UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rramjet said:
If the photo is 100% genuine, then it obviously represents nothing mundane. If it is not a mundane object, then by definition it is "alien".
Click to expand...

Or it could be a secret military project? Maybe the russians?
 
Sledge said:
And how do you arrive at that conclusion? How do you know it's not mundane?
Click to expand...


And if not mundane, how do you know it isn't an illusion created by a god? Seems Rramjet prefers to stay ignorant on that issue. But if he can't prove it wasn't a god, it may have been. And with thousands of years of conjecture as a foundation, the "UFOs = gods" theory is still kicking the silly and unfounded "UFOs = aliens" conjecture in the ass. Losers. :)
 
Rramjet said:
If the photo is 100% genuine, then it obviously represents nothing mundane. If it is not a mundane object, then by definition it is "alien".
Click to expand...


Only to someone whose reading comprehension skills and/or mastery of the English language was so dismally poor that he/she equated the word "alien" with the word "unidentified".

And why couldn't it have been a god?
 
I've seen magic tricks -- both on stage and on the street -- that defy any and all "mundane" explanations. There is simply no way an 8-ball could have dropped out of that one guy's sleeve onto the table [and onto the 8 of clubs] right in front of my eyes, especially since he wore a sleeveless shirt with no vest! Just where in the heck did that solid billiard ball come from?

And quick-change artists? Their talents resist all attempts at logical clarification. It is not possible that a woman can go from a skimpy and revealing summer dress to an ornate ballroom gown int he blink of an eye. And yet....

I could go on for pages. The point is, that simply because we have no readily available "mundane" explanation [one that obeys all laws of physics, biology, etc., and accords with our own knowledge of human technologies], does not make a thing/event/object "alien".

It just means we don't know.
 
Rramjet said:
Your “trick” here of setting up negative association in the reader’s mind by utilising a “strawman” argument shows, in my opinion, the baseness to which members of the JREF are willing to sink to discredit anything or anybody associated with the topic of UFOs....In my opinion, your own and other JREF member's resort to such "slurs" on the characters of (most likely) innocent people (including people who post opinions in opposition to your beliefs) actually reflects badly on the JREF and its members, and particularly on Randi, for implicitly countenancing such behaviour by not applying the requirement for "civility" as outlined in the JREF Forum rules.
Click to expand...

Perhaps my use of the "stupid hicks" remark is a bit harsh but you did not answer the question. Are you stating that the Trent were not bright enough, smart enough, clever enough, to create such a hoax? It appears fairly straight forward IMO. You suspend an object using some fishing line or thread and then take a few pictures of it. You then claim it was a UFO to your friends as a practical joke (not revealing it was a hoax). It appears in the community and suddenly somebody picks it up nationally and it becomes big news. Now you are stuck with sticking to a story that was initially a practical joke or admitting you lied to your friends and the community. This would not be the first time that this has happened (I can think of many examples of hoaxers who had no reason to commit a hoax and told a convincing story - see Condon case 7 and 24)
 
Ignoring the tedious but where you're once again accusing me of not looking at the evidence... I must have looked at it, to be questioning it's validity. :rolleyes:

Rramjet said:
If you take the width in the house in the photo compare it with the width of the house in the drawing, (Figure ADD84B - http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html) and create a ratio wp/wd = x, then take the length of the garage in the diagram and multiply it by x, then you should get the length of the garage in the photo. As far as I can tell…you do. So what’s your point?
Click to expand...

If you say so...

But I can see several errors. Firstly, on Maccabee's diagram here:
TrntCF2ADD84B.gif


Towards the back of the garage (level with the word 'sighting line', you can see Maccabee has drawn in a line which he has then for some reason decided not to use. This is where the back of the garage actually is if you overlay the aerial photo over it. And whilst you have the aerial photo overlayed, you will notice the gap between the house and the garage is much too big, so you need to move the house over to the left by about 5 little squares... then measure halfway along the house and draw a line between the garage and the house... see where the sight lines cross?
 
The France UFO that Rramjet posted on the previous page. It's a little more obvious that it's a side mirror from an old car, you can still see the ball at the top that fits into the socket that allows the mirror to adjust.

To sum up Rramjet's proof:

1. Rogue River most likely a blimp
2. McMinnville most likely an automotive side mirror

Rramjet, are you sure you aren't a debunker?
 
Astrophotographer said:
Perhaps my use of the "stupid hicks" remark is a bit harsh but you did not answer the question. Are you stating that the Trent were not bright enough, smart enough, clever enough, to create such a hoax?
Click to expand...
He's parrotting MacAbee's line that the Trents were simple farmers and, "The opinion which I received from talking with them reinforced what I had suspected from my earlier information: Paul and Evelyn are not mentally capable of thinking of producing a hoax for any reason,..."
http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html

And concludes, "If the photos were hoaxed these opinions should show conclusively that the Trents have the mental capacity and the will to produce a hoax if they so desired. Without such opinions it is useless to continue the discussion of how the hoax was carried off and how the Trents managed to convince so many people."
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
To sum up Rramjet's proof:

1. Rogue River most likely a blimp
2. McMinnville most likely an automotive side mirror
Click to expand...


Good. Then we can put those two behind us and move on. And since we've achieved a satisfactory resolution to those cases, perhaps Rramjet will have some free time to actually bring in some evidence to support his claim that aliens exist.
 
Summoning UFOs

OK, many of the aliens from outside the boundaries of what we call nature (whatever that means) I photographed were summoned through cerimonies that one could be tempted (and able) to do after a few beers.

These particular ones were, on purpose, made with some similarities with the Trent pictures. I included some refference points, electric wires (making sure that in some pictures the UFO would be above them, so no one would claim the UFO was hanging from a line tied at them), and changed perspective and camera-"UFO" distance to simulate a moving UFO. I also added people to the scene (OK, I should have indicated more precisely to which direction they should be pointing at). The UFO itself is an ordinary object- a piece of a kitchen stove tied to a piece of wood (no fishing rods were available) which was around with fishing line.

Here's the set up:
IMG00085-20091014-1740.jpg

And one of the "UFO" pics (you can find two others along this thread):
IMG00095-20091014-1745-1.jpg

Note I could use background blur as "proof" the object was moving- it was a relatively long exposure (pic taken at dusk) and I was following the "UFO" with my camera.

The funny untold story is that everibody was very happy with the idea and we had great laughs showing the pictures to other people who were deeply impressed with them. I created simple "sighting report" not unlike Trent ("was minding my own business, rose my eyes, saw that thing hovering in the sky, run to the house, got my cell phone, took pictures before it disappeared behind some hills"). It was very easy to see the whole tale could have gained its own momentum. At that point, I interrupted the story telling.

The lesson to be learned here is that faking UFO pictures with that type of quality is easy. UFOlogists must present pictures of better quality and unquestionable provenance if they actually want to build a robust case. To date none was provided.
 
GeeMack said:
Good. Then we can put those two behind us and move on. And since we've achieved a satisfactory resolution to those cases, perhaps Rramjet will have some free time to actually bring in some evidence to support his claim that aliens exist.
Click to expand...

Nope, those were his best evidentiary cases. He's finished now. I mean, it would be utter foolishness to just continue to throw up more cases and repeat ad infinitum, wouldn't it?

We all agreed for him to present his best case and apparently that was McMinnville so this thread is now complete.
 
So, we have pictures that can be faked and/or misunderstood, personal sightings that can be and often are wrong. What else do we have, nothing? Before Flying Saucers we have faires etc, and before fhat we had angels and before that so-called gods. What is going to replace the Flying Saucers, your guess is as good as mine.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Been out of the office today but to recap, have we now finally established God and UFOs via string theory? And of course admired Stray Cat’s artwork.

As for Correa’s - Well, still not convinced - I see UFO and strings but no God. Have you faked taken any other photos to incorporate all factors?
 
RoboTimbo said:
Nope, those were his best evidentiary cases. He's finished now. I mean, it would be utter foolishness to just continue to throw up more cases and repeat ad infinitum, wouldn't it?

We all agreed for him to present his best case and apparently that was McMinnville so this thread is now complete.
Click to expand...


So his best evidence for the existence of aliens were an exposed hoax and an object, most likely a blimp, that the witnesses weren't able to specifically identify. Those arguments sure amounted to a pile of trash, now didn't they?
 
GeeMack said:
...a hoax...
Click to expand...
We never did get evidence for his claim to being a scientist, did we? His methods in this thread indicated just the opposite.
...a pile of trash...
Click to expand...
Still, I feel kind of sorry for people who are so emotionally invested in folklore like this and have devoted their entire lives to desperately defending it. They have to maintain the fiction to make their investment not seem worthless. Shame, really.
 
RoboTimbo said:
We never did get evidence for his claim to being a scientist, did we? His methods in this thread indicated just the opposite.

Still, I feel kind of sorry for people who are so emotionally invested in folklore like this and have devoted their entire lives to desperately defending it. They have to maintain the fiction to make their investment not seem worthless. Shame, really.
Click to expand...


The thing I really don't understand is what was the objective of it all.

Even if a few of us had fallen to teh Dark Side, so what?

We aren't in a position to do anything about it any more than Rramjet is himself.

Did he hope the JREF was going to start lobbying the Government(s) to investigate all this drivel?
 
Akhenaten said:
The thing I really don't understand is what was the objective of it all.

Even if a few of us had fallen to teh Dark Side, so what?

We aren't in a position to do anything about it any more than Rramjet is himself.

Did he hope the JREF was going to start lobbying the Government(s) to investigate all this drivel?
Click to expand...

He's witnessing.
 
Akhenaten said:
The thing I really don't understand is what was the objective of it all.

Even if a few of us had fallen to teh Dark Side, so what?

We aren't in a position to do anything about it any more than Rramjet is himself.

Did he hope the JREF was going to start lobbying the Government(s) to investigate all this drivel?
Click to expand...

You know what all fundementalist Alien believers want,
they want to be noticed
but by who or what or from where ?
that is the real question
:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom