UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Patricio Elicer]

Yes, Rramjet, your best case..... please!

 

[GeeMack]

Yes, Rramjet, your best case..... please!

​

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa Neto walks into a bar in the U.S. The first thing he sees is a beautiful woman, eight feet tall.
He immediately says "Take me to your ladder!"

She, puzzled: "Don't you mean, take me to your leader?"

He, leering: "No, take me to your ladder, we'll see your leader later!"

I was expecting an Uranus joke...

 

[Patricio Elicer]

​

You see, I still give him the benefit of doubt

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, I'm willing to drop the discussion about your lying if you will present your best case for discussion.

 

[Access Denied]

In the NARCAP report the witness’ names were withheld - as is standard practice of all scientific research reports unless the witnesses agree to their names being made public.

There’s nothing “scientific” about the NARCAP report, it’s nothing more than the hand waving of a series of conflicting anecdotal accounts obtained anonymously into “evidence”… in science your “data” must be shared openly so that others may independently replicate it in order for your conclusions to be considered credible. If the “witnesses” are only willing to be cross-examined by “sympathetic” UFO=Aliens proponents then excuse me for not taking them seriously…

However we DO have a list of their occupations and locations at the time of the incident. According to the report there were eight UAE employee witnesses identified (p.6) and at least one passenger waiting in the terminal building (p.20). Only four of the UAE employees knew each other (A, D, E & F - p. 22)

Sounds “impressive” until you break it down into what those eight “witness” accounts actually represent…

A. Anonymous UFO report submitted to NUFORC.
B. Anonymous account given to author of NARCAP report.
C. Hearsay account from witness B, did not want to be interviewed.
D. Anonymous UFO report submitted to NUFORC.
E. Hearsay account from witness D.
F. Hearsay account from witness D, dismissed it as a bird.
G. Hearsay account from witness H, did not want to be interviewed.
H. Anonymous account given in interview with reporter.
I. Hearsay from witness B, could not be located for an interview.

A & D who knew each other are the one who started it all and the “waiting passenger” first surfaced by posting her account anonymously on a UFO forum and is widely regarded as a hoax. (she endorsed one of the hoaxed photos) Witness A is also believed to have posted anonymously on that same UFO forum where a number of hoaxed photos of the “object” were posted and promoted. Allegedly G & H were pilot and copilot in a plane on the ground. The pilot (Captain) G did not come forward.

Yes, you are right, I was confusing it with another conversation in the tower tapes… sorry about that. Apologies for the confusion.

No problem.

Zamora could certainly see well enough without his glasses:

Whatever you say…

I suppose that would explain why he thought it looked like an “overturned car” too.

I think you have no idea what this research is telling you. Again it is NOT telling you that instantaneous and complete deafness occurs only to recover seconds later to complete normality!

The research did not tell me this…

Zamora is stating that their shape was normal, but that he noticed however that they were smaller than normal, and so - “possibly they were small adults or large kids.” It is NOT the small stature that he is trying to come to grips with, it is the explanation for the observed small stature. How does he explain the small stature? “…possibly they were small adults or large kids.”! To put it another way (in case you have not got it yet). The “possibly” does not refer to the stature of the beings, that is taken as a given in his perception of them (as small), it simply refers to the explanation for the small stature – “…possibly they were small adults or large kids.”

Sorry, can’t decipher the word salad… so what are you trying to say? The possibility of them being small makes them small and rules out the possibility of them being normal sized even though he admits he was too far away to tell for sure?

(yes or no please)

Also, you do realize he had a “thing” about kids playing pranks and was in fact chasing one before this happened right?

The perpetrator of abuse is first explained in psychology as abusing because they feel threatened. Do my comments and statements threaten you Access Denied? Or is it the evidence I am presenting?

Neither… I find you mildly entertaining and a perfect learning opportunity for others.

Now, about your best case… which one is it going to be?

 

[Astrophotographer]

He’s not so why are you continuing to badger him? Skeptics are entitled to have a difference of opinion you know. Some of our fellow skeptics favor the balloon hypothesis, some the hoax hypothesis, while others are simply on the fence awaiting further evidence… so what?

One thing we can all agree on though is it’s not evidence of aliens. The burden of proof is on you to prove it is, not us to prove it isn’t…

Back in a few.

While I do not fully support the idea, I am willing to give it a chance. Rramjet, in his infinite scientific wisdom, has rejected it outright without even examining the matter beyond what he thinks the configuration looked like. I want to see the helicopter configuration first to see if there is a chance that it might have looked "odd" enough to see a potential mistake. Looking at some of the other test fixtures they used in one of the documents you provided was interesting. My curiousity is there. I THOUGHT THAT is what the scientific method was about. The open dismissal of a hypothesis in favor of another without doing research into the matter is just not being scientific. We also do not know what Zamora actually saw. We only have a representation of what he thinks he saw.

 

[Access Denied]

I want to see the helicopter configuration first to see if there is a chance that it might have looked "odd" enough to see a potential mistake. Looking at some of the other test fixtures they used in one of the documents you provided was interesting.

Me too. There’s a slight possibility based on the reading I’ve done they may have outfitted it with an aeroshell of some sort to reduce aerodynamic effects in order to better simulate conditions on the Moon. (lack of an atmosphere) By the way, here’s a better pic of the T-2N landing by itself…


Photo courtesy of NASA.

One particularly crazy idea I had was the balloon with the T-2N got away from them and they chased it down with a helicopter and activated the release before it got over Socorro and then picked it up after it landed...

My curiousity is there. I THOUGHT THAT is what the scientific method was about. The open dismissal of a hypothesis in favor of another without doing research into the matter is just not being scientific. We also do not know what Zamora actually saw. We only have a representation of what he thinks he saw.

Agreed, nor would it be scientific of me to declare the case solved… in my mind it remains an “Unidentified Terrestrial Object”.

What really piqued my interest was the discovery that evidently Quintanilla was not informed of the ongoing Surveyor testing at White Sands.

 

[Astrophotographer]

One particularly crazy idea I had was the balloon with the T-2N got away from them and they chased it down with a helicopter and activated the release before it got over Socorro and then picked it up after it landed...

I guess that is possible. After all, Zamora stated the object looked like a balloon. It is so hard to determine what he could have seen since we only have one eyewitness to rely upon. It is one data point that is affected by the individuals interpretation of what he saw. As R.V. Jones once wrote:

it also illustrated a more general point witnesses were usually right when they said that something had happened at a particular place, although they could be wildly wrong about what had happened

http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/appndx-v.htm

 

[Access Denied]

I guess that is possible. After all, Zamora stated the object looked like a balloon.

Yep, that's what I'm thinking… perhaps he saw the balloon continuing on it’s way (hence the silence with the added factor of possible TTS) and lost track of the helicopter leaving with Surveyor after they picked it up (heading back to WSPG which is in a different direction from where he saw the “object” going… with the prevailing wind) during the time he was running away from it? Or something like that… in other words, perhaps there were essentially two “UFOs” and he simply became confused by it all in his “excitement”?

That would also explain why he was unable to see anything above the flame when he first saw and heard it landing while he was chasing the car… perhaps he saw Surveyor landing by itself after it was separated from the balloon higher up and the helicopter was out of his field of view? (after all he was in his car)

[shrugs]

Who knows?

 

[Marduk]

Rramjet, I'm willing to drop the discussion about your lying if you will present your best case for discussion.

Thats been done, the first case he presented was supposed to be the best case
you may remember how that turned out, it wasn't a blimp and it didn't have gay rodeo on the side

 

[Almo]

Hi Tapio -thank you.

Ah yes... "THE" most convincing case... But you see, That is the problem entirely. It is the "weight of evidence" that does it. Just as in any other broader scientific endeavour, we cannot rely on a single instance to prove the hypothesis - we must have a more.

When we did the Michelson-Morley experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment), it was a very convincing single refutation of the idea that light was a wave in a medium called the Ether.

This led Einstein to the Theory of Special Relativity. If there were just one instance of a UFO sighting that had the kind of power the MM experiment had, this "weight of evidence" idea wouldn't be necessary.

What you have with UFOs is a whole load of evidence that isn't evidence. Adding it all up still yields nothing.

But as I am wont to say, I have personally done the MM experiment, and I know that it yields the results the textbooks say it does. I have no belief or faith in its results; I have repeated the experiment, and gotten exactly the same result everyone else reports when they do it. That is how science progresses: by making testable, repeatable predictions.

 

[Rramjet]

Lots of unidentified people walk into bars.

100% of them aren't aliens.

Obviously a joke, right Rr?

According to Rrogic^tm, you have to prove each and every one of them is not alien.

So now I understand why you don’t seem to understand the importance of the cases I am presenting.

If an “unidentified” person walked into a bar, and they look and act like any other human in that bar, then we would have no reason to assume they were anything other than human.

However, if they started floating near the ceiling, disappearing from one end of the bar to suddenly appear at the other with no intermediary steps, or moving across the room without moving their arms or legs, then we would have to begin to consider alternate hypotheses, “magician” and “alien” being among them. If we can satisfy ourselves that “magician” is NOT the explanation, then “alien” becomes the only alternative left.

This is the whole point of many of the cases I am presenting. Not only do the objects sighted appear to be unidentified (and unidentifiable) in mundane terms, they also act in ways that defy the laws of physics (jumping locations, splitting apart, incredible speeds) leading us to consider that “mundane” is not the explanation, and if so, “alien” is just about all we are left with.

No. I have provided it several times. You just chose not to read it.

If so, then you should be able to direct us to a post WHERE you have done so… if not, why not?

I asked you long ago to buy a copy of Hendry's book. Apparently, it is beyond your abilities to do so.

Precisely. Simply, I have not the funds to do so. Perhaps you can donate a copy to me?

He lists numerous cases of this and all point towards scintillating stars. You proclaim that such instances are rare but they are not. The stars do not actually split or jump about. It is the observer who puts these characteristics there based on what they think they are seeing.

You seem to miss the point here. There are many peer reviewed (and other) articles on “scintillation” but I can find NONE that describe the effects (and the ubiquity of them) that you and Hendry ascribe to UFO reports in this regard. I simply asked if you could provide the evidence. Obviously you cannot, otherwise you would have done so with alacrity.

Therefore I am at liberty, after my own research and your failure to support your (and Hendry’s) assertions in this direction, to consider the claim to be unfounded and to reject it as a plausible explanation for UFO sighting of the type we are talking about.

Again, answer the simple question. Is this your BEST CASE? I am tired of going to each case and point out problems with them. I want a case for you to commit to before going into the particulars on the subject.

Here you go again. I provided a comprehensive reply to this from you. You have chosen to ignore that reply - to repeat (again!) - the same thing. If you consider my reply to you inadequate, then please address that reply in terms that show it to be such and we can move on.

” I agree, each case should present good evidence for my claims. That is why I present the cases I do. Did you think I would present cases that I consider to present “bad” evidence?

Ah… but now you ask for “proof” of my claims. I have NEVER claimed that any of the cases I present represent “proof” of my claims. In fact there are NO pieces of scientific knowledge that have ever been categorically “proved”. All we as scientists can do is advance an hypothesis and then test it in as many ways as we can. The evidence may show the hypothesis (or its predictions) to be false or impossible, but it can never categorically “prove” it to be true. There will always remain the possibility of an unforseen circumstance that will falsify the hypothesis. That is just the nature of the world and of scientific exploration. The best any scientist can ever do is provide EVIDENCE in SUPPORT of an hypothesis. That is what I have been doing.

If you contend that the evidence in the cases I present is “weak” (as you do), then you should be able to provide the evidence to support your claim. You should be able to point out precisely how and why the evidence in my cases is “weak”.​

So far all I have seen is your repeat what the UFO websites tell you. Not much investigation there and some of it IS 'bad' evidence.

If the evidence I present is “bad” evidence, then you should be able to point out precisely HOW and WHY you consider it to be so. By your doing so we could then move on with the debate.

And the only thing you have been able to demonstrate is that people see things in the sky that they can not identify. Plausible alternate hypothesis have been suggested. Again, you simply wave your hand and state implausible without falsifying them. This is where your methodology fails.

IF you consider that “plausible alternatives have been suggested” then you should be able to describe those alternatives, while explaining WHY they are plausible alternatives.

As an example I stated (in reference to the Zamora case and you contention of “helicopter”) that for the military to strap a lunar surveyor to a helicopter, then to fly it 100 miles and OUT of the testing range, and INTO a small New Mexico town WAS an utterly implausible scenario. There are many reasons for this – but to think that the military would be so cavalier with multi-million dollar pieces of equipment so as to effectively place it out of immediate testing, observation and recovery range should something go wrong simply beggars belief. There is NO rational reason for them to DO such a thing. But THAT is not the oNLY reason that makes your “helicopter” hypothesis implausible. There is also Zamora’s description of the object, which resembles nothing like a helicopter!
Thus the helicopter hypothesis fails at every level you look at it from. First it is implausible that the military would do such a thing, and second it does not accord with the eyewitness descriptions of what the object looked AND acted like.

This is not “handwaving”, this is reasonable assessment based on how reasonable people act - and on the evidence as presented in the case. IF you have any evidence that would make MY assessment unreasonable, then please state it.

So, we now are suggesting that there is a NEW type of radiation that is causing her symptoms instead of suggesting that the source of her symptoms MIGHT be from something else? Perhaps some kind of chemical caused the symptoms? Again, the medical record you think should be protected might resolve it. Perhaps the doctors DID know what cause her symptoms and treated it. Perhaps the Gerstein DID NOT want everyone to know the source. PERHAPS there is a cover-up in the UFO crowd in an effort to perpetuate an ideal case.

Betty Cash received injuries that resemble those that one might expect from radiation burns. That those effects cannot be explained in mundane terms adds to the mystery. That YOU cannot explain them does NOT mean that a “cover-up” has been perpetrated. You keep banging on about the medical records as if they would show anything other than what is on the public record already. Sure, everyone involved would like to access those records, but as far as I know they are not simply available.

Let us imagine for a moment we had those records. Remembering the fact that Betty Cash sustained injuries is NOT in question - what if the blood tests were normal? What would THAT indicate about her injuries? Simply that would again ADD to the mystery… radiation exposure like symptoms with no evidence in the blood? What the…? HOW would you then explain THAT?

Yeah, sure, THAT’S the explanation, a “cover-up”! LOL. If I claim a “cover-up” perpetrated by the UFO debunkers, I am howled down mercilessly, yet when you do it in reference to UFO proponents… it suddenly becomes a legitimate point? Yeah, sure…

Because people always file complaints when the noise of these helicopters disrupt their evening routine. I already pointed out the intense noise the CH-47 puts out. Imagine a large group of such helicopters passing over your neighborhood at treetop level. Imagine the complaints to the local authorities (just like the kind that are made near these bases - they have to take specific routes to avoid these kinds of complaints).

So what are we left with? Witnesses claim there were helicopters in the area at (and around) the time. Just because no-one complained to the authorities does NOT mean the helicopters were not there. You claim that people “always” file complaints when helicopters “disrupt their evening routine.” You hyperbole is noted. Perhaps people DID file complaints, but given that the military denies all knowledge, then how likely are they to release such information (if it existed)? In court all they would have to do is cite “national security” and that would be that! End of story.

Back to the conspiracy angle. Why wouldn't the ATC's remember this flight?

You claim a UFO proponent conspiracy - and that is okay. I assert military SOP in these types of cases and you berate me for proposing “conspiracies”? LOL.

The lack of any evidence for the helicopters. The lack of any medical records. The lack of any effort to look at potential other sources. That is why this case fails. It is incomplete as are so many UFO cases.

First there are eyewitnesses who saw helicopters, so there is NO “lack of helicopters”. Second, the lack of medical records is not “one-sided” - it affects the arguments of BOTH sides. Third, I AM looking at alternatives – but cannot seem to find any plausible alternatives to “dangerous UFO” – of course there is always the tried and true “secret military test gone wrong” angle… but that in itself is totally denied by the military. So if you believe them that they were not responsible for the helicopters, then how can you disbelieve them about “no secret tests” angle? Of course you might contend that they told the truth on the one hand and lied on the other… but how far down THAT particular rabbit hole would you like to go once you start it?

You are blindly accepting the Cash story without any additional evidence. You choose to accept the testimony as 100% factual when we have reasons to doubt it.

I am merely noting that Betty Cash received injuries that resemble radiation burns. That she received and suffered such injuries is NOT in dispute. So NOW we must plausibly explain those injuries. According to the best evidence available (interviews with witnesses, doctors, etc) Cash received her injuries at the time she stated - and she did so on getting out of her car to look at a UFO. It is therefore reasonable of us (that is there is no reason for us not to) accept that much of the story at least as given. Just because we cannot explain her “encounter” and injuries in mundane terms, does NOT mean that it did not occur. You are merely falling back on the handwaving “It’s impossible, therefore it cannot be” excuse! Well, (to quote the immortal bard) “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”!

How many eyewitnesses and when? We already know that one was several hours later and the helicopter activity could have been anything. The military denied involvement and you have yet to provide evidence that falsifies this.

Yeah…? so what’s your point? It’s a perplexing mystery. UFO cases tend to BE like that… in case you hadn’t noticed…

Gee....you are the one proclaiming UFOs are produced by alien technology/exotic causes without one shred of evidence to support it other than the potentially erroneous eyewitness testimony. If you want to proclaim earthly sources as "implausible", why aren't you doing the same for the ETH?

Ah yes… that old standby… the “potentially erroneous eyewitness testimony”. Let us forget the helicopters. Let us assume there were none! Betty Cash received injuries that resembled radiation burns. She received those injuries on viewing a UFO. The military denies involvement and as you point out, there is nothing to falsify that claim. How DO we explain all that?

Obviously, you are not willing to even look at the possibility. Did you know that Opal Grinder mystery witnesses that support Zamora's story mentioned "low flying aircraft" and when Opal mentioned a lot of helicopter activity, the witness stated it must have been a "funny looking helicopter, if that was what it was"? The fact that there was mention of helicopter activity is interesting and that the witness originally referred to the UFO as an "aircraft" indicates there is something to consider. Why would he confuse Zamora's obvious UFO to an aircraft and then comment that it was a "funny looking helicopter" instead of "It wasn't a helicopter"?

Have you never in your life used the phrase “Funny looking X (or whatever), if that was what it was”? If you have, then it is invariably in reply to someone who states “It was X” when you KNOW it was NOT X. This is how normal people talk - the statement is ironic, facetious… Obviously, you are not willing to even look at the possibility…

Well, apparently, the symbol was deliberately alterred at the time. This is something you did not know about. How odd for a scientist not to try and get all the details of a story before pontificating.

Huh?

”Just before Sgt. Chavez got to scene, I got my pen and drew a picture of the insignia on the object.”​

(http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora2.htm)

”Ever since the first report that Zamora had seen some type of symbol on the side of the craft there had been some confusion about just what that symbol was. He had drawn and described this symbol to several people soon after the incident, and what appeared to be discrepancies in the description had arisen from various sources. There does appear to be some support for believing that the symbol that was widely circulated early on may have actually been a variation of the actual one. The idea that a substitute might have been circulated by the investigative personnel from the Air Force or other governmental agencies as a way to guard against copycat reports has some merit. Though the actual shape may not be ultimately important to the overall case I did make an effort to try to obtain an honest description of just what Zamora saw. In one of our telephone conversations he clarified to me that he had never been told -not- to relate the actual shape and he gave me a description which I realized was slightly different from what I had heard and seen before. I was curious about this and shortly afterward I sent him several pages of small sketches which covered various details of his sighting. I included several variations of this symbol including one that matched what I had seen in other places and one that matched what I thought he had described to me. I asked him to merely place a check mark by whichever sketch matched his recollection. Below are several sections of the sheets I sent him, and his check marks are visible. But on the section showing the symbols, he was nice enough to actually redraw what he had seen.”​

(Chris Lambright - http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora4.htm)

I am only suggesting that you are dismissing it without a thought or any interest in the details. You reject it without a thought, which demonstrates you really are not interested in looking anything up. You are just a parrot for UFO websites, which is where you draw your information from.

Yeah… sure… the above statements are not “details” in the case. LOL.

Let us know which case is your BEST CASE so we can cut to the chase. This is going absolutely no place and I desire to concentrate on your BEST CASE instead of this scatter gun approach.

Back to this again? And I thought you claimed you were tired of repeating yourself!

As I have explained (repeatedly…) there is NO SUCH THING as a “best case’. Each has it’s own idiosyncrasies. “Scatter-gun” approach? What you mean is that you don’t want to consider ALL the evidence, you want to constrain the evidence to ONE particular example and if you can “debunk” that, then that is the end of the story! I have been presenting cases. You have so far failed to “debunk” ANY of them, what makes you think you can be successful with a “best case” (as if there were any such beast in the first place)?

Finally, you consider that “This is going absolutely no place” simply because you cannot “debunk” the cases I have been presenting! You actually mean that YOUR arguments against the cases “are going nowhere”. Have you stopped to consider what that might mean? Every argument you have put up against the cases I have been presenting I have been able to show as implausible. That is obviously frustrating for you, but I want you to see past your frustration to the implications of you not being able to successfully “debunk” the cases I am presenting. What might that mean Astrophotographer?

I put forward the O’Hare case because extensive research and analysis has been conducted on the case. Something that the UFO debunkers have complained bitterly about… that no proper investigation is ever conducted and that all we have is people who see things they cannot identify without any properly constituted research and analysis. Well here is a case that belies that assessment. If you refuse to discuss it, then that, in my humble opinion, is merely covering your eyes and ears and refusing to look at the evidence in the vain hope that it will simply all go away.

I therefore present the O’Hare case as a recent (forestalling another debunker complaint) exemplar of both research AND evidence concerning UFOs.

I presented a link to the research conducted (http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf) but perhaps a Wikipedia article is more you style and will allow you a more easy access into the case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O'Hare_International_Airport_UFO_sighting)?

However, if you merely want to ignore the case (and as you stated, leave it up to “AD” to discuss), then if you are tired of discussing cases directly, perhaps you might find this related article enlightening and interesting as a “change of pace” (http://www.narcap.org/reports/008/TR8Bias1.htm). I would value your opinion on it.

 

[Sledge]

Rramjet, we all understand the importance of the cases you're presenting. That's why we're dismissing them as a bunch of random anecdotes. Now, instead of wiffling on about the tosh you've presented so far, try these questions for size:
1) What is your hypothesis here?
2) What is the best case you can present to support your claim?

Go.

 

[Stray Cat]

So, we now are suggesting that there is a NEW type of radiation that is causing her symptoms instead of suggesting that the source of her symptoms MIGHT be from something else? Perhaps some kind of chemical caused the symptoms? Again, the medical record you think should be protected might resolve it. Perhaps the doctors DID know what cause her symptoms and treated it. Perhaps the Gerstein DID NOT want everyone to know the source. PERHAPS there is a cover-up in the UFO crowd in an effort to perpetuate an ideal case.

The part of this story that immediately jumped at me when I first came across it was the reluctance by Cash to provide the car (with the claimed finger prints molded into the dash board) for examination to the investigator, making what seemed to me (opinion only) to be a lame excuse which lead to no photographs or verified account of the existence of such a fantastic physical feature of this story. Also I don't believe anyone checked with the highways department to see if the piece of road (reportedly burned and resurfaced within 24 hours) had actually done any road resurfacing and what reason they gave if they had carried out works.

