probably the best one you can think of) that provides evidence of the existence of aliens on this planet, then by all means do so and we'll discuss it.



Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell the blood of a woo woo man.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Of a UFO, if after photographing it, studying it, and still unable to identify it after twelve years. The "particular thing" is and will be until identified , an Unidentified Flying Object according to the DOD's now declassified report.

Evidence of a UFO existing? Great. Now you just need to find evidence of someone who doesn't believe UFOs exist, and you can run and show it to them!

(How many times have we done "nobody here denies the existence of UFOs" in this thread?)

 

[Stray Cat]

Of a UFO, if after photographing it, studying it, and still unable to identify it after twelve years. The "particular thing" is and will be until identified , an Unidentified Flying Object according to the DOD's now declassified report.

And as you pointed out, the 'U' in UFO stands for UNIDENTIFIED, not Alien... as that would start with an 'A'.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I can see a real "lack of interest" within MUFON and may I post a link to their list of board members http://www.mufon.com/board.htm

And another link of about 20 organizations who investigate ufos: http://www.mufon.com/otherufo.htm

Did I just "debunk" you by exposing your false claim, or are you about to discredit all of these organizations?

How many scientists are involved with MUFON? Can you name them? How much of their time to the devote to studying UFOs and what projects are they working on to do so?

I can give you probable answers for MUFON:

I would say no more than 20 scientists who write papers, dabble in the subject, serve as some sort of figurehead, offer opinions on investigations. There are no established projects other than STAR team investigations, which are manned by "trained investigators" (trained by MUFON - some are good and some are bad - the standards shift depending on the state organization who trained them). I doubt that there are no full time scientists studying the UFO problem in a capacity like one would expect from a scientific investigation.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

I challenge you to provide one well documented case that supports your claims about UFOs that we can focus our discussion upon. At least that will get the focus back on what you qualify as evidence.

 

[Marduk]

Of a UFO, if after photographing it, studying it, and still unable to identify it after twelve years. The "particular thing" is and will be until identified , an Unidentified Flying Object according to the DOD's now declassified report.

chuck do you understand that some things on earth (or anywhere else) will always be unexplained, that we can't explain them is not the enigma, that people who can't understand them would suddenly jump to an explanation that has no supporting evidence is.

Say a glowing ball of light is seen in the sky which exhibits a weird manoeuvering capability, Rramjet would always claim its an aliens spaceship as it cannot be explained by our science, but this is the problem, our science is not that advanced yet, we just think it is, so did the victorians, so did the Romans so did the Sumerians, etc etc etc
maybe in a few hundred years time we will understand all aerial phenomena in our skies and then we will know if the object has a very mundane and easily understandable explanation, maybe its an electrical phenomena, maybe its something actually alive that floats on thermals in the upper atmosphere and only becomes visible in august or maybe the observer really did just have a brain fart. What we should not do is pretend that because we can't explain it we maybe could say it was aliens just to have an answer.
That would lead to stagnation of the subject and is not very scientific

I hope you can understand this with your common sense, it doesn't need an education, Rramjet after 111 pages still doesnt understand. That says more about him than it does about Aliens

 

[Astrophotographer]

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

"Unknown"/"insufficient information".

 

[Sledge]

Rramjet, what do you think your evidence tells us and why do you think that?

 

[Marduk]

Rramjet, what do you think your evidence tells us and why do you think that?

Rramjet
Last Activity: Yesterday 02:10 PM

 

[Rramjet]

Let me try to define “extraordinary evidence” using penguins. (This is a story I told my children when they were about 4 and 6 respectively to explain the experiments I carried out to qualify as a vet)

Okay…

Penguins do not fly, we have observed and noted this often, right up close sometimes, and often photographed them in focus. We have examined their skeletons and seen that their bones are heavier than other birds, etc.
We know that they do not fly – they might have done in the long distant past but not now.

Yes, we have perfectly usual, mundane, ordinary evidence that penguins do not fly…

And, we also know that ‘no’, they did/do not look up at the helicopters/planes flying in the skies in the Falkland Islands and topple over as they flew/fly over, that was/is an urban myth, and ‘yes’ “March of the Penguins” was awful!. We can cite the above as “ordinary evidence” of penguins not being able to fly.

I don’t know what “urban myths” have to do with “ordinary evidence”… but carry on…

Now, were I still not convinced, I could take 18,000 penguins to the top of a skyscraper and throw 9,000 over of the top, one by one, allowing the other 9,000 to do what they liked, to see the results. The predicted mass of tissues and blood at the bottom, would indeed be deemed as “extraordinary evidence” that penguins cannot and do not fly.

No this IS where you DO depart from logic and rationality. The ACT of you throwing penguins off a building might be extraordinary (barbaric, cruel, pointless, totally unsuitable for use in a children’s exemplary story, etc), but as EVIDENCE that penguins do not fly, it is quite ordinary. They don’t have the physical capability to fly (you have already established that - and their wings are simply not up to the job) and gravity does its usual job. The “mess” at the bottom, while gory (and again totally unsuitable to use in an example for young and vulnerable children) is not particularly extraordinary given what we know about height, the inability to fly and gravity.

You have not even come CLOSE to defining “extraordinary evidence” and you have frightened small children (and in my opinion possibly contributing to their nightmares and mistrust of you) along the way!

Having looked at your posts, you started by making an extraordinary claim, but have not even got to the level of “ordinary evidence” of the penguin kind. So the debate of “extraordinary evidence” is simply diversion.

Oh… so now your horror story is actually ““ordinary evidence” of the penguin kind”…? What was the point of the gory images then?

Please stick to the OP and show us evidence of aliens, or abide by the 3 rules which are pretty Emmental(ry).

I will (and am) “sticking” to the OP – RESEARCH and EVIDENCE. Research includes discussion of UFO related topics that directly bear on the arguments against them and the evidence needed to convince people of them. Sagan used “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” to try and make the case that claims of UFOs need “extraordinary evidence” to support them. If people believe Sagan’s claim to be true, then it is DIRECTLY relevant to my presentation of the evidence (for UFOs and “aliens” - and please don’t mindlessly repeat the mantra “No-one here is denying the existence of UFOs” – you know what I mean).

I therefore contend that unless anyone CAN define “extraordinary evidence” then the Sagan’s claim is a nonsense claim and that the evidence requirements for UFOs and “aliens” should be that type of evidence we utilise to establish the existence of ANYTHING that science cases to research. Sagan was trying to change the rules of scientific research and THAT is illogical.

And scintillation is one of the effects that makes people think they are seeing these things happen. It causes the star to fluctuate in apparent size, flicker, dance, and do all sorts of things. If you have ever watched people react to such scintillation effects, you might understand this. There are several examples in the Condon report.

IF you believe that “scintillation” can cause an observed “jumping” of locations of a star (or planet) and a “splitting apart” of same – then PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. Merely repeating the same unfounded assertion over and over does NOT make it true (Which examples in Condon?)

My point is that such things must be considered a rival hypothesis. It is not an attack to propose this as a possibility since it IS possible. By resorting to calling them attacks, you are making an emotional appeal and not even considering that it might have happened that way.

Of course you a free to mount ad hominem attacks, no-one has said you cannot. I am merely pointing out Hendry’s assessment that if THAT is the ONLY thing the UFO debunkers can bring against a UFO report, then it was an indication of a GOOD case. Nothing more, nothing less.

You have attacked Condon's credibility/integrity as a scientist and have distorted what has been written by him in order to suit your own purpose. You imply that he was lying to the public when he wrote his conclusions.

I have attacked Condon’s credibility and I have supplied good reasons (the evidence) as to why I have done so. I merely question his credibility. If people then independently conclude from that he was “lying” then that is their OWN conclusion. I have never stated he was lying, nor have I deliberately set out to imply anything of the sort.

What evidence has been presented that a person is reliable and well respected? Do we have the personnel records of the trooper? No. All we have claims that, because he was a trooper, then he must be well respected. There have been plenty of dishonest people in the world that were well-respected. Many politicians (including presidents) come to mind.

” Investigations occurred immediately, both by the sheriff's department and by investigators from the Center for UFO Studies. The police determined that Johnson's car travelled about 950 feet after the first damage occurred. No cause could be found for the event, including collision with another vehicle or a low-flying plane, a hoax on the part of Johnson, or anything else. In addition, experts from Ford Motors (the vehicle was a 1977 Ford LTD) and a team of engineers from Honeywell examined various portions of the damage.

(…)

Frankly, it is one of the most puzzling incidents in the history of ufology. This strong statement is partly because of the fact that the case involves a man who has been described as "the perfect witness." At the time, Johnson was a Deputy Sheriff in Marshall County, Minnesota, and is a trained observer as well as an experienced police officer.

(…)

He also was asked if the procedure of regressive hypnosis had ever been suggested to him. He replied that the National Enquirer had asked him to submit to a regression, and offered to pay him for the exclusive rights of the results. He had rejected their offer. He was then asked if he would agree to a hypnotic regression with a clinical hypnotist, for research purposes, and not for publication. He said no, and added that he was "not curious" about what had happened to him that morning.

(…)

When Val Johnson was found by Everett Doolittle, he was slumped forward over the steering wheel and in mild shock. ”​

(http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm#cr)

“After interviewing numerous people in the Warren area who knew Johnson and spoke highly of his character, Hendry concluded that Johnson had not hoaxed the event.

(…)

In September 1980 Klass debated the case with Allan Hendry at a "UFO Symposium" held at the Smithsonian Institution. According to Klass, he had uncovered eyewitness testimony that "Deputy Val Johnson...likes to play practical jokes, especially late in the evening when he gets a little bored, as I learned...by talking with some of the people who have worked with him and know him very well." (UFO Book, 362) Hendry sarcastically replied: "I think that the sheriff and the six associates of Val Johnson were lying when they assured me of the integrity of their coworker. I think that Val Johnson is such a practical joker that he deliberately injured his eyes - as judged by two doctors - and he deliberately entered a phony state of shock for the ambulance driver who removed him from the scene of the accident." (Phil Klass vs. the UFO Promoters, Jerome Clark) According to Clark, Klass privately told Hendry after their debate that "everyone he interviewed in the course of his inquiry into the case spoke highly of Val Johnson."​

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

Jerome Clarke:

“On October 10, 1980, I spoke with Marshall County Sheriff Dennis Brekke who was Johnson's superior at the time of the episode. (Johnson is now chief of police at Oslo, Minn.) Brekke dismissed Klass' "practical joke" theory as absurd, saying Johnson was "too sincere" a man to create a hoax of this magnitude. He had spent time alone with Johnson not long after the incident and seen a man so distraught, confused and frightened that any suspicion of "acting" was out of the question. Nothing he uncovered during his department's investigation gave him the slightest reason to doubt Johnson's word. Klass, of course, had never met Johnson."​

(http://www.nicap.org/klassvufo.htm)

…I could go on, but you get the picture…you asked for the evidence, I have provided it…

I stated:
” No, scientists are NOT afraid of studying UFOs, it is just that in light of the negative conclusions from Condon et al., they cannot (or rarely can) get their proposals accepted to obtain the necessary funding to DO so!”

That is nonsense and you know it. If you think that scientists would not attack the problem if they felt it was worthy of their time, then you are seriously out of touch. The problem is, and contrary to what you claim, the data is just plain awful and the approach to such a problem is not easy. So far, UFO groups and people like yourself have been proclaiming this was a great thing to study for over 50 years. However, the "evidence" usually falls apart under close examination. Look at your presentation here. Not many people that I can see are buying into it.

More are doing so day by day Astrophotographer…

And it is NOT nonsense to claim that there is a lack of funding for serious UFO research and the reasons for this are clear. For example:

“Regrettably, while public donations are most welcome, public donations have usually been barely adequate to maintain an office and pay for some clerical help, but—with rare exceptions—not enough to pay full-time investigators. And almost no grant money is available for scientists and other professionals to do research projects. The basic reason why no adequate funding is available is that only a tiny minority of professional scientists and academics consider UFOs to be a legitimate topic for scientific study. Most are convinced that UFO reports are only a miscellany of mistaken observations of prosaic objects or phenomena, and all the controversy that surrounds them is based on nothing but a popular myth. At bottom, the pervasive problem is the failure of important opinion makers in society to recognize that the skeptical position on UFOs is not well founded; in fact, it is strongly contradicted by a large body of well-established facts (see the white paper on skepticism). As a consequence, all those who study UFOs seriously do so as an avocation—an unpaid activity we pursue as professionally as possible, given the lack of resources. "​

(http://www.cufos.org/YOU_WANT_TO_BE_A_UFOLOGIST.pdf)

Nope. Just don't want to keep repeating myself since you are willing to listen to reason or consider the other side of the argument. It becomes a waste of my time.

Why then DO you keep restating the same old position while continuing to ignore the research I present. For example, you make a claim like (the above that) scientists would study UFOs if they thought it worthwhile. I countered that with a claim – supported by evidence – that funding is just not available to do so… and you IGNORE that claim to restate your original position… this IS repeating yourself Astrophotographer… why don’t you debate the contentions I give you in rebuttal to your positions instead of merely repeating your position over and over… is it because you CANNOT rationally or logically rebut my position?

To evaluate what happened to Cash, you have to know what her condition was before the event and what the actual conditions were when she was admitted. What you want to do is have us draw the conclusion that conditions were caused by the UFO. However, my question is was she exposed to something prior to the event and what the test results actually revealed. Without the records, it is impossible to say. Since you are using the symptoms as evidence, we have to have a complete picture. Otherwise, the case presentation is "incomplete".

Here you go again, merely restating an earlier position even after I have commented on it. You DO NOT address my comments at all in ANY logical or rational way. Instead you keep repeating your position like a broken record – as if mere repetition will make your assertions true… this is NOT a logical debating strategy Astrophotographer… but of course, history has shown us that when you DO enter into a debate with me… you lose! So now you refuse to debate me! Ha!

You DO however pay lip service to my previous comments (in your questioning if Betty Cash might not have exposed prior to the event – and that is a legitimate question), but you bury that in your restated position, as if it was NOT a question you would actually like me to answer… because you KNOW the answer don’t you… All the evidence points to the fact that she was exposed at the time of the UFO sighting… and if she was NOT exposed then… HOW did she get radiation burns that put her into a virtual coma by the next day and in hospital three days after that with burns, eye damage, hair loss, diarrhoea and vomiting? How DO you explain that Astrophotographer? You dance all around the subject, but NEVER get around to addressing the actual facts (the evidence) in the case.

Gee, didn't you read what I stated? I stated this was not that good an explanation but I liked the idea. From what I understand it was the surveyor attached to a bell helicopter that was had the round bubble canopy. I also pointed towards Qunitanillas personal comments on the case in his manuscript.

”…this was not a good explanation but you LIKED the idea…”?! Lonnie Zamora describes a smooth, white, egg shaped object with six legs. I asked you to describe the “surveyor” to me. Of COURSE you refuse to do so… because you know that the surveyor (WITH attached helicopter no less !) bears absolutely NO resemblance to what Zamora described!

Why do you use the word "debunker"? A debunker is one who exposes false claims. If we are exposing false claims then I assume that is a good thing.

If that is what you are doing, then why do you object to the term? I use the terms “UFO debunker” and “UFO proponent” to describe the people on opposite sides of the argument… what terms would you like me to use (remembering that since BOTH sides would claim to be skeptics and scientists, those terms are ruled out).

