UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Toke]

Unfortunately not.

There were some legal restrictions on that, and we didn't see any pirates anyway.

 

[Akhenaten]

Unfortunately not.

There were some legal restrictions on that, and we didn't see any pirates anyway.

Well, that's good news in itself. I really am concerned for you and your shipmates whenever I hear about another incident.


To bring you up to speed, Rramjet's current tack is that we're all 'UFO debunkers' who deny the existence of UFOs and have a faith-based inability to see that silk purses are routinely made from sow's ears.

 

[Toke]

To bring you up to speed, Rramjet's current tack is that we're all 'UFO debunkers' who deny the existence of UFOs and have a faith-based inability to see that silk purses are routinely made from sow's ears.

I see, it is not his "evidence" that is garbage but everybody else that deny it for nefarious motives.
I guess that is one way for him to solve the problem with lack of support here.

 

[Akhenaten]

I think it's called the Galileo Fallacy.

 

[Toke]

I think it's called the Galileo Fallacy.

Well, he is getting a lot of laughs.

 

[Akhenaten]

And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms;
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation.

- Bill Shakespeare​

 

[desertgal]

To bring you up to speed, Rramjet's current tack is that we're all 'UFO debunkers' who deny the existence of UFOs and have a faith-based inability to see that silk purses are routinely made from sow's ears.

Simply not true. For one, I don't deny the existence of UFO's. Something large and black flew by my window earlier, and I have no idea what it was.

 

[GeeMack]

Simply not true. For one, I don't deny the existence of UFO's. Something large and black flew by my window earlier, and I have no idea what it was.

According to Rramjet's convoluted sense of, well, it certainly isn't logic by any sane person's definition of the word, but, since that black thing that flew past your window hasn't been identified as some particular thing...

When we discover after careful research that no plausible mundane explanation exists (or is likely to exist) for a UFO report then by definition the object is “alien”.

... it is "alien".

(And you thought Anita was mentally ill!)

 

[carlitos]

???

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.



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.

Please present evidence that aliens exist, and clarify what in the hell you mean by "NOT necessarily ET in spaceships" if you are talking about aliens. Who is in the spaceships if it's not ET?

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.

Gravity, the speed of sound, and Newton's third law of motion have all been proven. You are wrong. Please go study the scientific method.

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”.

See above.

 

[Akhenaten]

Simply not true. For one, I don't deny the existence of UFO's. Something large and black flew by my window earlier, and I have no idea what it was.

So. That makes you a UFO debunker debunker then, which by inference, means that you don't believe in there not being no UFOs. Therefore, since witnesses are always 100% correct, this means that you must have identified the object, and have therefore debunked yourself.

QED

Cheers M'lady

According to Rramjet's convoluted sense of, well, it certainly isn't logic by any sane person's definition of the word, but, since that black thing that flew past your window hasn't been identified as some particular thing...




... it is "alien".

Right, so this makes you a UFO debunker debunker debunker, which means . . .

 

[Astrophotographer]

If so, then you should be able to direct us to a post WHERE you have done so… if

not, why not?

Go back to the thread. I gave you plenty of excerpts from Hendry's book. Since you appear to be too lazy to go back and read them, I will produce some of the information for you:


Atmospheric refraction - an illusion of motion can be created by the same process that makes stars appear to flash colors. The different wavelengths are refracted ("bent") at different angles, resulting in a shifting position. This effect is especially pronounced near the horizon. These motions have been described in a variety of ways, but they are usually alwasy confined to the area the full moon occupieds (a diameter of 0.5 deg of arc), although excursions up to 2 deg or more were alleged.
Witnesses have seen stars:
***dart up and down (many cases)
***wiggle from side to side (many cases)
***Zigzag
***execute loops and figure eights (many cases)
***drift "like a pendulum" - cases 450 and 1086
***rise like a "leaf falling up" for two hours -case 329
***ascend and descend in steps (one case)
***meander in square patterns..even an A shape
Fluctuating light or flashing colors have made many witnesses think that the star is rotating. Also, many have equated rapid dimming and brightening of scintillating stars with back-and-forth motion. (Hendry 27)

