UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
So SETI is a rather long shot because there are so many stars and so few aliens, ok.
Somehow I don't see how that explains that there should be aliens here.
 
Carlitos stated:
“Because your hypotheses are bunk. All of them are vague, theoretical mumbo-jumbo.”

Akhenaten replied:
"Nil carborundum illegitimis"

Again this represents the UFO debunker mindset perfectly. When faced with the evidence, all they can come up with is “mumbo jumbo” pseudo-latin! Of course this perfectly matches their pseudo-science! LOL.
 
Akhenaten said:
Mr Rramjet,

This is a forum. It works just like it did in Rome:

1. Present proposal.

2. Argue merits of proposal against detractors, and persuade fence-sitters.

3. Obtain consensus.

4. Win vote to invade Britain.​


Can you see where you're not doing it right?
Click to expand...

There are objects observed in the sky which defy all mundane explanation.

The objective evidence:

The Battle of Los Angeles (25 Feb 1942)
(http://brumac.8k.com/BATTLEOFLA/BOLA1.html)

The Trent - McMinnville UFO (11 May 1950)
(http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent1_Full_400dpi.jpg)
(http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent2_Full_400dpi.jpg)

The Trindade Island Photographs (16 Jan 1958)
(http://www.nicap.org/baraunadir.htm)
(http://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/trindade/index.htm)
 
Rramjet said:
Akhenaten said:
Mr Rramjet,

This is a forum. It works just like it did in Rome:

1. Present proposal.

2. Argue merits of proposal against detractors, and persuade fence-sitters.

3. Obtain consensus.

4. Win vote to invade Britain.​


Can you see where you're not doing it right?
Click to expand...


There are objects observed in the sky which defy all mundane explanation.

The objective evidence:

<ads snipped>
Click to expand...


A simple "no" would have sufficed.
 
Toke said:
So SETI is a rather long shot because there are so many stars and so few aliens, ok.
Somehow I don't see how that explains that there should be aliens here.
Click to expand...

Of course SETI doesn't explain "that there should be aliens here"! That's the point... it (or rather the persons involved) actively deny the possibility - even when the evidence is all around us.

That SETI also has a snow-ball's chance in hell of success, is merely another point as to why it should be scrapped as a reckless waste of resources.
 
Akhenaten said:
Mr Rramjet,

This is a forum. It works just like it did in Rome:

1. Present proposal.

2. Argue merits of proposal against detractors, and persuade fence-sitters.

3. Obtain consensus.

4. Win vote to invade Britain.​


Can you see where you're not doing it right?
Click to expand...

There's no way you're going to win the vote about Britain. If Hitler couldn't do it then it can't be done.
 
Rramjet said:
You directly imply: First, that the Sturrock panel was fooled by a “one-sided” report by Scheussler and Second, that they were not expert enough to even “venture much of an opinion” on the cause of the injuries, yet even though this was (in your opinion) the case – they managed to conclude that there was no “indication of an alien presence”?

So, according to you, the Sturrock Panel was not given good evidence and was not expert enough to conclude anything even if that evidence was good, yet you maintain their conclusions are valid? And you call ME “not smart enough”? LOL.”
Click to expand...


They were presented with what Schuessler wanted to present. NOTHING ELSE was presented so they were limited in what information that had. All they could note was these people were treated for their symptoms. They were not given the medical records to examine and, even if they were, they could not venture an informed opinion simply because they were not doctors. Are you really that biased and misinformed?



Rramjet said:
No “real facts”? This is a matter of fact account relating the facts of the matter to the editors of Scientific American. There is no hype, no mention of UFOs, just a series of factual observations. The whole point of the account was that the witnesses and the reporter did not know what they were exposed to. The reporter presumes that it may be related to the meteorological/electrical phenomena discussed in Scientific American and draws their attention to such perhaps hoping that they might have the answer in a related phenomenon. Did they have dinner prior to their experiences? You know, 99% of all fatal car crashes have involved people with food in their stomachs. According to you we must ban “food driving”! Preposterous! And that food was contaminated by a “chemical or a naturally occurring radioactive alpha-emitter” – yet no similar “poisonings” ever occurred prior or since? Yeah, sure…that’s plausible! LOL.
Click to expand...

A FACT is something that can not be disputed. This story is an anecdote, which is completely different than a FACT. Did the events occur as described or was it possible that there may have been some mistakes in the retelling? How do we know their problems were due to some electrical/meteorlogical phenomena? We have no history to indicate this is possible. However, we do know that people get sick when they eat contaminated food. There is no mention in this report of examining the food/water they consumed. Therefore, it is not much of anything and presenting it is just a waste of time. Trying to relate it to Cash-Landrum is really stretching it. Keep laughing but it is my observation that most people are laughing at you and not with you.
 
Toke said:
This got me wondering about navy UAV's and short takeoff.
Ships have a plentiful supply of distilled water and compressed air at 30 bar.
Have anyone tried to build a drone around a carbon/glass fiber cylinder that could double as structural element and water/air rocket for takeoff from a rail?
Click to expand...


I'm aware of experiments along those lines, and in fact had toy rockets which used this principle when I was a kid (NOT @ 30 bar though :))

The problem with this form of propulsion is that it's great for short bursts, but can't compete with fuelled engines for sustained output.

There are applications for compressed air engines in torpedoes, I believe.