The evidence is not compelling. Otherwise, you would have hundreds of scientists working on the problem. Their lack of interest in the subject indicates something.

So you don’t want to repeat your unfounded belief based assertions? Bunk! See the quote above about scientists, funding and UFO research.

 

[Rramjet]

chuck do you understand that some things on earth (or anywhere else) will always be unexplained, that we can't explain them is not the enigma, that people who can't understand them would suddenly jump to an explanation that has no supporting evidence is.

Say a glowing ball of light is seen in the sky which exhibits a weird manoeuvering capability, Rramjet would always claim its an aliens spaceship as it cannot be explained by our science, but this is the problem, our science is not that advanced yet, we just think it is, so did the victorians, so did the Romans so did the Sumerians, etc etc etc
maybe in a few hundred years time we will understand all aerial phenomena in our skies and then we will know if the object has a very mundane and easily understandable explanation, maybe its an electrical phenomena, maybe its something actually alive that floats on thermals in the upper atmosphere and only becomes visible in august or maybe the observer really did just have a brain fart. What we should not do is pretend that because we can't explain it we maybe could say it was aliens just to have an answer.
That would lead to stagnation of the subject and is not very scientific

I hope you can understand this with your common sense, it doesn't need an education, Rramjet after 111 pages still doesnt understand. That says more about him than it does about Aliens

An appeal to unknown "aerial phenomena" is a worse position to take than UFO proponents who claim ET. LOL. At least the UFO proponents have eyewitness testimony, photos, radar, physical trace evidence, etc to support their claims. The "unknown aerial phenomena" claim has NO supporting evidence at ALL!

 

[Sledge]

An appeal to unknown "aerial phenomena" is a worse position to take than UFO proponents who claim ET. LOL. At least the UFO proponents have eyewitness testimony, photos, radar, physical trace evidence, etc to support their claims. The "unknown aerial phenomena" claim has NO supporting evidence at ALL!

Goddamn, I nearly snorted lemonade out of my nose.

 

[Rramjet]

I challenge you to provide one well documented case that supports your claims about UFOs that we can focus our discussion upon. At least that will get the focus back on what you qualify as evidence.

Well sure... How about this one. It is well documented AND recent!

O’Hare – Chicago International Airport UFO Sighting (7th Nov. 2006)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf)

 

[Marduk]

An appeal to unknown "aerial phenomena" is a worse position to take than UFO proponents who claim ET. LOL.

Rramjet logic again huh, "Unknown" is in fact the correct military appelation for something unidentified, it is the opposite of "known".

At least the UFO proponents have eyewitness testimony, photos, radar, physical trace evidence, etc to support their claims. The "unknown aerial phenomena" claim has NO supporting evidence at ALL!

UFO proponents have evidence to support UFOs. This is the dictionary definition of the word "Unidentified"

1. unidentified - not yet identified; "an unidentified species"; "an unidentified witness" unknown - not known; "an unknown amount"; "an unknown island"; "an unknown writer"; "an unknown source"
2. unidentified - being or having an unknown or unnamed source

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unidentified
seems all that evidence supports my position better than it does yours eh
gonna have to claim that English is not your first language to save face on that one aren't you mr bleever
not that you have any face after being busted so badly with your new "friend" who is uneducated and also "believes" without evidence by his own admission, don't see any fireworks yet either, damp squib was it ?

so sorry please play again

 

[RoboTimbo]

Well sure... How about this one. It is well documented AND recent!

O’Hare – Chicago International Airport UFO Sighting (7th Nov. 2006)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf)

Experts at the FAA say it was weather phenomena. What particular thing did you want to believe this UFO to be?

If an object is unidentified, HOW can it BE a particular thing?

 

[Sledge]

Ok, I've calmed down and stopped laughing. Let me check I understand Rramjet's position correctly. It's perfectly reasonable to think that UFOs are alien spacecraft, but people who think UFOs are in fact unidentified flying objects are going in the face of all reason. Is that it?