Additionally, the effects of scintillation played a role in what people perceived as far as shape goes:

Included among these shapes are: discs and discs with domes ("Like two plates put together"-case 332; "elongated, as big as a distant plane"-case 377; "dome on top and bottom" - for one and a half hours in case 332), domes, a "plate with a hole in the center," vertically oriented small triangles, ovals, a football ...even "teacups," "Mexican somberos," and "bananas as large as the moon, shrinking back down to a star." People have seen "spikes," beams," "appendages," and sparkles shooting out in all directions
from bright stars. (Hendry 28)

From the William Viezee's Optical mirage in the Condon study.

When the image is small and bright, as may be the case at night, large fluctuations in brightness and under unusual conditions in color can give an illusion of blinking, flashing, side to side oscillation, or motion toward and away from the observer. The effects associated with scintillation can dominate the visual appearance of any bright point-object in the area between the horizon and approximately 14 degrees above the horizon. (Bantam paperback page 253)

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

If you have enough money to invest in a computer, a copy of the book from an online used bookseller is well within your means. Stop exaggerating.

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.

Feel free to present your peer-reviewed articles. As I stated, the effects of scintillation give the impression of these things to the observer. It is NOT that the star actually does these things. The observer attributes these variations in brightness/flickering/shifting of colors as motion, splitting apart, shooting out beams of light, etc.

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.

Completely rejecting known case histories of how people misperceive stars. Once again, you reject your scientific training in favor of what you desire.

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.

Until you answer my straight question, I am not going to play your game. Is the O'hare case your BEST CASE. If so, explain why and then we will go into the details. Until you do, I am not going to play "musical base cases" with you. If you want me to focus on the details and do the research for you, then I want it to be ONE CASE.

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.

It is far more plausible than an alien spaceship. We know the testing occurred at the time and that such a device existed. Therefore, it is far more plausible than something we do not know exists.

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?

Then we have to look at other sources for her injuries. As I suggested, a reaction to a chemical of some kind could possibly produce the symptoms.

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…

It would not be the first time I have seen UFO proponents sit on key evidence and not present it (the witness statements from Rendlesham come to mind)

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.

However, you have yet to present evidence they saw the same helicopters in the same time period. One of your witnesses did not see them at the same time but hours later and just stated seeing helicopters. Just because they saw helicopters does not mean they saw the fleet of helicopters reported by Cash.

I don't recall the military ever stating national security. As for the noise, people usually complain to civilian authorities and not the military. This is especially true when there are no military bases nearby (as in this case). To reach the destination, the helicopters and the UFO would have to navigate near and over some major roadways. Are you implying that these roads were empty of any traffic?

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?

Your eyewitnesses are hearsay and one of them did not see the same helicopters. Only one saw the UFO and the helicopter witnesses never saw the UFO. If that is your confirmation, you are on some very weak ground. Based on the lack of confirmation of the helicopter fleet by the hundreds (if not thousands) that should have seen it, we have to seriously question the story as told. The medical records are the key. This is why I stated this case is "incomplete" because it relies on the witness story and claims of being injured. There is nothing to back up the claims.

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.”!

No, I am stating that it is possible she received her illness from something else and not the UFO. How do you know she received them at the same time. Can you quote the doctors directly and what were their names?

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?

Cash saw something she did not understand and got sick for various reasons. Perhaps she saw a single helicopter with a spotlight. Perhaps she walked into an area that had been chemical treated (pesticide or something similar) while viewing the helicopter. It is not the answer but it is a possible one. The mystery will never be solved but it is not evidence for anything exotic or unknown to science.

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…

The suggestion is that it might have looked like a helicopter and not that it WAS a helicopter. IF it was not anything like a helicopter, why would he use that phrase? Why not state simply, "It WASN'T a helicopter". Grinder even mentioned that there was helicopter activity in the area. We can NOT draw a conclusion that the helicopter activity was related to white sands and the Surveyor tests but the statement about activity does not rule out the possibility that one of those helicopters was the Surveyor test program chopper.

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)?

We have failed to debunk any of them is YOUR OPINION, which is biased. I think the consensus in this forum is that there are potential explanations for all of them and that you have been presenting your cases in a manner that shows sloppy research and a desire to only look at one solution. As a result, you flippantly reject anything that suggests an alternate solution. The fact that you have been all over the place in your presentation and really have been unwilliing to give us ONE GOOD CASE, indicates your "evidence" is less than convincing.

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.

So, this IS THE BEST CASE you can present? Because if it is, we can begin. However, until you can state it is the BEST cASE, I am not going to waste my time on you jumping around because it is a game of musical cases. We hop from one to the other and get absolutely no place because you are unwilling to consider other possibilities. BTW, using various UFO organizations and websites for your source material demonstrates you are not willing to look at anything beyond what they tell you. Have you done ANY research beyond what they feed you? Seems like a blind approach to the subject. More like a dog following its master down a single path. What a wonderful scientific approach.

 

[desertgal]

According to Rramjet's convoluted sense of, well, it certainly isn't logic by any sane person's definition of the word, but, since that black thing that flew past your window hasn't been identified as some particular thing...

... it is "alien".

Huh. And I thought it was possibly a black garbage bag. I'd better take it to my leader.

(And you thought Anita was mentally ill!)

(Actually, I think Anita is so far off the reservation, she's a mere speck in the Arcturian galaxy, so kudos to all who have dealt with Rramjet lo these many posts.)

 

[Rramjet]

Jocce

I stated:
” a revealing TRANSCRIPT of taped interview held at Bergstom Air Force Base Law Library Building 2102, 17 August 1981, between Betty Cash, Vicki Landrum, Colby Landrum and representatives of the United States Air Force in the persons of Captain John Camp, Acting Staff Judge Advocate, Captain Terry Davis, Claims Officer, and Miss Pat Wolf, Assistant Claims Officer, conducted 8 months after the incident can be seen here: (http://www.ufocasebook.com/CashLandrum1.html). It makes for some rather compelling reading…”

To me this doesn't sound like a very reliable witness. I haven't read it all but some things pop out:

Umm… there were THREE witnesses interviewed… perhaps you should “read it all” – that is the usual practice before commenting…

This does not compute. How (and why) can she stand there for a few minutes (saying later ~15 in such an intense heat?

Actually we don’t really know how long Cash stood there, in these types of situations, events can seem to take a long time from the perspective of the witness, whereas in reality only a very short time has passed. At least that is what the research into human perception tells us about such situations… but of course who am I to rely on mere, verified research to inform my answers…?

Hmmm...she reported but didn't...

Actually I think you will find that Cash personally did not report it - she was too ill – it was Landrum who originally reported it to the Dayton police who then referred her to various authorities and organisations…

She could count to 23 helicopters very close to the objet but can't say how far away they were (feet, a football field etc.)

Your selective quoting out of context is typical of UFO debunkers trying to make a case out of nothing… it is disingenuous (to be polite) of you to do so.

”CJC: OK, and you say there were about 23 of them?
BC:Yes, that I counted. Vicki says she counted 26. Who knows? We were all so sick and burning and hot and scared till... that I don't say that we didn't vary.

(…)

CJC: Approximately how far away were the helicopters from this object?
BC: (lowered voice) Not very far.
CJC: Would you give me a distance in feet, or in football lengths, football field lengths?
BC:I don't think they'd be... that they were that far, maybe so, I can't, I won't say. Because unless I can be sure I'm not going to say.”​

In reference to what was “printed” on the side of the helicopters you stated:

Again, very confusing answers.