I'll do some researching on the aircraft side of things, but I'd say not.

The biggest drawback with compressed gas for propulsion would seem to be the weight of the tanks required to bear the pressure required to lift the weight of the tanks req . . .

Of course, in a torpedo, weight isn't such a problem.
 
Rramjet said:
The objective evidence:

The Battle of Los Angeles (25 Feb 1942)
(http://brumac.8k.com/BATTLEOFLA/BOLA1.html)

The Trent - McMinnville UFO (11 May 1950)
(http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent1_Full_400dpi.jpg)
(http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent2_Full_400dpi.jpg)

The Trindade Island Photographs (16 Jan 1958)
(http://www.nicap.org/baraunadir.htm)
(http://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/trindade/index.htm)
Click to expand...

What is in the photograph of the battle of LA? Looks like spotlights and war nerves to me. No evidence of an alien spaceship or craft.

We have discussed the trent photos before and you are ignoring the opinion of an unbiased scientist on the matter and chose to accept the opinion of a person who has a vested interest in the subject.

The Trindade photographs are interesting but this has been discussed elsewhere before. There are some serious issues with the photographs. Most important is that the cloud patterns in the photographs do not match for the reported time span of 16-30 seconds. This indicates a serious problem with the photographs.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Trin1.htm

BTW, there is some recent revelations by Kentaro Mori that indicative that the case really is on shaky ground. Of course, you won't read that on any UFO proponent website. Another case of examining only what you want to examine.
 
Rramjet said:
There are objects observed in the sky which defy all mundane explanation.

The objective evidence:

The Battle of Los Angeles (25 Feb 1942)
(http://brumac.8k.com/BATTLEOFLA/BOLA1.html)

The Trent - McMinnville UFO (11 May 1950)
(http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent1_Full_400dpi.jpg)
(http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent2_Full_400dpi.jpg)

The Trindade Island Photographs (16 Jan 1958)
(http://www.nicap.org/baraunadir.htm)
(http://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/trindade/index.htm)
Click to expand...
In order…

Smoke.
Hoax.
Hoax.

There, all plausible mundane explanations.

Now, where’s your objective evidence?
 
Rramjet said:
Another perfect example of the UFO debunker mindset - they don't even want to play by their OWN rules! LOL.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what mindset you think I typify, but using me as any kind of example for your arguments is a tragic waste of time.

Quit with the ad hom nonsense and just answer the question.



tsig said:
There's no way you're going to win the vote about Britain. If Hitler couldn't do it then it can't be done.
Click to expand...


Oh, Hitler won the 'vote' alright. The wheels fell off after that.

I may have omitted a step though.

0. Ensure you have the Legions on your side.​
 
You sure you want to keep the Trindade UFO pictures in your list of "objective evidence"?

Before answering let me remind you of your poor performance regarding another piece of UFO imagery from Brazil. I would also suggest you to perform a search at this forum regarding my posts related to Trindade island and UFOs. Scientists, after all, are supposed to check evidence and sources instead of just posting links, claiming its "objective evidence" and asking skeptics to counter it all, inverting the onus of the burden.

Define "objecive evidence", BTW.

You still keep the claim you are a scientist?

I see Astro beated me on Trindade... Oh, well...
 
RoboTimbo said:
To date: false. Do you have one that makes this true?


To date: false. Do you have one that makes this true?



You're just now catching on to that after everyone else has asked for even one case that would do that?
Click to expand...

Rramjet, now that your hypotheses have failed, what do you propose?
 
Rramjet said:
Of course SETI doesn't explain "that there should be aliens here"! That's the point... it (or rather the persons involved) actively deny the possibility - even when the evidence is all around us.

That SETI also has a snow-ball's chance in hell of success, is merely another point as to why it should be scrapped as a reckless waste of resources.
Click to expand...
Another perfect example of the UFOlogist mindset - they don't even want to play by science rules! LOL.
 
Rramjet said:
Much of Freidman’s (and my own) criticism of SETI is - that given the sheer NUMBER of stars, SETI has a snow-ball’s chance in hell of success – so the money would be better spent on researching what we already have here in our own back yard!
Click to expand...

So your argument is that there are aliens visiting us right here on this planet, but that because there are so many places they could be we shouldn't bother looking for them, and should just look for them instead. And this doesn't strike you as at all contradictory?
 
Cuddles said:
So your argument is that there are aliens visiting us right here on this planet, but that because there are so many places they could be we shouldn't bother looking for them, and should just look for them instead. And this doesn't strike you as at all contradictory?
Click to expand...


Worryingly, I'm starting to understand this.

Maybe the reason SETI hasn't found anything out there is because all the aliens are already down here.

Never mind, I don't understand after all.
 
GOT IT!!!!!

ET is right here, so if we want to detect it/him/her, all we have do is to set SETI antenna array in space to intercept the call when ET phones hoooooome!!!

On a sideline, what are real scientists supposed to do with data suspected of being hoaxed?
 
Correa Neto said:
GOT IT!!!!!

ET is right here, so if we want to detect it/him/her, all we have do is to set SETI antenna array in space to intercept the call when ET phones hoooooome!!!

On a sideline, what are real scientists supposed to do with data suspected of being hoaxed?
Click to expand...


Retransmit it to a SETI antenna array in space and complete the circle, thus creating a Vortex of Uncertainty™ into which all the beelvers disappear in a puff of logic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom