UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

Akhenaten, that is some serious cross tread craisy.

Wait until I tie it all together with the prime cause behind all of these phenomena.





















Bigfoot

 

[Toke]

Bigfoot know the secret of antimatter drives?

BTW: did that calculation of antimatter amount needed include the weight of the antimatter.

 

[Akhenaten]

Bigfoot know the secret of antimatter drives?

BTW: did that calculation of antimatter amount needed include the weight of the antimatter.

Just in case that's a genuine question, I'm not going near it. I don't even know if there's such a thing as antimatter.

Is there, for real, in amongst the quantum stuff perhaps?


/Serious question

 

[Correa Neto]

Already been done, apparently.

OK, so I guess this is the right thread for this:

I now reveal that this was the UFO over Teheran.

Israelis from beyond the borders of what we consider to be the borders of nature. Nice start for a CT, eh?

 

[Aepervius]

Bigfoot know the secret of antimatter drives?

BTW: did that calculation of antimatter amount needed include the weight of the antimatter.

No. It would make the calculation a bit more complicated ,a dd more A/M to a limit, but it the weight alone and the energy requirement were alone to convince my coutner-part.

 

[Aepervius]

Just in case that's a genuine question, I'm not going near it. I don't even know if there's such a thing as antimatter.

Is there, for real, in amongst the quantum stuff perhaps?


/Serious question

We do indeed produce anti matter but at fantastical energy cost, and very very few (count it in number of anti-proton or anti-hydrogen is easier than weight quantity). I dunno if we stock it or not, but at such quantity it does not matter much.

 

[Toke]

One researcher of the CERN laboratories, which produces antimatter regularly, said:
"If we could assemble all of the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes."

It does exist, but is not practical yet.

 

[Correa Neto]

Thanks for that reminder about the language barrier. It is very nice that Mori provides english translations of his work.

The problem is not the language barrier - Portuguese and Spanish are actually similar for those who are not familiar with them. The problem is Rramjet's modus operandi, pretending to master a number of subjetcs, making assumptions and empty claims.

Such a mistake coming from other posters would probably be ignored by me (or received a diferent reply). Mind you, its not even a matter of the position defended by the poster- had it been Snidley, I would consider it to be a honest mistake, since he AFAIK does not consider himself a scientist neither presents his posts as science.

But as soon as one presents him/herself as a scientist (and especially if this person consistently shows no evidence of mastering the scientific method), my tolerance level for errors and mistakes decreases drastically.

 

[Akhenaten]

We do indeed produce anti matter but at fantastical energy cost, and very very few (count it in number of anti-proton or anti-hydrogen is easier than weight quantity). I dunno if we stock it or not, but at such quantity it does not matter much.

It does exist, but is not practical yet.

I understand. Thank you very much.

 

[Akhenaten]

OK, so I guess this is the right thread for this:
[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/joosindaspace.jpg[/qimg]

I now reveal that this was the UFO over Teheran.

Israelis from beyond the borders of what we consider to be the borders of nature. Nice start for a CT, eh?

Our photographic evidence is of extremely high quality, and our witnesses are never mistaken. I think we could get it to fly.

 

[Marduk]

It does exist, but is not practical yet.

pffft

Microgravity Enterprises, Inc. Announces Sale of Antimatter
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- Microgravity Enterprises, Inc. (MEI) today announced that their space products are now available for purchase via the company's website
A case (24 cans) of Antimatter............sells for $36.00 on the internet

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_July_16/ai_n19361595/

The problem is not the language barrier - Portuguese and Spanish are actually similar for those who are not familiar with them..

yeah, but I bet you still have problems exiting buildings in English speaking countries

 

[Rramjet]

Sure, here you go, cropped to match:

I guess you missed my original point - that is, one can play around with brightness and contrast to obtain seemingly dissimilar cloud structures - but one can also do this to obtain similar structures.

If you doubt my (inexpert) assertions here, then perhaps you should visit the following article and see how, on a more detailed examination (rather than the blunt instruments we have been playing with here) the cloud structures actually can be demonstrated to have similar properties.

http://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/trindade/clouds.htm

The point is that Mori's case is at least overstated and that analysis reveals reasonable doubt that he is correct in his assertions.

 

[Rramjet]

Which is why you really have no clue about what you are talking about. His model was based on the map and photographs taken of the yard with measurements from the condon study. How high do you think the fuel oil tank is? Feel free to present your own 3D model to refute this image presented by Carpenter (as I stated, his website is no longer active and this is an image I took from that site long ago):

View attachment 16572

The height of the camera is listed at 37" and 42". If you can present a 3D model that refutes this, then we can discuss it. Declaring that you think this is "bunk" without evidence is non-scientific and a sign of desperation.

You can’t be serious… in the photo you reproduce the camera is patently higher than either 37” or 42”… in fact the heights are represented on the photo itself and we are looking down on those heights from the position of the camera! So what IS your point?

IF you were able to show us a later photo(s) of the same perspective as the original photo(s), where it was also demonstrated that THOSE photos were taken at the height(s) you suggest, then you might have a stronger case… but as it stands, you got nothing!

I described above how we can determine the height of the camera in the original photos…and this assessment directly refutes your claims. You have done NOTHING to refute my analysis. All you have done is merely claim that I have “no clue about what you are talking about” (sic)! If my assessment is mistaken in any way, then you need to SHOW WHY it is mistaken. Merely attacking me in derogatory terms does NOT make your case. …But of course, if you don’t have a case of your own, that is all you have left. LOL.

ETA: this was my original assessment:
If you look at the photos with a critical eye, you will note that the camera is only slightly below the level of the top of the fuel-oil tank! (That is we can almost see the top of the tank - and in photo 2 the line of the siding board on the house - which is almost level with the height of the top of the tank - forms a continuous line with the top of the tank. If the camera were much lower (like waist high) then that board line would be below the top of the tank).

 

[Akhenaten]

I guess you missed my original point.

<snip>

Which was to provide some evidence. How's that going?

 

[Toke]

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/1.3.41 Server at www.antimatterdrink.com Port 80

There is something wrong with the microgravity/antimatter drinks provider.
It couldn't be that their product does not live up to the name?

 

[Marduk]

Forbidden



There is something wrong with the microgravity/antimatter drinks provider.
It couldn't be that their product does not live up to the name?

noooo, youre just not accessing the web from the year 2036 like I am,

 

[Correa Neto]

“Diversion via edit”? What does that mean? Why do I suppose you won’t explain what you mean by your terms here… Sure, I am human. I occasionally make mistakes. However, I do admit my mistakes when the evidence is presented to show that I have been mistaken. However, just because I admit my mistakes does NOT mean that I don’t check things over before I post them. Despite possible evidence to the contrary, I am not “all seeing, all knowing”. LOL.

It is obvious that your checks are highly ineffective. Same with the way you handle data and scientific concepts.

“Oh…and while we’re on SETI… (which supposes ET will communicate not only with us, but between themselves in such a way that we can determine that it IS a communication and then we can trace it back to a location) …there is an interesting article here: (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17823941.900). These scientist have speculated on a method of communication that IS untraceable and that outside observers would never know it was a communication in the first place. Uh oh…scientists involved in speculation and getting recognition from their peers for doing so? That’s not very “scientific” is it? LOL.

Typical pseudoscientific rambling. If you were actually aware of how science works you would not have to appeal to this fallacy.

“ (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1744.htm) That took about 2 seconds of RESEARCH to dig that up… and YOU complain about ME not doing the basic research!

Yes, I point at your poor research, which is built over unreliable sources – UFOlogy sites. Aren’t able to see the many contradictions, hearsay, hoaxes, etc. at these places? Do you need us to point them for you?

I think you misconstrue the nature of the “contact” between “ET” and humans. It is VERY one sided. They act, we “cop it sweet”. Moreover, whatever purported “communication” via message delivered to “contactees” or “abductees” has never turned out to be “correct” information. Simply the “ETs” do NOT communicate with us in any meaningful fashion. THAT is what the evidence shows. 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.

Not only you demonstrated ignorance on SETI principles; you now just demonstrated some more of your shortcomings regarding the way you look at UFO lore. Just for starters, expose the methods you used to derive your conclusion on ET/humans communications from UFO lore. Which cases you selected and why, based on which criteria? Have you removed elements from these cases? Which ones, how and why?

I have never claimed the evidence I am presenting to be “scientifically conclusive”.

Oh, really? Then state that it is enough to back your beliefs and stop pretending to act like a scientist.

However, your contention that my evidence is sufficient to demonstrate hoaxes, gullible people, etc means that it is also sufficient to demonstrate precisely the opposite!

That you fail to see the reason why speaks volumes on your lack of skills when it comes down to science… And now this includes the social ones.

”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.

(…)

The lessons of these efforts should be clear: neither quantitative nor qualitative research is superior to the other, regardless of the research problem being addressed.”​

(http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s5458.html)

I could go on, but I think this should be enough to demonstrate the point that the study of UFO reports, photos, physical trace evidence, etc, is and can be scientific in nature, aims and methodology.

I’ll ignore the obvious contradiction the last sentence of the above quote is when compared with other statements by Rramjet.
See, if you had a better understanding of sciences, you would be aware of the endless discussions between “hard” and “soft” sciences. You would also understand, by now, why I say UFO evidence is good to prove the existence of hoaxes, gullible people, cult mindsets, etc. UFOlogy (as well as other fringe-subjects-o-logies”) is a matter for social sciences – it has to do with the way beliefs (memes if you will) appear, evolve and are incorporated in to our culture. The only way UFO lore can be used as good data is by looking at it as I stated –lore. Modern folklore, modern myths that’s what the whole UFO business is all about. However, UFOlogist always presented UFOlogy as hard science, UFOs are supposed to be “material”, tangible, able to produce material effects, leave remains, etc. The UFO phenomenon would then have at its core something measurable, replicable – thus falling within the “hard” sciences. To date, UFOlogy only accumulated failures along this line.
Try building a jet engine or propose a mining project based on datasets and methods with quality similar to what is presented by UFOlogists.

The article is a matter of fact report providing the details of an extraordinary occurrence and that also relates the physical effects of that occurrence. There is no reason for us to take it for anything other than it is - a substantially accurate report of the incident and its effects.

Then show us it can be trusted. Show us the original documents, hospital records, etc.

The reporter was obviously serious in his attempts and had clear and honest motives in making the report. That you wish to dismiss such reports with a lot of handwaving supposition is typical of UFO debunker “methodology”. You loudly proclaim “science”, yet demonstrably act unscientifically…

Without the original documents and hospital records, even if the reporter was actually “serious in his attempts and had clear and honest motives in making the report” one can not be sure of the exact facts, one can not be sure on how exact were his descriptions. If you had any intentions of acting in anything remotely similar to scientific, you would realize this fact.

Then you simply misunderstand what science actually is (see above quotes for example).

That was laughable, Rramjet, especially when in conjunction with your claims like those quoted above and below.

A specimen is NOT proof of a species.

Tell that to a biologist or to a paleontologist. Following the same line, a mineral specimen is not proof of evidence of a mineral type, archeological remains are proof of nothing…

The UFO debunkers claimed there was no objective evidence for UFOs. I presented some photos to show this claim to be false. If you want to show that the photos do NOT support my claim, then it is UP TO YOU to do that.

One more fallacy. You never actually managed to understand the onus of the burden stuff, right? It is your obligation to show these pictures are the real deal.

 

[Correa Neto]

yeah, but I bet you still have problems exiting buildings in English speaking countries
[qimg]http://www.safetysignshop.com/acatalog/EM096.gif[/qimg]

Nope. Although I must confess I have some problems with push-and-pull engines, I can understand from that sign that to buy & drink a beer I must push.


Have you ever studied Portuguese? Most people would not be aware of the similarities between those words...

 

[Akhenaten]

Skol.

 

[Correa Neto]

That's the name of a beer brand here. Its scientific proof I am correct regarding the sign.