UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Sledge]

I don't think anyone ever doubted gay rodeos exist.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I'd suggest you confine yourself to the topic at hand, which is providing evidence of aliens. Got any? Of course not. Got any evidence of the "abuse" you claim to suffer? Of course not. Until you get around to doing what you claimed you would several months ago, I suggest you take the condescending attitude and shove it where the aliens probe.
No, I'm quite happy addressing it at you. It's your thread, do what you said you would or admit you have no evidence.
Ok, once again, for the benefit of people who apparently can't read: IT MEANS SOMEONE SAW SOMETHING IN THE SKY AND DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. HOW DOES THIS PROVE ALIENS?

Normally I'm not a fan of extra big text and all caps shouting, but in this case, shouting is what one resorts to when the intended recipient of the communication is just too damned dense to get it. It's come to that, which is why I'm not participating in this thread much anymore except as a spectator and occasional taunter of the unsuspecting.

A

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

The bit I don't understand about Rramjet's strategy/tactics is what is the ultimate desired outcome?
QUOTE]

To dance the masochism tango? Gets off on verbal abuse? Credit for long thread? Wall-o-text fetish?

No bloody idea, actually. I think with only a few exceptions, the thread participants view this one as an excercise in futility.

A

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I don't think anyone ever doubted gay rodeos exist.

International Gay Rodeo Association, not to be confused with a blimp. Of course, through suitably crappy binoculars, anything looks like a blimp, even a gay rodeo

 

[Akhenaten]

the most convincing photo I've seen in this thread so far had a blimp with "gay rodeo" written on the side

Not just this thread, either. I'm beginning to think there's something in this.

I think you two are getting confused with Byzantium.

The Hagia Blimpia​

 

[Toke]

I suspect you did something to that picture.

Or do you have a good explanation for why the picture from Hagia Blimpia look so similar to a lander from the UFO-Blimperprise at it`s mooring pyramid?

 

[Akhenaten]

I suspect you did something to that picture.

Or do you have a good explanation for why the picture from Hagia Blimpia look so similar to a lander from the UFO-Blimperprise at it`s mooring pyramid?

When will UFO debunkers ever learn lol

This simply represents INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION from WITNESSES WHO ARE NEVER MISTAKEN.


The truth is out there. I want to believe.



/how did I go?

 

[Toke]

When will UFO debunkers ever learn lol

This simply represents INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION from WITNESSES WHO ARE NEVER MISTAKEN.

I see, sorry about that, they were probably build at the same space-blimp yard or at least from similar drawings.
Your photos are even more reliable than an impeccable witness and an artist impression.

The truth is out there. I want to believe.

/how did I go?

 

[Rramjet]

Normally I'm not a fan of extra big text and all caps shouting, but in this case, shouting is what one resorts to when the intended recipient of the communication is just too damned dense to get it. It's come to that, which is why I'm not participating in this thread much anymore except as a spectator and occasional taunter of the unsuspecting.

A

Hey chief... how ya doin?
Not a "fan" of "caps and shouting"?
Why do it then?
...and your resort to abuse?
Do you think your post here is reflective of a mature, rational approach to debate?
How do you think outsiders might consider your post in reflection on JREF and James Randi as its figurehead?

 

[Rramjet]

More misuse of the word 'debunker' there.

What does this mean? It is not a sentence. There is no context. There seems to be an attempt at some form of assertion - but in what way is it being applied? It seems the intent here is to use mere word association to smear and cast doubt without the application of any real meaning. Its childish.

There is a practical reason for having a waist level viewfinder. It has a specific purpose, photographing moving objects wasn't it. Which is why the camera had two different view options. No one (except maybe a professional photographer) would think of using the waist level view finder to track and photograph a moving object... of course, if the object wasn't moving, it would make perfect sense. But we seem to be at 'your opinion, versus my opinion'. And with my experience and formal training in photography, I think my opinion is better informed than yours.

Umm, let’s see now…

”During this interval the object was moving quite slowly, apparently almost hovering…” (http://ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm)

You opinion may have been “informed”, but it certainly lacked the directly applicable knowledge on which to base an accurate assessment of the situation.

I didn't miss it, it's irrelevant. The distance indicator is indicating that the object was on one position and then moved to another position and the distance between the two positions is 'x' however, in the process of moving from one position to the next, the object moved in a south westerly direction. Not that it's important as I don't believe the object moved in any direction.

Of course you never even bothered to look at the Condon diagram did you! You even quote my statement that includes the link to the diagram and you could not even click on it to have a look! This is utterly typical UFO debunker behaviour: “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up!” LOL.