It is confusing to us because we don’t know what Cash drew! It is obvious however that Cash knew what she saw and was able to draw it out on a piece of paper – as the quote in context shows:

”CJC: OK. Uh... What exactly did you see on the side of the helicopters? what exactly did it say?
BC: Uh... "United States Air Force"
CTD: Written out (clears throat) completely long?
BC: No.
CTD: OK, what..
BC: It was round
CTD: No, I mean you saw the words "United States Air Force" all the words were spelled out
BC: No.
CTD: Ok, that's what I'm asking, exactly what did you see?
CJC: Why don't you... right here on this piece of paper where you put your name and all... why don't you write down the words exactly as you saw them on the sides of the helicopters.
CL: (unintelligible)
VL: -... that landed in Dayton? Shhhh. (Pause apparently writing...
CJC: OK. now you've written that out with a... was it printed?... or written?... I wanted you give me exactly as you saw it.
BC: No, it was printed out.
CJC: Printed out, OK. Alright, ah.
BC: (breaking in) Do you want me to put here "printed out?"
CJC: No, that's OK. Why don't you just put your initials by that. (pause) OK. ... Now um... these were the type that had twin rotors on top?
BC: Right. ”​

I stated in reply to Stray Cat:
”Not that I don’t trust your sources… but do you have any verifiable reference for the assertion that Betty cash was “reluctant” to provide her car for examination?” (NOTE: Bold emphasis mine. Rr.)

I'm working from memory here as I haven't read anything about this case for a few years. It may have been a piece written by Bob Pratt that I read that mentioned this. (NOTE: bold emphasis mine. Rr.)
Again, from memory Betty Cash was asked to bring the car so that photos of the fingerprints could be taken. She said the car was 'downstate' (?) maybe at her sisters or something for some reason. The car was sold very soon after and therefore no photos of the claimed fingerprints melted into the dash were ever taken.

Schuessler claims to have tested the car for radiation and yet took no photos of the fingerprints either... or if he did, he hasn't ever published them.

So if you disagree with my point, please provide some photos of these amazing pieces of physical evidence that don't confirm aliens but will at least confirm Betty Cash's story because at the moment, like every other UFO story, it's lacking verification.

So all you have is a vague memory of a piece written by a writer whose name you cannot be sure of…? And you have the temerity to ask ME for evidence to support MY assertions if I “disagree” with you on this point? You’ll have to do better than THAT Stray Cat!

I stated:
”There is a “purported” witness to the highway paving being done (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread428048/pg1) but it is merely a “recollection” posted to a blog… do you have any more “solid” or verifiable references to this?

And as much use as an article from Earthfiles then.

Which is my point precisely!

(NOTE: Bold emphasis mine. Rr)

Again, it may have been form the same article I read a few years ago. The claim within the story was that the road the UFO hovered above was burned, yet no photos of the burning were taken. A repair was mentioned within the story and yet no verification of this has been given. It is these (apparent) small points which leads one to believe the event has not been as thoroughly looked into as the UFOlogists would have you believe.

In other words you cannot verify a source for either of your claims in this direction - that Cash was “reluctant” to submit her car for examination and that UFO proponents claim that the road was “paved over” - except a vague recollection of having read it somewhere, sometime?!

I stated:
” I have NO objection to ANYONE obtaining the medical records of Betty Cash – indeed, I would be personally interested to see them! I am merely interested in the verifiable facts of the case.”

You say this whilst apparently not realising the amount of potentially verifiable stuff that has been completely overlooked by the UFOlogists, which would add credibility to their work had they bothered.
When they don't bother, one had to wonder "why?"

You make unfounded, generalised assertions as if the mere stating of them made them true. As I have shown above, you have NO (repeat NO) evidence to support ANY of your assertions!

I'll have a look at that later when I get a minute and if I come across the article I remember reading, I'll post a link.

Please do.

 

[Rramjet]

Please present evidence that aliens exist, and clarify what in the hell you mean by "NOT necessarily ET in spaceships" if you are talking about aliens. Who is in the spaceships if it's not ET?

There is a little schematic I have developed that might help you here carlitos:

We have the sighted object categorisation of:

1) Known (ie; natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)

Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:

1) Mundane (natural, prosaic)
2) ET
3) Interdimensional
4) Indigenous "aliens"
5) Jungian conciousness
6) add as you think of one...

The categorisations are then easy to understand and I hope it makes my contentions easier to place in context. I think that is where people are actually having trouble with my ideas...they have no schema in which to place them. So I refer you to the above. I hope it helps!