Rramjet - You realise that the level of detail about Betty Cash's 'medical condition' are not detailed enough for a third party to be able to make any sort of accurate speculation as to the cause?
I've no idea why you'd be against anyone seeing her medical records unless you were unsure they actually supported your UFOlogists conclusion... which of course is based upon 'the level of detail available' which isn't enough to conclude or speculate much.
See, in my opinion, it would either totally debunk the Radiation story, or it would add to the mystery... personally, either way is cool by me.

 

[TSR]

If an “unidentified” person walked into a bar, and they look and act like any other human in that bar, then we would have no reason to assume they were anything other than human.

However, if they started floating near the ceiling, disappearing from one end of the bar to suddenly appear at the other with no intermediary steps, or moving across the room without moving their arms or legs, then we would have to begin to consider alternate hypotheses, “magician” and “alien” being among them. If we can satisfy ourselves that “magician” is NOT the explanation, then “alien” becomes the only alternative left.

.
Ummm. No.

There is hallucination, optical illusion, mass hysteria, (since this is a bar, after all) drunkenness, intentional fraud, a desperate bid for attention, holographic projection, a theatrical "flying" rig...

So, which of your myriad anecdotes do you feel offers the best, least ambiguous evidence for your "alien" thesis?
.

 

[GeeMack]

So, which of your myriad anecdotes do you feel offers the best, least ambiguous evidence for your "alien" thesis?

He already said there is no case that provides evidence that aliens exist. Like we didn't already know that.

 

[Rramjet]

There’s nothing “scientific” about the NARCAP report, it’s nothing more than the hand waving of a series of conflicting anecdotal accounts obtained anonymously into “evidence”… in science your “data” must be shared openly so that others may independently replicate it in order for your conclusions to be considered credible. If the “witnesses” are only willing to be cross-examined by “sympathetic” UFO=Aliens proponents then excuse me for not taking them seriously…

I will grant you one thing… it could not be held up as an exemplar of a research report as might be published in the peer reviewed journal. There are giveaways to this (such as the use of exclamation marks within the body of the text! A small thing to many maybe, but something a peer reviewed journal would NEVER continence). This tells me that the researchers were not entirely aware of the utterly rigorous standards that they needed to apply and thus by implication might have had no direct experience in trying to publish in peer reviewed journals.

However, that being noted, in most other requirements it is nevertheless a fairly decent attempt to explore the evidence in a systematic and scientific way. There exists in the report a wealth of in depth researched information in this report about the case, something that the UFO debunkers have bemoaned the lack of in many cases.

To dismiss the report as mere “handwaving” and imply that it is biased merely because the researchers were associated with a UFO organisation, is to make a serious mistake and does a disservice to the obvious amount of good research that must have gone into the report. YOU even use the results of that research to make some of your points (see below) – be thankful to the researchers that you even HAVE that information at your disposal! For example:

Sounds “impressive” until you break it down into what those eight “witness” accounts actually represent…

A. Anonymous UFO report submitted to NUFORC.
B. Anonymous account given to author of NARCAP report.
C. Hearsay account from witness B, did not want to be interviewed.
D. Anonymous UFO report submitted to NUFORC.
E. Hearsay account from witness D.
F. Hearsay account from witness D, dismissed it as a bird.
G. Hearsay account from witness H, did not want to be interviewed.
H. Anonymous account given in interview with reporter.
I. Hearsay from witness B, could not be located for an interview.

A & D who knew each other are the one who started it all and the “waiting passenger” first surfaced by posting her account anonymously on a UFO forum and is widely regarded as a hoax. (she endorsed one of the hoaxed photos) Witness A is also believed to have posted anonymously on that same UFO forum where a number of hoaxed photos of the “object” were posted and promoted. Allegedly G & H were pilot and copilot in a plane on the ground. The pilot (Captain) G did not come forward.