Just for kicks I’ll provide you with that link again in the hope (probably vain) that you WILL actually take a look at the diagram this time and realise your error. (http://ncas.org/condon/text/cs46fg01.htm) (tip…look for the other arrow in the same diagram…)

I have the Condon diagram on my computer, I used information from it to draw my diagram, how can you say I didn't check it? I also addressed this issue in the other thread where this was discussed so please stop with the nonsense.

You obviously have NOT checked it, just as I contend… you REALLY need to go and look at that diagram…

It had been addressed and is irrelevant. The exact direction of the object according to the witnesses changed (at one point it supposedly did a loop?), overall it was heading between west and south west. But I'm not going to go over that conversation with you again, it's pointless.

You REALLY, REALLY need to go and check BOTH the diagram AND the sighting report. (http://ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm)

I've already pointed out the flaw in the process used for analysis. It's contrived and doesn't take account of the possibilities. My guess is that this method is the only one that would arrive at the end result Maccabee was looking for.

Your guess? That is what passes for analytical or logical refutation in your reality? What flaw in the process? How is it contrived so that it does not account for other possibilities? Your merely stating a heap of generalised, unfounded assertions does NOT make those assertions true.

The UFO debunker world is truly a strange one folks…it is a world wherein any statement made by any UFO debunker automatically becomes true…. Or at least that is what they seem to believe occurs. LOL.

There is no need to do such a convoluted analysis. Especially one that doesn't take into account all the possible possibilities. But of course Maccabee needs to do it this way so he can hand wave the real possibilities away... 'This is the result I want, now let's worl backward from that to explain it'.

Science in the UFO debunker world: “There is no need to do such a convoluted analysis…”

So we are left with a photo that is disputed, witness reports that are disputed and even if we drop the objections to the photos and the witnesses and forget the complete bias of everything that Maccabee published, we are left with a photo of something UNIDENTIFIED.

And if that were so, what then might that suggest to you?

 

[Marduk]

What does this mean? It is not a sentence. There is no context. There seems to be an attempt at some form of assertion - but in what way is it being applied? It seems the intent here is to use mere word association to smear and cast doubt without the application of any real meaning. Its childish.

oh really, then perhaps you can show where anyone here has debunked a UFO. I mean unless you are now accepting my Blimp theory for the Rogue River sighting ???

 

[Belgian thought]

Hey chief... how ya doin?
Not a "fan" of "caps and shouting"?
Why do it then?
...and your resort to abuse?
Do you think your post here is reflective of a mature, rational approach to debate?
How do you think outsiders might consider your post in reflection on JREF and James Randi as its figurehead?

No abuse there, stating facts based on evidence. And, that is the only evidence we have from your posts.

 

[Sledge]

Hey, Rramjet? If the picture you're so obsessed with is genuine, how does it prove aliens?

 

[Paulhoff]

It is funny how Rramjet thinks that SETI is not scientific but doctored pictures are. I would still like to know why these aliens have not just landed in Washington D.C. and gone to the top of our food chain. Every exploring and/or conquering group on this planet has always done that, there is no reason why they wouldn’t too and playing hide and sneak is just plain silly.

Paul

 

[Akhenaten]

Hey chief... how ya doin?
Not a "fan" of "caps and shouting"?
Why do it then?
...and your resort to abuse?
Do you think your post here is reflective of a mature, rational approach to debate?
How do you think outsiders might consider your post in reflection on JREF and James Randi as its figurehead?

Needed more colour.

 

[Astrophotographer]

But the independently conducted photo analysis (by Hartmann and Maccabee) tends to rule the “fake model” hypothesis out. Is there anywhere in that analysis that you can point to that is in error in this regard?

Hartmann DID NOT rule out the fake model hypothesis. You act as if he falsified it in the Condon report:

It cannot be said that the evidence positively rules out a fabrication, although there are some physical factors such as the accuracy of certain photometric measures of the original negatives which argue against a fabrication.

In other words, the hoax hypothesis is not positively falsified. In fact, in the book, UFOs: A scientific debate he stated that there were "inconsistencies" revealed by Sheaffer and now changed his position about the photographs as "shown to be internally inconsistent" (p. 12).

BTW, The analysis are not really independent of each other. Independence indicates they were working on the photo analysis "independent" of each other and arrived at the same conclusion not being influenced by each others work. Maccabee did a lot of his analysis in the 1970s long after the Condon Report was published. He just attempted to duplicate the results. For somebody who is biased towards the ETH, it is not surprising he concluded that the Trents photographed an alien spaceship. His motives indicate a bias that was exposed with all the other hoaxes he has endorsed over the years.

The Trent photographs have been discussed to death already. Both sides have presented their case here and we are going over minutiae in another waste of time. The results are "inconclusive" with both sides offering reasonable arguments for their position. There is no positive evidence for a hoax and no positive evidence against a hoax or for alien visitation. Unless new evidence about the photographs can be presented, I suggest we move along to Rramjet's NEXT BEST CASE (which will probably end up with the same result).