It can be instantly seen then that for UFO debunkers and UFO proponents alike, any speculative hypotheses (including mundane, ET, etc), proposed for the UFO category, MUST have evidential support, otherwise we are entitled to reject them.

This is also why I state that “aliens” do not necessarily mean ET in spaceships, because of course that is merely ONE hypothesis among the many that might constitute “aliens”.

As for evidence of “aliens” I have presented cases where an “alien” presence might reasonably be inferred. The Tehran case, the Father Gill case and the Lonnie Zamora case for example ( but I have also presented the Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter as a case where the beings involved were definitely “alien” in appearance).

Gravity, the speed of sound, and Newton's third law of motion have all been proven. You are wrong. Please go study the scientific method.

Unfortunately, you completely misunderstand the concept of “proof” as it is applied in the scientific method. For example:

”I. THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC PROOF
A. Is there proof in science?
1. In the sense that the word proof is used in mathematics and philosophy, nothing is ever proven in science. There is always some uncertainty about the actual value of results obtained from some experiment or their interpretation.
2. The more times an observation is repeated and the greater number of different observations and theories that it ties into and agrees with, the more confident we are about how well we actually understand something.
3. However, in the strictest sense, we never arrive at "proof"; we simply arrive at a very high degree of probability that we understand something. Thus, it is important that you shift your frame of reference from one of proof and certainty of knowledge and interpretation of facts to one that is PROBABILISTIC in nature, where our confidence in whether or not we understand something properly is not and never can be absolute. Thus, you are well advised to remove the word "proof" from your vocabulary as far as science is concerned.”​

(http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/behavior/e&be_notes/E&BE_04_Sci_Meth&Philo.pdf)

Or here:

”The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist. .”​

(http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof)

I could go on but if you doubt me just look up any basic text on science and the nature of proof.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You are a liar. My post clearly says, "Experts at the FAA say..." How did you make the moronic mental leap to it being my assertion that it was a weather phenomenon?

You're a liar again. You asked if I conceded that it was a UFO.

Wow, you told the truth there, except for the insulting slippery as an eel part. Why are liars like you like that?

And right back to being a liar again. Go back and reread what you posted.

I did answer yours. You immediately lied about what I'd said. Did you really think I wouldn't notice?

Now, answer my question. What, in particular, do you want to believe it to be?

Address your own prediliction to be disingenuous, Rramjet. You have yet to do so and I'm still waiting.

 

[GeeMack]

As for evidence of “aliens” I have presented cases where an “alien” presence might reasonably be inferred.

If by "reasonably" you mean by a person with sub-par intelligence or perhaps with some sort of mental illness, then yes, that can reasonably be inferred.

 

[chuck4842]

If by "reasonably" you mean by a person with sub-par intelligence or perhaps with some sort of mental illness, then yes, that can reasonably be inferred.

Why can't you leave me out of this...lol! I resemble that remark. Seriously the proof thing is the hold up here and the broken record is getting boring. Someone made some weird rules that obviously didn't solve anything. Why not make a rule of what would be considered proof? What would satisfy the majority here as scientific proof?

 

[Rramjet]

Go back to the thread. I gave you plenty of excerpts from Hendry's book. Since you appear to be too lazy to go back and read them, I will produce some of the information for you:

Atmospheric refraction - an illusion of motion can be created by the same process that makes stars appear to flash colors. The different wavelengths are refracted ("bent") at different angles, resulting in a shifting position. This effect is especially pronounced near the horizon. These motions have been described in a variety of ways, but they are usually alwasy confined to the area the full moon occupieds (a diameter of 0.5 deg of arc), although excursions up to 2 deg or more were alleged.
Witnesses have seen stars:
***dart up and down (many cases)
***wiggle from side to side (many cases)
***Zigzag
***execute loops and figure eights (many cases)
***drift "like a pendulum" - cases 450 and 1086
***rise like a "leaf falling up" for two hours -case 329
***ascend and descend in steps (one case)
***meander in square patterns..even an A shape
Fluctuating light or flashing colors have made many witnesses think that the star is rotating. Also, many have equated rapid dimming and brightening of scintillating stars with back-and-forth motion. (Hendry 27)

Additionally, the effects of scintillation played a role in what people perceived as far as shape goes:

Included among these shapes are: discs and discs with domes ("Like two plates put together"-case 332; "elongated, as big as a distant plane"-case 377; "dome on top and bottom" - for one and a half hours in case 332), domes, a "plate with a hole in the center," vertically oriented small triangles, ovals, a football ...even "teacups," "Mexican somberos," and "bananas as large as the moon, shrinking back down to a star." People have seen "spikes," beams," "appendages," and sparkles shooting out in all directions
from bright stars. (Hendry 28)

From the William Viezee's Optical mirage in the Condon study.

When the image is small and bright, as may be the case at night, large fluctuations in brightness and under unusual conditions in color can give an illusion of blinking, flashing, side to side oscillation, or motion toward and away from the observer. The effects associated with scintillation can dominate the visual appearance of any bright point-object in the area between the horizon and approximately 14 degrees above the horizon. (Bantam paperback page 253)

Yeah sure, these are assertions that scintillation can cause such effects, but I asked you to provide the scientific evidence (from research papers, articles on the subject, whatever documents you can) that show the physics involved that might CAUSE the effects.

I suppose that because you CANNOT do so, it must mean that there is absolutely NO evidence to support the assertions made by the people in these “UFO studies”. It is that simple Astrophotographer – and I thought YOU as an self proclaimed amateur astronomer would be a least familiar with such documentation – so why cannot you provide the EVIDENCE that scintillation CAN couse the effects noted.

If you have enough money to invest in a computer, a copy of the book from an online used bookseller is well within your means. Stop exaggerating.

My computer was donated to me – and who are you to make such assertions about people’s financial ability? You have NO idea how many people actually live do you Astrophotographer! You have this unfounded belief that people who suffer financial deprivation must all be inarticulate yokels who don’t have computers, etc… you have NO idea about the human condition at all do you.

Feel free to present your peer-reviewed articles. As I stated, the effects of scintillation give the impression of these things to the observer. It is NOT that the star actually does these things. The observer attributes these variations in brightness/flickering/shifting of colors as motion, splitting apart, shooting out beams of light, etc.

So you say… but it is YOU who makes the claim and it is therefore YOU who needs to provide the “peer-reviewed articles”! Wow, talk about shifting the burden of proof from the claimant…

Simply you cannot provide such evidence and as such I am therefore entitled to reject your claims in this direction.

Completely rejecting known case histories of how people misperceive stars. Once again, you reject your scientific training in favor of what you desire.

You CLAIM that “stars” were the explanation and you BASE that claim on your alleged scintillation effects – yet you provide NO evidence that such effects ACTUALLY occur in the real world!

Until you answer my straight question, I am not going to play your game. Is the O'hare case your BEST CASE. If so, explain why and then we will go into the details. Until you do, I am not going to play "musical base cases" with you. If you want me to focus on the details and do the research for you, then I want it to be ONE CASE.

So don’t play. I have answered your question MANY times over. Just because you do not like the answer, you are going to pack up your bat and ball and go home?

I actually asked you (if you did not like my answer) to specifically address the points made in my answer to you to show why I should answer differently, in the way you want, etc – but you could not even do THAT much.

I stated:
” 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.”

It is far more plausible than an alien spaceship. We know the testing occurred at the time and that such a device existed. Therefore, it is far more plausible than something we do not know exists.

No-one is claiming alien spaceship oh God of the Red Herrings! LOL.

You DO NOT know the test occurred at the time. We have a “scheduled” test for the morning of the day (which is certainly NOT “at the time”) and you have NO idea if this test even took place!

