UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

Yes, I have seeen it both inside and outside and on camera lenses. I have also seen other substances like oil. And notice, I'm not saying it IS droplets. I just made a comment that it looks like that. It's the first thing that came to my mind, not aliens.

You forget – or simply have NOT read the report - that the cameraman filmed the plane from the outside before takeoff and then the cockpit at various times during the flight AND then the landing approach through the cockpit windows!

NO “droplets” (or the effects of such) were seen on the film at these times and the UFO filming was conducted in amongst all of that…so WHERE are your droplets again? LOL. Do you propose the cameraman had a “bag” of them which he placed on the lens when filming the “lights” and took them off at other times… only to put them back on…and off…and on… and of course the same applies if you propose such “droplets” on the plane windows!

That would surely surprise most of the scientists at my university. I can't really see this in a thesis: "Lisa saw me put the blood sample into the centrifuge at approximately 9AM. Everything seemed to work ok when I turned it on but suddenly Lisa says she saw something extraordinary..."

Then you are simply NOT familiar with the many types of scientific reports out there. You are simply spouting bunk here my friend. Ughh… you spout nonsense…I don’t have the time to waste on this… biology reports, psychology reports, the list could go on…

There's something wrong with my tv. The screen sometimes goes black for a few seconds before the pic comes back. I also have a fly in my room that sometimes land on my tv. Three times I've noticed that the tv goes black when the fly lands on it. Should my first assumption be that the fly is causing the problem and that, on the several other occasions the tv blacks out, an invisible fly is causing the problem? Or, when the fly lands and no problem occurs that it's a different species of fly?

Huh? Precisely HOW does THIS relate to the New Zealand sightings? You seem to be WAY off base here – out in left field somewhere… What has gotten into you Jocce?

You are not answering the question I am asking. It was "where does the author present the arguments that rule out "clutter effects of mild atmospheric refraction that was common in the area."

You are being deliberately obtuse - I know - no doubt expecting some sort of frustrated reaction from me, but I will not bite. I answered your question by citing a passage from the relevant area of the report that discusses the things you ask about. Copy a line from that that citation, Go to Edit > Find… paste you line into the search box and search the document for that line. Then Read the radar report (no really – READ the report!) Guh…how is it that I am now having to instruct people in the MOST basic level of research possible? – how to search a Word document no less!

The answer to a question on the format "how many" is either a number or "I don't know". It is most certainly not 82 lines of text. You are deliberatly trying to obfuscate things here. I wonder why.

I am sorry you have not understood my answer to you on this. But perhaps again you are being deliberately obtuse in order to frustrate me. I cannot believe you are so dull as to not understand… so WHAT are you playing at Jocce… If you suppose my answer to your questions was not adequate, then PLEASE point out WHERE the answer fell short. WHERE is your rational debate…? Where are your counter-arguments to the stuff I am putting forward?

 

[Rramjet]

If I were you and it’s funding you want, I would steer as far clear of Maccabee’s pusedoscientific “research” as I could get.

[too late for that though, he's already turned you into his sock puppet]

More importantly, what’s the big deal? UFOs are clearly not a threat to National Security or anything else for that matter…

[although some of the people associated with them may be]

At the very least Dr Maccabee is a peer-reviewed, published author in mainstream scientific journals. He has a string of qualifications and has successfully made a career in hard science. Can you say the same? Envy does not become you Access Denied.

Actually, I am proud to have my name associated with Dr Maccabee's (even if it IS only in this forum).

And HOW do YOU know UFOs are NOT a "threat to national security". One can imagine many scenarios where they could easily be just that (and perhaps even worse)! Sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring them like little kids at night pulling the covers over their heads and hoping they will just go away is NOT going to help here I am afraid. WHAT IF they DO represent a grave threat to humanity? You would never know until it was too late and they came to take YOU away!

 

[Stray Cat]

And HOW do YOU know UFOs are NOT a "threat to national security". One can imagine many scenarios where they could easily be just that (and perhaps even worse)!

Indeed, humans are blessed (or cursed) with very active imaginations...

Hang on, I think I've just realised why the UFO phenomenon persists.

 

[Stray Cat]

Finally, I don’t propose “alien” here, I propose RESEARCH! …and are you seriously contending that scientific research does (and will) lead us nowhere?

The problem with this, is that most (if not all) of the information has already gone through the 'Maccabee UFO Belief Filter™, which renders it quite useless to anyone wanting objective data.

 

[Sledge]

If Rramjet isn't proposing aliens here:
1) Why has he changed his mind since his opening post?
2) What was the point of all this?
3) Will he apologise for wasting everyone's time?

ETA: This... this is just offensive.

Soooo…another proponent of the theory: “As evidence ages, so it becomes less valuable”. Try arguing your theory to a Holocaust victim or their families.

First of all: massive reading comprehension fail. I don't know about bothering your science teacher, you need to book yourself in for some remedial reading lessons. Let me try and simplify this to the point where even you can understand it. The majority of the cases you've presented as being the strongest are 30+ years old. It seems that as camera technology improves, we get fewer photos that can't be explained. This would suggest that, rather than aliens buzzing the skies, what we have and have always had are mundane (gosh, you do love that word, don't you?) objects photographed badly. Nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Oh, and as a side note, that you even begin to equate people who disagree with you with Holocaust deniers... if I told you what I think of that and you right now, I'd get kicked off the forum. And it would almost be worth it.

 

[EHocking]

ETA: This... this is just offensive.

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Soooo…another proponent of the theory: “As evidence ages, so it becomes less valuable”. Try arguing your theory to a Holocaust victim or their families.

I call Godwin.
Thread over.

 

[Correa Neto]

Using a cell phone here, so I'll be brief.
I am not aware of the harware available to New Zealan armed forces back then but...
Is it correct that at a previous night NZ Air Force sent an Orion to check contatcs?
If this is correct, then it speaks volumes about this UFO case...

 

[Jocce]

You forget – or simply have NOT read the report - that the cameraman filmed the plane from the outside before takeoff and then the cockpit at various times during the flight AND then the landing approach through the cockpit windows!

NO “droplets” (or the effects of such) were seen on the film at these times and the UFO filming was conducted in amongst all of that…so WHERE are your droplets again? LOL. Do you propose the cameraman had a “bag” of them which he placed on the lens when filming the “lights” and took them off at other times… only to put them back on…and off…and on… and of course the same applies if you propose such “droplets” on the plane windows!

So? Droplets still was the first thing that came into my mind when I watched the video. I can't understand why you keep arguing against that. You have no control over how I associate things.

Then you are simply NOT familiar with the many types of scientific reports out there. You are simply spouting bunk here my friend. Ughh… you spout nonsense…I don’t have the time to waste on this… biology reports, psychology reports, the list could go on…

All I see is blablabla...unsupported yapping on the interwebs.

Huh? Precisely HOW does THIS relate to the New Zealand sightings? You seem to be WAY off base here – out in left field somewhere… What has gotten into you Jocce?

You're obviously completely unimaginative unless it comes to identifying flying things with alien technology. I belive that you are the only one who can't see the analogy.

You are being deliberately obtuse - I know - no doubt expecting some sort of frustrated reaction from me

I couldn't care less about your reaction. I notice that you can't answer the question though.

If you suppose my answer to your questions was not adequate, then PLEASE point out WHERE the answer fell short.

I was quite clear on that in my reply. What I aim to do is to cut through all the irrelevant crap in your own and others texts about this to get to the REAL DATA. Like sifting sand to get the gold. Unfortunately, there's not much gold to have. There is so much irrelevant commentary, value judgments and editorial drama in everything you present that it's very hard for the reader to find the real, objective, data that is actually there. That is a problem for you.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

Obviously you have never flown in a plane and observed what you claim. No “droplets” stay on plane windows while flying. NONE at all - ever. The most that happens is that when it is raining, the water streaks and smears across the window – but definitely NO “droplets”! …and it was NOT raining.

<snip>

What comment do you have for the four people who have refuted this ridiculous statement so far?

 

[Akhenaten]

At the very least Dr Maccabee is a peer-reviewed, published author in mainstream scientific journals. He has a string of qualifications and has successfully made a career in hard science. Can you say the same? Envy does not become you Access Denied.

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are peer-reviewed, published authors in mainstream scientific journals. Does this prove panspermia?

Appeal to authority, especially a dubious one, does not become a valid argument, Rramjet.

Actually, I am proud to have my name associated with Dr Maccabee's (even if it IS only in this forum).

As above. With bells on.

And HOW do YOU know UFOs are NOT a "threat to national security".

Critical thinking. Cool, eh?

One can imagine many scenarios where they could easily be just that (and perhaps even worse)!

One can. The many, however, seem to display far more common sense.

I guess that's why it's called common sense.

That other thing would be nonsense, I suppose, since onesense isn't a word.

Sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring them like little kids at night pulling the covers over their heads and hoping they will just go away is NOT going to help here I am afraid.

Help what, mate? Nothing that anyone does is going to make all flying objects become identifiable to all people, so there will always be UFOs.

You appear not to have ever understood this.

Try not to be afraid.

WHAT IF they DO represent a grave threat to humanity?

Answer A:

Then we face an unknown and unidentifiable threat.

What have you got in mind to do about it, call in the Federation?


Answer B:

Hide all our graves. I suggest underground.


Answer C:

We don't need no steenkin' alien gravity. We already have one.

You would never know until it was too late and they came to take YOU away!

I've had a recurring dream along these lines lately. In my dream however, it's not me that the aliens are taking away.

 

[Akhenaten]

Using a cell phone here, so I'll be brief.
I am not aware of the harware available to New Zealand armed forces back then but...
Is it correct that at a previous night NZ Air Force sent an Orion to check contatcs?
If this is correct, then it speaks volumes about this UFO case...

"UFO probably a squid fleet off New Zealand, pilot says"​

A link


Squids? Can we have some fun with this, or what?

Paging Stray Cat.

 

[Rramjet]

If Rramjet isn't proposing aliens here:
1) Why has he changed his mind since his opening post?
2) What was the point of all this?
3) Will he apologise for wasting everyone's time?

ETA: This... this is just offensive.


First of all: massive reading comprehension fail. I don't know about bothering your science teacher, you need to book yourself in for some remedial reading lessons. Let me try and simplify this to the point where even you can understand it. The majority of the cases you've presented as being the strongest are 30+ years old. It seems that as camera technology improves, we get fewer photos that can't be explained. This would suggest that, rather than aliens buzzing the skies, what we have and have always had are mundane (gosh, you do love that word, don't you?) objects photographed badly. Nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Oh, and as a side note, that you even begin to equate people who disagree with you with Holocaust deniers... if I told you what I think of that and you right now, I'd get kicked off the forum. And it would almost be worth it.

Oh, but remember the O'Hare case that I presented thatyou all refused to discuss? THAT was a November 2006 case! So please, you probably should get your facts straight before posting such nonsense about "30+ year old cases" again. And just because the cases are older, does NOT mean the evidence is any less valid (which is why I pointed to a stark example, the Holocaust, to show how ridiculous - even offensive - such a suggestion really is).

Photos of UFOs continue to proliferate, and of course "photos" can be "explained" simply because we now have the technology to so easily create hoaxes ...but THAT does NOT mean that all photos are hoaxes (remember the all crows are black fallacy?). Photographed badly? Such a short memory - for example the McMinnville photos so recently presented were in focus... and talking about a short memory, how long do you think that the technology to take clear digital photos has been in the public domain (for example what was the average pixel count of a mobile phone just a year or so ago)? Just a couple of short years ago the average affordable digital camera was not so hot on resolution either... but of course there ARE clear photos, just technology discounts us claiming them as evidence. People also complain about things like satellites (eg Google earth) and surveillance cameras not "capturing" UFOs ...well, this technology can barely (relatively rarely) even capture planes, helicopters, balloons, birds and the host of other mundane things that fill our skies by the tens of thousands - so what chance a UFO encounter?

UFO reports continue unabated. And people like me will continue to argue that UFOs must be taken seriously by the scientific community. I would have thought that UFO debunkers would welcome a call for scientific investigation... funny how that seems not to be the case in practice.

I have not stated that I am NOT going to present evidence for "aliens". Indeed I have already presented The Father Gill, the Lonnie Zamora and the Travis Walton cases which point in that direction. At the moment we are simply establishing a case (The Kaikoura UFO sightings (30 Dec 1978) where there is a conjunction between visual, radar and photographic (film) evidence. If you don't find that sort of evidence at least interesting or intriguing then I am sorry - perhaps this is just not the thread for you.

So I will continue to put forward the evidence and the research to support my contentions and I will argue, forcefully if need be, to support my case concerning UFOs. I am sorry if that upsets you, but unfortunately that cannot be a factor in preventing the evidence, the research and the arguments from being placed on the record in this forum.

 

[Rramjet]

What comment do you have for the four people who have refuted this ridiculous statement so far?

Four people? IF it has been refuted, then so be it. I'll admit an error. THAT is how rational debate (and science) works. However I stand by my comment that it was not raining:

"The captain reported that the flying weather was excellent and he was able to use the automatic height lock, which would have automatically disengaged had there been turbulence that would change the altitude of the aircraft. The sky condition was "CAVU" (clear and visibility unlimited) with visibility estimated at over 30 miles. ... The air crew could see the lights along the coast of the South Island, extending southward to Christchurch about 150 miles away."​

(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc)

 

[chuck4842]

"UFO probably a squid fleet off New Zealand, pilot says"​

A link


Squids? Can we have some fun with this, or what?

Paging Stray Cat.

Please don't, I mean c'mon! Does this imply lights as the source of the radar hits too? Lets just stay with unidentified,

 

[Sledge]

Reading comprehension failure number 1: You'll note, assuming you bother to read rather than skimming and can understand the word, my use of the word "majority." Do you deny that the MAJORITY of your cases are 30+ years old?

Reading comprehension failure number 2: No one has said that the evidence becomes less valid for being older. Please cease attacking that strawman, he's done nothing to you and it's tiresome to watch you hare off on bizarre, self-invented tangents.

Now, do you understand that? I don't see that we can progess at all if you can't understand these simple points.

 

[Toke]

I wonder what RR is trying to achieve, the New Zeeland case had serious people with real airplanes up and trying to figure out if those radar contacts were more than just atmospheric disturbances.

What more could anyone ask for?

 

[Akhenaten]

Four people? IF it has been refuted, then so be it.

Jocce - Private Pilot.

Toke - Engineer, seaman, keen observer.

Puddle Duck - Jet Fighter Piilot.

Akhenaten - Aerospace Engineer.​

IF???

I'll admit an error.

Not really necessary. All of your errors are pretty obvious, and we don't mind pointing them out.

THAT is how rational debate (and science) works.

What do you call this then:

<snip>

Obviously you have never flown in a plane and observed what you claim. No “droplets” stay on plane windows while flying. NONE at all - ever. The most that happens is that when it is raining, the water streaks and smears across the window – but definitely NO “droplets”! …and it was NOT raining.

<snip>

Science?

However I stand by my comment that it was not raining:

Where you stand matters little, although if you decide on 'outdoors', take a brolly with you.

 

[Akhenaten]

"UFO probably a squid fleet off New Zealand, pilot says"​

A link


Squids? Can we have some fun with this, or what?

Paging Stray Cat.

Please don't, I mean c'mon! Does this imply lights as the source of the radar hits too? Lets just stay with unidentified,

I'm not implying anything. I was attempting to answer a request from a member who is temporarily off the web.

Let's just stay with minding our own beeswax.

 

[Astrophotographer]

It seems that the WATCC only reported substantial events… like a large position change or the reappearance of the object after a disappearance. At each report we usually have some indication of whether there was a visual identification from the airplane also. Thus to quantify the event as you attempt to do is merely to allow one variable - the number of times the WATCC chose to report to the plane - to dictate the numerical outcome. Thus your third and fourth questions will not supply any answer that might represent a valid assessment of the sighting.

"It seems?" You are guessing. Based on what Startup recalls in the NOVA program, it is more likely they were being reported all sorts of random contacts. Which of these contacts do you find the most compelling? Seeing a light at night at the same time and general direction somebody reports a radar contact is not what I would consider hard evidence, would you?

BTW, Dr. M. interviewed the wellington ATC named Geoffrey Causer. According to Klass, Maccabee interviewed him and asked if they had ever seen erratic blips before. Causer's response was:

Yes, I have. I think if you'd check with most of the radar controllers at Wellington, we've all seen anamolous propagation, or unidentified returns from time to time. We haven't taken too much notice of them. It was only because of the interest shown by this particular flight and by previous (UFO) sightings on the 21st of December, you know. The was a lot of interest shown. (Klass UFOs: the public deceived p.236)

 

[RoboTimbo]

Shifting the burden of proof?! LOL. I merely asked Astrophotographer what his thought processes might be given a particular circumstance. I might ask YOU exactly the same question:

Tell me what your thought processes are when you discover there simply IS no mundane explanation for a UFO sighting RoboTimbo? What DO you suppose might be occurring?

I've never discovered a case where there can be no mundane explanation. If I had, I hope I would recognize that I would be an idiot for thinking that way.

Can I expect an answer?

Indeed, I answer you more often than you answer me.

Why should I have to “hypothesise” anything about this UFO?

Because you claim to be a scientist?

The sighting constitutes evidence that there are things flying around in our skies that appear to have no plausible mundane explanation (at least none that fits the concurrent eyewitness descriptions, the film and the radar evidence).

No, it doesn't. You merely saying so does not make it true.

I conclude from this (and a number of other cases presented in this thread– and some not presented also) that it would be pertinent to conduct some well funded, targeted, peer-reviewed research into UFOs to see if we can’t find out what the *bleep* they are.

Conclusion not warranted based on a false premise.

I DO have a personal opinion about what might be occurring, but you don’t WANT opinion here, so it would be useless for me to state that opinion - besides you would only howl it down as “unfounded opinion”.

All you have really is opinion.

I am sticking to my stated objectives in this forum. That is to provide evidence and research to support the case that UFOs not only exist, but that they have NO mundane explanations.

Nope, you are simply sticking to your unfounded opinion. You have the faith of your beliefs in your dogma.

The methodology I am employing is to start from the base and work upward, adding new layers of evidence with each case I present. We started with “mere” sighting reports, progressed through “official” sightings, to physical trace evidence, to now combine visual, radar and film. (oh, there were some “aliens” in there as well as an abduction case but they were asides from the main game…a foretaste if you will

A pity that isn't the scientific method. You'd think a scientist would know the difference.

So I’m sticking to my outlined strategy and I am sorry if you do not like or understand it, but it is what it is.

Your problem is that everyone understands your methods all too well. You set up strawmen to attack and you lie. Would you like examples?