First, I have already explained why the witnesses might want to remain anonymous to the public. Moreover, it is SOP for scientific reports, to maintain witness/participant confidentiality. Besides, they were NOT anonymous to the authors of the report – just to we, the readers of the report. “The identity of all eye witnesses has been concealed at their request to safeguard their reputation and job security” (p. 5 - http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf) Thus your inclusion of the term “anonymous in your description of the witnesses represents an unwarranted and disingenuous attempt to sully the credibility of the witnesses.

Then if we discount your “hearsay” witnesses AND the passenger, we are still left with four first-hand sources – three of which are independent. However, it is again disingenuous of you to discount testimony merely because one witness might have known another. A & D might have known each other, but their sightings were completely independent of each other.

You also stated that A & D “started it all” and this is a complete fabrication! Witness A was indeed the “earliest known witness” but witness D only noted the UFO when, while working in his office, he heard a reference to the UAP “over the company’s radio frequency and only then left his office to go and have a look for himself.

On the passenger “endorsing” a hoaxed photo: The passenger, seeing a purported photographic representation of the UAP, claims that it resembles what she saw. So what? She was not endorsing the “photo” itself as genuine, merely the representation of the UAP as similar to what she saw. This does NOT make her a party to the alleged hoaxed photo!

Re Zamora:

Sorry, can’t decipher the word salad… so what are you trying to say? The possibility of them being small makes them small and rules out the possibility of them being normal sized even though he admits he was too far away to tell for sure?

(yes or no please)

Also, you do realize he had a “thing” about kids playing pranks and was in fact chasing one before this happened right?

Man oh man… methinks you are deliberately trying to be obtuse…

The small stature of the “beings” Zamora saw was not a “possibility”! He saw small beings! Full stop! No question, no argument! He then tried to explain what he saw (as ANY of us would) in mundane terms, thus “…possibly they were small adults or large kids.” (http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora2.htm).

… and “He had a “thing” about kids playing pranks”? You base this solely on his being in pursuit of a speeding car prior to his encounter (by presumably assuming “kids” were driving it)? Obviously it is not Zamora who had a “thing” about kids playing pranks – the invention is entirely your own.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, we all understand the importance of the cases you're presenting. That's why we're dismissing them as a bunch of random anecdotes.

Precisely! Straight from the horses mouth (as the saying goes). But if mere handwaving dismissal as anecdote is the best you've got, then you need to think again.

Now, instead of wiffling on about the tosh you've presented so far, try these questions for size:
1) What is your hypothesis here?
2) What is the best case you can present to support your claim?

Go.

My hypotheses are that UFOs exist (as unidentified aerial phenomena - meaning also unidentifiable as mundane objects) and that "aliens" exist (as a hypothetical explanation for UFOs - meaning NOT necessarily ET in spaceships).

I have been presenting cases to support my hypotheses. There is no such thing as a "best case' in this regard - merely a preponderance of evidence as represented in a number of cases.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So now I understand why you don’t seem to understand the importance of the cases I am presenting.

I'm pretty sure you really don't understand. But many keep trying to help you.

If an “unidentified” person walked into a bar, and they look and act like any other human in that bar, then we would have no reason to assume they were anything other than human.

However, if they started floating near the ceiling, disappearing from one end of the bar to suddenly appear at the other with no intermediary steps, or moving across the room without moving their arms or legs, then we would have to begin to consider alternate hypotheses, “magician” and “alien” being among them. If we can satisfy ourselves that “magician” is NOT the explanation, then “alien” becomes the only alternative left.

Here's where you go off the rails. You handwave away "magician", "optical illusion", "DT's" or any other hypothesis that isn't "alien".

This is the whole point of many of the cases I am presenting. Not only do the objects sighted appear to be unidentified (and unidentifiable) in mundane terms, they also act in ways that defy the laws of physics (jumping locations, splitting apart, incredible speeds) leading us to consider that “mundane” is not the explanation, and if so, “alien” is just about all we are left with.

No, that's only you who can't imagine mundane explanations. Your lack of imagination is the problem. As is your outright lying, if you're ready to discuss that. You didn't even bother trying to handwave that away, hoping it would disappear perhaps?