“Such a device existed”? You mean a helicopter and the lunar surveyor existed. Perhaps you have simply not looked at the comparison between what Zamora saw and a helicopter and lunar surveyor:

… This is what Zamora endorsed as an accurate representation of what he saw.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=364&pictureid=2239[/qimg]

This is a Bell 47G that the UFO debunkers suppose Zamora actually saw...
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=364&pictureid=2241[/qimg]

...with the Lunar surveyor attached.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=364&pictureid=2240[/qimg]

I ask again: is it plausible to imagine that Zamora failed to recognise a helicopter? From Quintanilla:

"There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object which left quite an impression on him. There is also no question about Zamora"s reliability. He is a serious police officer, a pillar of his church, and a man well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles in his area. He is puzzled by what he saw, and frankly, so are we. This is the best-documented case on record, and still we have been unable, in spite of thorough investigation, to find the vehicle or other stimulus that scared Zamora to the point of panic." (emphasis mine. Rr.) (http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora4.htm) ...

Re: Betty cash

Then we have to look at other sources for her injuries. As I suggested, a reaction to a chemical of some kind could possibly produce the symptoms.

Then provide the evidence. What chemical? Your solution suffers the same problems as the radiation solution.

It would not be the first time I have seen UFO proponents sit on key evidence and not present it (the witness statements from Rendlesham come to mind)

Sure, there are idiots, egotists, money-grubbers, hoaxers and liars in every field – but if you have evidence that relates to such in the Cash/Landrum case…then please present it, otherwise, your statement of mere unfounded and generalised assertions does not make such statements true!

However, you have yet to present evidence they saw the same helicopters in the same time period. One of your witnesses did not see them at the same time but hours later and just stated seeing helicopters. Just because they saw helicopters does not mean they saw the fleet of helicopters reported by Cash.

I don't recall the military ever stating national security. As for the noise, people usually complain to civilian authorities and not the military. This is especially true when there are no military bases nearby (as in this case). To reach the destination, the helicopters and the UFO would have to navigate near and over some major roadways. Are you implying that these roads were empty of any traffic?

The helicopter evidence is contained in the eyewitness statements. The witnesses saw them. The military denies them. It’s a mystery, but that is not the core of the UFO case. It is the UFO encounter that is the REAL mystery and the evidence of that encounter is in the injuries received by ALL of witnesses in the car at the time.

Your eyewitnesses are hearsay and one of them did not see the same helicopters. Only one saw the UFO and the helicopter witnesses never saw the UFO. If that is your confirmation, you are on some very weak ground. Based on the lack of confirmation of the helicopter fleet by the hundreds (if not thousands) that should have seen it, we have to seriously question the story as told. The medical records are the key. This is why I stated this case is "incomplete" because it relies on the witness story and claims of being injured. There is nothing to back up the claims.

You keep banging on about the helicopters. They are not a particularly important part of the case. You continue to make the assertion that people should have reported the helicopters to the authorities… but why? Do YOU report helicopters every time you see them? Of course you don’t!

The medical records? If you can find them, please pass them on, they would make interesting reading I am sure. That Cash and the others received injuries is NOT in question. It is QUITE obvious they did. Yet the way you tell it, the lack of access to the medical record means that there were NO injuries. This is bunk! It is a bankrupt assessment from you.

No, I am stating that it is possible she received her illness from something else and not the UFO. How do you know she received them at the same time. Can you quote the doctors directly and what were their names?

LOL. “Something else”?

There are simply to many verifiable references to many public offices (Police, Doctors, Hospitals, Government and private organisations) that when the Air Force conducted its investigation, they would have been quick to point out ANY non-verifiable source. They did not and they have not. We can assume that the sources were verified and the story was substantially accurate and the injuries occurred. The law suit was subsequently unable to hold the government responsible beyond a reasonable doubt – (based no doubt on similar concerns YOU raise about the helicopter evidence) but that merely leaves us with the problem of explanation! The basic facts are verified and have been verified by others before us. In light of the lack of plausible mundane explanations I merely assert “Dangerous UFO”.

Cash saw something she did not understand and got sick for various reasons. Perhaps she saw a single helicopter with a spotlight. Perhaps she walked into an area that had been chemical treated (pesticide or something similar) while viewing the helicopter. It is not the answer but it is a possible one. The mystery will never be solved but it is not evidence for anything exotic or unknown to science.

“Various reasons” (oh Master of the Red Herring)? But now you claim there WERE helicopters in the area… but I thought your claim was that people should have reported those and given that they did not, then helicopters were not there… yet you now WANT to claim “helicopters”…? the word begins with “h”…

…and “helicopter”… is not diamond shaped, spewing heat and flame from underneath…

Back to Zamora:

The suggestion is that it might have looked like a helicopter and not that it WAS a helicopter. IF it was not anything like a helicopter, why would he use that phrase? Why not state simply, "It WASN'T a helicopter". Grinder even mentioned that there was helicopter activity in the area. We can NOT draw a conclusion that the helicopter activity was related to white sands and the Surveyor tests but the statement about activity does not rule out the possibility that one of those helicopters was the Surveyor test program chopper.

Again you simply have no idea of how common people use common turns of phrase. Obviously you have never used the phrase yourself (or you would have admitted it).

“Funny looking helicopter If THAT is what it was”! Meaning of course that what was observed did NOT look like a helicopter!

We have failed to debunk any of them is YOUR OPINION, which is biased. I think the consensus in this forum is that there are potential explanations for all of them and that you have been presenting your cases in a manner that shows sloppy research and a desire to only look at one solution. As a result, you flippantly reject anything that suggests an alternate solution. The fact that you have been all over the place in your presentation and really have been unwilliing to give us ONE GOOD CASE, indicates your "evidence" is less than convincing.

But none of your “potential” mundane explanations are plausible! You continue to make unfounded, generalised assertions based on your beliefs, yet provide no evidence to support such assertions. You merely ASSERT that the explanation was “X” (mundane object) – but never produce evidence that such an explanation is even plausible. I have been giving you MANY “good” cases. Your unfounded assertions go nowhere near explaining the cases.

So, this IS THE BEST CASE you can present? Because if it is, we can begin. However, until you can state it is the BEST cASE, I am not going to waste my time on you jumping around because it is a game of musical cases. We hop from one to the other and get absolutely no place because you are unwilling to consider other possibilities. BTW, using various UFO organizations and websites for your source material demonstrates you are not willing to look at anything beyond what they tell you. Have you done ANY research beyond what they feed you? Seems like a blind approach to the subject. More like a dog following its master down a single path. What a wonderful scientific approach.

A mass of unfounded, generalised assertion does NOT make a good case Astrophotographer and your merely repeating them over and over again does NOT make them true.

If you refuse to discuss the O’Hare case, then that is your prerogative.

 

[wollery]

So, let's review the physical evidence on the cases currently under consideration shall we.

We have a police car that's damaged - it has a bent aerial and a bashed in left front side, but no trace evidence of what caused the damage.

We have a person who was ill, but no medical records to tell us what she was suffering from, fingerprints allegedly melted into a dashboard, but no photographs or independent witnesses to corroborate that the fingerprints were there, and a road allegedly burned and then repaired, but no photographs of the burned road (or trees) and no record of any repairs to the road.

Does that about sum it up?

 

[wollery]

Yeah sure, these are assertions that scintillation can cause such effects, but I asked you to provide the scientific evidence (from research papers, articles on the subject, whatever documents you can) that show the physics involved that might CAUSE the effects.

Lack of reading comprehension, yet again. It's not the physics that matters here, but the psychology. Astrophotographer isn't saying that scintillation causes objects to split apart or shoot beams of light, but that people observing scintillation (and seeing) interpret what they see in those ways.

I suppose that because you CANNOT do so, it must mean that there is absolutely NO evidence to support the assertions made by the people in these “UFO studies”. It is that simple Astrophotographer – and I thought YOU as an self proclaimed amateur astronomer would be a least familiar with such documentation – so why cannot you provide the EVIDENCE that scintillation CAN couse the effects noted.

Those "assertions" are simply what people claimed to have seen in cases that have since been identified as being caused by astronomical objects, such as stars and planets. If that doesn't show that these effects can be observed in such cases then I really don't see what could. Again, these are not actual physical effects of scintillation and seeing, but the interpretation of these effects by people who don't understand what they are seeing.