UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Toke]

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.

I do wonder how you can at the same time claim that our atmosphere and near space is crowded with aliens, and that SETI does not have a chance of finding any of their signals.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

It doesn't even look like a photograph to me.

Texture is more like a watercolour. Or if it was a photograph, then it's been very, very heavily retouched. In which case there's little point in speculating on details, because we don't know what's real.

Retouching/enhancing would explain anomalies like the way several of the searchlight beams appear to be of uniform brightness all the way up while others fade out halfway.

My guess (and it can only be a guess) is that the original photo showed fewer searchlight beams and a bright patch on a cloud layer where they converged. I suspect extra searchlight beams and AA shell explosions have been added to make the picture look more dramatic.

 

[EHocking]

The photo purports to have come from the negative from the LA Times archival microfiche sourced by an "UFOlogist", Frank Warren, purportedly from the LA Times photo archive.

To me, if not enhanced in any way, it merely looks like searchlights converging on AA smoke created by the AA fire - at least three explosions appear at the beam's convergence.

 

[Astrophotographer]

From page 48 of Allan Hendry's UFO handbook. Photograph of a spotlight on a thin cloud. I think that demonstrates that the Battle of LA photo is probably not an alien spaceship.

 

[Blackwell]

Skeptoid's Battle of LA episode:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4171

 

[Patricio Elicer]

View attachment 16558

From page 48 of Allan Hendry's UFO handbook. Photograph of a spotlight on a thin cloud. I think that demonstrates that the Battle of LA photo is probably not an alien spaceship.

Yes, I have the book. It says: "Searchlight beam illuminating an otherwise unseen thin layer of cloud".

 

[Astrophotographer]

Skeptoid's Battle of LA episode:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4171

Super. Can we put this case in the trashbin?

 

[tsig]

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.






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.​

That and having the entire civilized world on your side. Emperor of Rome ya' know.

Maybe the Romans were being manipulated by UFO's appearing as omens?

^{trying to be vaguely OT}

 

[tsig]

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.

I like where you're going with this.

If the aliens are here then SETI is their attempt to call home.

Hand me another shovel I see light down here!!

ETA: nods to CN

 

[tsig]

I do wonder how you can at the same time claim that our atmosphere and near space is crowded with aliens, and that SETI does not have a chance of finding any of their signals.

Well they're invisible to radar except when they're not

They're invisible to the naked eye except when we see them

They leave no traces except when they do

They love American beef and American men.

Their purpose here is either to enlighten us or annihilate us.

I alternate cowering in the corner in fright and loudly proclaiming the rule of our future alien overlords.

In short i am the very model of a modern majic researcher.

 

[Jocce]

Okay, lets begin with some photos…

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)

Thank you, but i wasn't asking for pictures of things that look like flying saucers. I was asking for evidence that it's actually an alien craft on those photos f ex. Why are those more special than every other UFO photo you can find on the web?

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

Thanks, will look at this. Looks more substantial than mere photos.

These are examples of objective evidence. Of course there are MANY more I could present, but let’s not overtax the UFO debunker mind with TOO much evidence at once. LOL.

So far, it's photos of something. Let's not jump conclusions now ok?

I also pointed you to the following links in response to your questions and statements:
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf)
(http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

To which you replied:

Is this a joke or something? If not, then you might find this interesting too: http://einhornpress.com/evidence.aspx

Your reading comprehension problems shows again. That reply of mine was in response to you posting the following:

Explain this then (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

It's a story about something that is supposed to have happened to some family 125 years ago. Is this part of the irrefutable evidence you talk about? It falls in the same category as stories about unicorns.

This perfectly demonstrates the level of the UFO debunker mentality. You asked me to reply to some posts you stated I had missed, implying that it was (apparently) important to you that I do reply. I did so in an extensive post here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5551145#post5551145 containing more than 60 individual replies to your questions and comments – and all you can come up with in response is a SPOOF website? LOL, Oh dear… In my opinion I am afraid that it is your attitude that is the joke here, and specifically, not my reference to the Scientific American article.

Stop posting century old rubbish then and I won't post links to unicorn articles. Deal?

You don't need to (can't) show that eyewitnesses are 100% reliable. You don't need to (can't) exclude all mundane explanations. What you need to do is provide positive, objective evidence for your aliens. So far you have produced nothing but blurry photos, stories and links to obscure websites. It's simply not enough.

 

[Toke]

I had a coworker who were the happy owner of a 3W laser.
One day he were approached by the police after having played with it outdoors in the evening. They were unhappy about the number of UFO reports generated and asked him to stay indoor with it.

He also had a 5W one, but had not at the time figured out how to power it. It was something like 60A at 220V, not easily available here. (we use 440 for power hungry stuff)

 

[Blackwell]

Super. Can we put this case in the trashbin?

You have my vote. We'll have to see how Rr responds, though, I suppose.

 

[EHocking]

You have my vote. We'll have to see how Rr responds, though, I suppose.

(I really shouldn't do this)

From the Rense article, "Experienced lighter-than-air (dirigible) specialists doubted it could be a Japanese blimp because the Japanese had no known source of helium, and hydrogen was much too dangerous to use under combat conditions. "

 

[Blackwell]

(I really shouldn't do this)

From the Rense article, "Experienced lighter-than-air (dirigible) specialists doubted it could be a Japanese blimp because the Japanese had no known source of helium, and hydrogen was much too dangerous to use under combat conditions. "

AHHHHH!!!! The "b" word! DAMMMMNNNN YOUUUU, Ehocking!!11!1!!!exclamationpoint!1!!1

(But while we're here, can someone please provide the Japanese translation for "gay rodeo"?)

 

[Toke]

ゲイロデオ

Google translator.

 

[carlitos]

once again for clarity

Rramjet - it's simple. If you can't prove ONE, you can't prove ALL. Start with one.

Your "hypotheses" ( that I conveniently quoted for you above ) all contained "all" UFO sightings. You haven't proven ONE of these cases is anything extraordinary.

1 - Prove 1 case
2 - Prove "all cases"

Please start with 1. Present "best case" or, if none, "any case" and then go.

 

[Astrophotographer]

You have my vote. We'll have to see how Rr responds, though, I suppose.

Rramjet should have no vote since he is the one presenting it to the group as "objective evidence". The group as a whole should decide if it really is worthwhile "objective evidence" or not. If not, it should be rejected as being worthy of discussion.

 

[Blackwell]

Rramjet should have no vote since he is the one presenting it to the group as "objective evidence". The group as a whole should decide if it really is worthwhile "objective evidence" or not. If not, it should be rejected as being worthy of discussion.

I agree completely.

what do you think the chances are that Rr will also agree?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm voting with the rationally minded. Rramjet has failed in his attempts to foist off anecdotal accounts as objective evidence.

And I'm betting that Rramjet's response will be, "Now here's a case that the debunkers can't refute...."