UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

“They” are all around us! Just look at the reports . . .

"They" are UFO reports. Yes, UFOs are all around us. Captain Obvious sent me a message, thank you.

photos . . .

See Post #4893

radar . . .

Anomolies, anecdotes and misinterpretation by lay persons.

physical trace evidence . . .

O rly?

etc . . .

It ain't that easy, Rramjet. Present etc. please, for our evalution.

Why haven’t they made “contact”?

Existence-challenged.

If you were an ET, would you want your technology available to US?

No. Prime Directive.

(humans)?

Captain! There be whales here!

 

[Access Denied]

Perhaps you have not heard of the potential from (for example) ion drives?

To produce 1g of acceleration? You’re right, I haven’t…

You do realize an ion drive can’t even lift itself off the ground right?

I think we have our answer to Rramjet's “scientist” claim folks.

[as if there was any doubt]

Well played Wollery...

 

[Access Denied]

Dodgiest dodging since the Dodgy Brothers dodged into Dodge City in their dodg'em cars.

Au contraire, in reply to Jocce we have…

So you say… but that does NOT make your statements true.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
So you say.
So you say, but merely stating it does NOT make it true.
!
So you say…
!
So you say…

That has to be the lamest effort to “not ignore” somebody I’ve ever seen… EPIC FAIL

Rramjet would be better off just saying “you got me there”… but of course his fragile ego prevents him from exercising anything remotely like intellectual honesty.

And he wonders why nobody takes the “true believers” seriously?

[all the more reason not to fund UFO “research” methinks]

 

[Access Denied]

The eyewitnesses must be 100% unreliable because the debunker position maintains that what is seen are misperceptions, delusions or hoaxes.

Not to belabor the point made by others but I'm sorry Rramjet, it’s blatant lies like this that, in case you didn't notice, have made it impossible for anybody to take you seriously… I’ve already shown you evidence that upwards of 98.5% of the time, eyewitnesses are reliable enough for us to be able to identify what they most likely saw.

[or didn’t see, as the case may be]

Now, to help avoid any future embarrassment to yourself, I’ve prepared this handy field reference guide for you…

UFO Identification Kit

Flying Saucer = Hoax
Disc = Aircraft
Cigar = Aircraft
Triangle = Aircraft
Orb (Night) = Light in Sky
Orb (Day) = Balloon
Cube = Alien Spaceship
Other = Not Alien

 

[Jocce]

UFO debunkers ask for evidence of my claims. I present the UFO reports and photos which I contend support my claims. I don’t “force” the UFO debunkers to do anything at all. If you can find inaccuracies in the evidence I present, then please feel free to point them out – however, merely stating that there are inaccuracies in that evidence does not make that statement true. I post links to web articles because I want the evidence I present to be accessible to anyone who cares to examine it. What would you propose I do otherwise

Articles claiming that there is evidence is not the same as the evidence itself. How hard is this to understand? Take for example http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG. It is full of claims. Here are a few:

1. The night was rainy and tempestuous. Got any weather data for the location?

2. A loud humming noise was heard. Got evidence? A recording per chance?

3. The family is said to have got extensive swellings on the upper part of their bodies. Any evidence for this? Descriptions of how they looked? Any data to work with other than this letter to the editor?

etc....

What is truly remarkable about this story is that you believe it is factually correct and so amazing that you post it here as part of proving your point that aliens are here. You do that despite there is no actual evidence presented, there is no source for the different pieces of information mentioned and the writer is definately not a scientist.

The “SciAm” letter is a matter of fact account of what occurred at the time and place. Just because it describes something extraordinary that defies mundane explanation does NOT mean that the account itself is questionable. You merely assume it is questionable because of your belief that “It’s impossible, therefore it cannot be”!

No, I'm not going to believe this or the Unicorn articles without evidence that something really happened. You just believe this story without any evidence at all because it fits your belief system.

So now SciAm merely a “popular science mag”?

Yeah, got a problem with that? Then take it up with the editors but in the meantime, it's a popular science magazine.

In the Tehran case for example we have the original reports and the eyewitnesses. The O’Hare case has all that PLUS a scientific study. These are not the only such cases. So for you to make out that we do not have that type of evidence for UFO reports is disingenuous.

Where is the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. Not eywitnesses, not articles saying that radar data confirms a sighting, not letters to the editor telling a story about a family who got injured.

Oh… right… it COULD be. However, just because something is possible does not make that possibility likely or even plausible. In an (ostensibly) infinite universe ANYTHING becomes “possible”. But for you to rely on that to support your explanations in the face of the evidence is not a reasonable position to take.

Nice dodge of the subject of you constantly misrepresenting others position. With zero objective evidence I take the position that it's unidentified with some possible explanations that can't be ruled out like blimp, weather baloon, aliens, hoax, etc. You are the one who insists on identifying it as alien, I just say that the data we have to work with is not enough to make a positive identification in any of these cases.

Most people would like to rule out implausible scenarios and instead base their explanations on the evidence, rather than wild speculation about mere “possibilities”.

Exactly. And how implausible is alien visits? More plausible than a blimp flying by on a training trip?

 

[Jocce]

So why would SETI suppose that ETs DO want to communicate with us in any interactive and meaningful way? Especially considering from a human logical perspective that to risk (via communication) “alien” technology getting into the hands of an obviously irrationally hostile race (such as ourselves) would seem to be the height of foolhardiness.

SETI does not assume that ETs want to communicate with us. Is that hard to understand?

 

[Jocce]

”Replicability in research, along with other ideas like the principle of falsification, constitutes the core of the positivist attempt to construct the uiniversal and self-sufficient method of the discovery of truth in science. As discussed in the book the replicability principle is based on the assumptions that (1) the researcher and the studied phenomenon can be separated; (2) the phenomenon has a stable and unchanging character in the world; and (3) like the phenomenon, the researcher can be duplicated and also has a stable and unchanging character. In the social sciences there is an increasing awareness that these assumptions are problematic.”(http://tap.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/6/3/545)

And from a completely different source:

”A major purpose of this book is to show that the differences between the quantitative and qualitative traditions are only stylistic and are methodologically and substantively unimportant. All good research can be understood - indeed, is best understood - to derive from the same underlying logic of inference. Both quantitative and qualitative research can be systematic and scientific. Historical research can be analytical, seeking to evaluate alternative explanations through a process of valid causal inference.​

So you're saying that showing that UFOs are of alien origin lies within the field of social sciences? Interesting, but why do you keep referring to Darwin then?​

 

[Jocce]

It (SETI project) rests on the assumption that aliens WANT to communicate with us around the 1000 to 3000 MHz range. That is one gigantic leap of faith!

Incorrect, and you still haven't found out why SETI choose a rather narrow band to monitor.

 

[Rramjet]

Correa Neto:

Here is the English translation of the website you referred to. (http://forgetomori.com/2008/ufos/how-to-fake-ufo-photos-by-almiro-barauna/).

As the author of the article is careful to note:

"In all, the 1954 article does not allow us to make any solid conclusions regarding the later Trindade case. Let me state once again, as previous discussions of this classic case taught that one must be absolutely clear:

The Mundo Ilustrado 1954 article with Barauna’s faked photos presented here DOES NOT prove the Trindade Island case was a hoax."​

But what was the purpose of the article in the first place? According to Jerry Clark:

"He prepared a purposely humorous article, published in a magazine, entitled ‘A Flying Saucer Hunted Me at Home’, using trick photography" (Hart, 1963). It should be noted that the article was a debunking piece intended to show how a much-publicized 1952 Brazilian flying-saucer photograph was created (Smith, op. cit.).​

(http://www.nicap.org/trindade/cufos_pages/Trindade_Clark_article.htm)

So the article was designed, not as a general "how to" article (NOR was it titled "How to fake a UFO photo"!), but to show how a previous UFO picture could have been faked. This of course (as the author above is careful to note) does NOT mean that he faked his own UFO photo.

 

[Rramjet]

It is funny that you link Shough's website. It is easy to make a case for the event being something authentic, which is what Shough attempts here.

Recent revelations by Kentaro Mori (by interviewing people who were there) indicate the story as told in the UFO literature is not quite accurate. Instead of dozens of people seeing the UFO, only a few actually said they saw it. Others seem to recall people claiming to see it but never saw it themselves even though they were present!

The clouds issue indicates the pictures were taken over a matter of minutes (this is based on what Shough and Sparks calculated - I think the time is greater than just a few minutes) and not a matter of seconds (which is what the witnesses and UFO literature claim). Until you can demonstrate they are not hoaxes (which Barauna did have a habit of doing), then the possibility of a hoax remains. As a result, they can not be considered "objective evidence".

If it is “easy to make a case for the event being something authentic”, what’s so “funny” about linking to that site?

Kentaro Mori? I love the way you continue to cite stuff like this without ever providing a reference to the information. And what does “not quite accurate” mean…?

The clouds issue? You make a claim but provide no explanation. Pictures taken over minutes “rather than seconds”? How do you figure that? Who is claiming the pictures were taken over mere seconds?

Barauna did NOT have a ‘habit” of faking UFO photos. He created some pictures for a single purpose article on ONE occasion!

But what was the purpose of the article in the first place? According to Jerry Clark:

"He prepared a purposely humorous article, published in a magazine, entitled ‘A Flying Saucer Hunted Me at Home’, using trick photography" (Hart, 1963). It should be noted that the article was a debunking piece intended to show how a much-publicized 1952 Brazilian flying-saucer photograph was created (Smith, op. cit.).​

(http://www.nicap.org/trindade/cufos_...rk_article.htm)

It is these sort of assessments from you that make people suspicious of anything you have to offer Astrophotographer. You destroy your own legitimacy - if you exaggerate the evidence to this extent (“Barauna did have a habit of doing”), then who knows what else you may be “exaggerating" (or worse!)?

 

[Access Denied]

So the article was designed, not as a general "how to" article (NOR was it titled "How to fake a UFO photo"!), but to show how a previous UFO picture could have been faked. This of course (as the author above is careful to note) does NOT mean that he faked his own UFO photo.

O. J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened

 

[Rramjet]

To produce 1g of acceleration? You’re right, I haven’t…

You do realize an ion drive can’t even lift itself off the ground right?

I think we have our answer to Rramjet's “scientist” claim folks.

[as if there was any doubt]

Well played Wollery...

I guess ET is not smart enough to calculate less acceleration plus more weight = longer thrust time to reach interstellar speeds... at least the earthlings in this forum seem unable to conceptualise that... but does that surprise anyone?

 

[Marduk]

I guess ET is not smart enough to calculate less acceleration plus more weight = longer thrust time to reach interstellar speeds... at least the earthlings in this forum seem unable to conceptualise that... but does that surprise anyone?

Rramjet, doesn't matter how smart E.T. is, there are certain physical laws that he can't break and your logic totally sucks

if it takes them 100 years to arrive here from where they left (and thats a conservative estimate), then why did they come here in the first place, wasn't because they were picking up radio or tv signals was it, maybe in your delusion you are thinking that they knew there would be something interesting on this planet during the victorian period because of all the steam engines, but thats just you.

You have not convinced anyone here that any of your evidence is credible. Everyone here has told you this after actually looking at it scientifically.
but
All you've managed to do is show that you are happy with self delusion and comfortable telling lies to others to support that. For you its clear that this is all about belief, even people who at first gave you time are now sick of you
this means you have failed
badly


Are you aware of the poster called DOC who is desperate to prove the Bibles validity on another part of this forum. You and him could be twins as far as the rest of us can see. You are that credible that youre on a par with a fundementalist christian and your understanding of science is almost identical


btw, how much does an interstellar ET spaceship weigh in a vaccum and how is its weight even relevant to acceleration,
please read this carefully
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

 

[wollery]

I guess ET is not smart enough to calculate less acceleration plus more weight = longer thrust time to reach interstellar speeds... at least the earthlings in this forum seem unable to conceptualise that... but does that surprise anyone?

Still unwilling, or unable, to calculate the energy requirements for such a journey I see.

Why is that?

 

[amb]

Sorry for the drive-by post, but I have been traveling. Will be for another week.

No hypothesis yet, right?

Travel all you want. Take all the time you need. You will not miss a thing, certainly no evidence of any UFOs, let me rephrase that. No evidence of any aliens visiting Earth.

 

[Marcus]

Some real knee-slappers on this page...

Seti thinks aliens are trying to contact them?

Ion drives have the potential to produce 1G?

100kg manned spaceships?

Entertainment at its finest. Right from the mouth of our resident UFO differently abled scientist.

 

[Cuddles]

SETI does not assume that ETs want to communicate with us. Is that hard to understand?

Actually, this is one (and so far quite possibly the only) thing that Rramjet has more or less correct. While it is true that SETI does not necessarily assume that ET wants to communicate with us, it's incredibly unlikely that we'd be able to see any unintentional broadcasts, even if you assume that ET life is common. The problem is simply attenuation of signals. Some early estimates of how far a signal could travel before being degraded to the point it was indistinguishable from background noise were rather optimistic. More realistic estimates put the limit at a few tens of lightyears at most. Any more than that and you're either looking at an incredibly wasteful civilisation that sends orders of magnitude more power into space than we do for no apparent reason, or deliberate directional broadcasts.

Where Rramjet goes wrong is in assuming that since SETI depends on unlikely assumptions, it must therefore be unscientific nonsense. However, as someone else noted earlier, even a very small chance of something as important as the discovery of ET life is considered worth investigating my many people. There may only be a small chance of SETI seeing something, but if it turns out that someone out there really is sending us messages, we sure as hell wouldn't want to miss it.

Of course, the reason Rramjet, and so many other UFO proponents, hate SETI is that it demonstrates just how useless their claims are. SETI not only shows that real scientists are perfectly willing to consider the possibility of ET life, thus countering the common claim that they just ignore it, it also shows the lengths real scientists will go to based on a tiny chance of finding something. If they'll spend that much time and effort on such a small chance of a result, how bad must the evidence presented for alien craft on Earth be that it doesn't even get considered at all? Rramjet doesn't dislike SETI because of any rational reason, he hates it because it blows his beliefs completely out of the water.

 

[Belgian thought]

RRamjet, doesn't matter how smart E.T. is, there are certain physical laws that he can't break and your logic totally sucks.

Yes, but Dorothy had special shoes, maybe rRamjet has these in mind – it would follow his chain of thought.

if it takes them 100 years to arrive here from where they left (and thats a conservative estimate), then why did they come here in the first place ....

They are here to try out alien anal dildoes, and randomly cut up livestock animals. Mere alien teenage pranks - getting their hands on their first interstellar spaceship and all that.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Kentaro Mori? I love the way you continue to cite stuff like this without ever providing a reference to the information. And what does “not quite accurate” mean…?

Well, it takes no great scientist to figure out that Kentaro Mori is the author of the website Correo Neto gave. He also has a blog:

http://forgetomori.com/

The clouds issue? You make a claim but provide no explanation. Pictures taken over minutes “rather than seconds”? How do you figure that? Who is claiming the pictures were taken over mere seconds?

The photographer and the witnesses themselves. According to Barauna, it only took something like 16 seconds to take the six photos (two did not come out). Other witnesses stated time frames of about 20-30 seconds for the whole event. I really wish you would perform some actual research on the matter because you act like you have no idea about the background.

When one examines the photographs, one sees that there are no cloud patterns that are similar. Either the clouds were changing extremely rapidly or they were taken over a time period of several minutes.

Barauna did NOT have a ‘habit” of faking UFO photos. He created some pictures for a single purpose article on ONE occasion!

Oh gee.... I stated he had a habit of hoaxes (not just UFO photos). If you read the latest issue of SUNlite, you would see that he faked a story about a treasure chest.
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite2_1.pdf Go to page 9.

But what was the purpose of the article in the first place? According to Jerry Clark:

When it came to Cash-Landrum, you stated that Clark was not to be trusted...Oh well. Duh....nobody said he did it to fool anyone but it demonstrated that Barauna was toying with the ability to produce a hoax.

It is these sort of assessments from you that make people suspicious of anything you have to offer Astrophotographer. You destroy your own legitimacy - if you exaggerate the evidence to this extent (“Barauna did have a habit of doing”), then who knows what else you may be “exaggerating" (or worse!)?

Just once, I would love to see you actually research something BEFORE making such bold statements. It demonstrates you are only being a parrot for these UFO websites. You just repeat without even thinking. Is this how you perform in your day job as a REAL scientist? Because if it is, then you probably have trouble getting anything published in an actual scientific journal.

 

[Access Denied]

I guess ET is not smart enough to calculate less acceleration plus more weight = longer thrust time to reach interstellar speeds... at least the earthlings in this forum seem unable to conceptualise that... but does that surprise anyone?

Actually, I work with some of the greatest minds in the world on this very topic (propulsion research) and I can assure you they have all the imagination they need but unlike the crackpots you’ve been listening to, they know all too well the difference between science fiction and science fact…

TANSTAAFL

For beginners, I suggest you start by studying the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or as I like to call it, the Secret of the Universe… like gravity, it’s not just a good idea, it’s the law.

Still unwilling, or unable, to calculate the energy requirements for such a journey I see.

Why is that?

Now, are you going to answer Wollery or what? If you can’t afford a pocket scientific calculator I’ve got some good news for you, the computer you’re using comes with one… on Windows it’s called “Calculator”.