 

[carlitos]

one more try, probably my last

Well, understandably I am loathe to take on too many cases at once – and there have been complaints by the UFO debunkers also about my doing that - but just for your OWN amusement at this stage…

I don't want you to take on "too many cases." Just your BEST CASE.

The Travis Walton Abduction (5 Nov 1975)
(http://www.travis-walton.com/index.shtml)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/traviswalton.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Walton.html)
Debunker: (http://www.debunker.com/texts/walton.html)
Reply to debunker:
Part I: (http://ufomedia.blogspot.com/2007/04...hat-wasnt.html)
Part II: (http://ufomedia.blogspot.com/2007/04...-wasnt_08.html)

Again,

My example hypotheses are from 5 to 7 words. You have posted a bunch of links to blog postings. I don't understand. Do you have some claim to make about the Travis Walton case?

Do you understand? Let me try to simplify my "example hypotheses" to this one case that you listed.

• Travis Walton was abducted by extraterrestial beings.
• Travis Walton suffered from drug-induced psychosis.
• Travis Walton was lying for some reason.
• Travis Walton was abducted by frat boys playing a joke.
• Travis Walton was victim of MKUltra

Chose ONE. Or write your own. But just one.


*With apologies for the ALL CAPS above, but as noted, it really is the logical progression of this communication.

 

[Stray Cat]

I suggest we move along to Rramjet's NEXT BEST CASE (which will probably end up with the same result).

Probably?

 

[Stray Cat]

What does this mean? It is not a sentence. There is no context. There seems to be an attempt at some form of assertion - but in what way is it being applied? It seems the intent here is to use mere word association to smear and cast doubt without the application of any real meaning. Its childish.

Having to spell everything out for you is getting really really tedious.
The context you placed it in was in reply to my comment in reply to your comment about journalists. To which I said you had just described UFOlogists. A debunker is someone who exposed false claims, how is any of this relevant to exposing false claims:
"they pose you in precisely the way THEY want to compose THEIR picture – it hardly matters to them what the external reality of the situation might be (or have been), it is all down to how THEY want to represent things"

”During this interval the object was moving quite slowly, apparently almost hovering…” (http://ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm)

Amusingly accurate... "almost hovering"

You opinion may have been “informed”, but it certainly lacked the directly applicable knowledge on which to base an accurate assessment of the situation.

This is what the Condon report actually says about the moments the pictures were taken:
"Witness II explained that he took the first picture, re-wound his film as fast as possible and then as the object gathered speed and turned toward the northwest, he had to move rapidly to his right to get the second picture"
So apparently as well as being informed in my opinion, I also have the directly applicable knowledge on which to base an accurate assessment of the situation.

Of course you never even bothered to look at the Condon diagram did you! You even quote my statement that includes the link to the diagram and you could not even click on it to have a look! This is utterly typical UFO debunker behaviour: “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up!” LOL.

Excuse me?

Everything in red added by me.

Just for kicks I’ll provide you with that link again in the hope (probably vain) that you WILL actually take a look at the diagram this time and realise your error. (http://ncas.org/condon/text/cs46fg01.htm) (tip…look for the other arrow in the same diagram…)

You're an expert in tediousness or what?

You obviously have NOT checked it, just as I contend… you REALLY need to go and look at that diagram…

Yes obvious to you... but then gain there's a lot that obvious to you... and that's mostly wrong too.

You REALLY, REALLY need to go and check BOTH the diagram AND the sighting report. (http://ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm)

Yes, because I haven't ever looked at either have I?

Your guess? That is what passes for analytical or logical refutation in your reality? What flaw in the process? How is it contrived so that it does not account for other possibilities? Your merely stating a heap of generalised, unfounded assertions does NOT make those assertions true.

Well for starters it doesn't take into account the dirty and damaged state of the negatives... we've been through this before and I'm not going to go through it again.

The UFO debunker world is truly a strange one folks…it is a world wherein any statement made by any UFO debunker automatically becomes true…. Or at least that is what they seem to believe occurs. LOL.

Whereas any statement made by UFOlogist is what?.....
The people you describe as debunkers can only debunk that which is bunk in the first place. Notice we can't debunk electricity, because even though you can't see it and it has magical properties it exists and you don't have to believe in it to be electrocuted by it.

Science in the UFO debunker world: “There is no need to do such a convoluted analysis…”

With the emphasis on 'convoluted'

And if that were so, what then might that suggest to you?

It might suggest a whole host of possibilities... none of them leaning strongly toward alien in origin.

 

[Stray Cat]

I think you two are getting confused with Byzantium.

The Hagia Blimpia​

When that picture was reproduced in the LA times, it had changed slightly.