UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

Ah, now we have the conjunction of a “number of anomalous conditions”…what ever happened to Occam? (after all UFO debunkers love to cite Occam don’t they!)

Occam's razor is about assumptions. I am talking about proven case of UFO's eventually being identified as a series of animalous circumstances eg: Weather conditions + Helicopter Searchlight or High altitude cloud and Venus. Or in this case AP radar contacts and Squid boats (plus a TV crew who were taking the flight with the 'expectation' of seeing or at least reporting on Unidentified lights. We don't have to make assumptions, by their own admission the radar was showing AP's and we know there were squid boats in visible range.

” Robert Guard, the copilot, did recall seeing the squid fleet 130 nm east of Christchurch during the flight south between 0015 and 0100 hours. He also saw the SB fleet as the plane flew northeastward out of Christchurch over an hour later. “
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html)

And …

“Four days after the sighting the copilot made a tape recording of his recollections of the sighting. (…) … the copilot stated that he could see the bright white light of the squid fleet on the horizon (see Figure 1), which is consistent with the expected horizon distance (about 130 nm) at the altitude of the plane, 13,000 ft (3960 m) as it flew southeastward. In comparison with the brilliant white of the squid boat lights, the copilot noted that the unknown light was noticeably more orange. Since he had both "types" of light source (squid boats and the unidentified object) in sight at the same time (although not in the same direction) it is reasonable to accept the copilot's statement that he detected a definite color difference.” (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html)

So that's a "no" then... thanks.

Oh, and the photo you supply - there is absolutely NO “green” or “orange” in squid boat lights – this is a known fact, they are intensely bright white. So your photo-representation is not a true (faithful) rendering of what a squid boat light really looks like. The colours you see are purely an artefact of having to reduce the exposure level…

Go and learn about the regulations for boats (and a course in photography may help too)... If you think that the green light is anything to do with attracting the squid (as the bright lights are), then read up on nagivation light requirements for boats. Green = Starboard. Red = Port (the orange colour you can see on the photo I posted).
A known fact indeed

 

[GeeMack]

Case closed.

Good. And not a single shred of evidence to support the claim that aliens exist. Case closed. Unless, you know, you've got some refutation to the hypothesis that this was a manifestation of the gods, created to get some idiot on an Internet forum to make an ass of himself by babbling about it being aliens. That is a serious possibility that you haven't even begun to tackle yet, Rramjet. And it's as good an answer as any until you prove it wrong.

 

[Belgian thought]

. Green = Starboard. Red = Port (the orange colour you can see on the photo I posted).
A known fact indeed

I believe many UFO's have used the same lighting set up. Must be universal and again points to some form of God made law.

The Book of Balls: V34 C3

"And Lo, all things that do not breathe or take forth the bounty of my creation, that move in the air or swim they shall be litten according to the law. The left shall be red, for the left is evil, and red is the colour of hell. Green shall be right, for to be right is surely to be green, even behind the ears."

And they asked "But Lord, What of the things is on land?"

And he answered. "They will be free to move as they will, but if they see the light of red, they will know to stop, for again they will not wish to enter the kingdom of hell, and green will let them continue along their chosen righteous path."

"And of the women?" For these were good men.
"When red, they too will stop, and apply their make-up"

 

[wollery]

I'm afraid that real life has rather impinged on my ability to post over the last week and a half, so I apologise for dragging up something that many of you might have thought was long buried. But not to Rramjet. No, Rramjet, I'm not apologising to you, because I have yet to get a coherent, reasoned response from you about my criticisms of Freidman's "arguments" against SETI.

Your last attempt to deflect the question of the energy required for interstellar flight was an appeal to the theoretical constructs commonly known as wormholes, which I pointed out require far more energy than conventional rockets use to accelerate for 1 year at 1g.

But that question has been answered, so I'll repost the other questions that you have completely failed to answer;

Do you know how narrow the TV and radio signals we use are? Do you know why we use them like that?

Can a radio station tell who has received their Radio broadcast?

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't look because we haven't seen any evidence so far?

Do you know how searches for extra-solar planets might identify signs of life? More importantly, how would they identify signs of intelligent life?

Before our leaders can deal with aliens our leaders need to know that the aliens are there. Who's going to find these aliens and open the channels of communication?

Do you think that a belief that UFOs are alien craft is incompatible with support for SETI?

It's a reasonable question to ask. If they should already be here then where are they? Have they made direct contact yet?

You claim to be a scientist, and to understand the scientific process. So, in your own words, please explain what's wrong with the SETI project from a scientific perspective.

Original posts here, here, and here.

And as a simple reminder, you introduced Freidman's website and asked us to discuss it. I did, and you avoided the discussion.

After all your recent criticisms of other posters' behaviour it would be extremely hypocritical of you to continue doing so, don't you think?

 

[Rramjet]

Occam's razor is about assumptions. I am talking about proven case of UFO's eventually being identified as a series of animalous circumstances eg: Weather conditions + Helicopter Searchlight or High altitude cloud and Venus. Or in this case AP radar contacts and Squid boats (plus a TV crew who were taking the flight with the 'expectation' of seeing or at least reporting on Unidentified lights. We don't have to make assumptions, by their own admission the radar was showing AP's and we know there were squid boats in visible range.


So that's a "no" then... thanks.


Go and learn about the regulations for boats (and a course in photography may help too)... If you think that the green light is anything to do with attracting the squid (as the bright lights are), then read up on nagivation light requirements for boats. Green = Starboard. Red = Port (the orange colour you can see on the photo I posted).
A known fact indeed

Ughh…you know the “squid boat” thing is only really valid (only works) for those who have never seen a squid boat in operation. The simple fact is, that once you have seen one operating, from that point into the future, from no matter where you view it from, there can never be any mistake about whether you are viewing a squid boat or not. They are THAT distinctive. The pilot and crew were familiar with squid boats. Simply, if there was one in the area, they would have known about it! – and indeed they did note a squid fleet 150 miles away! The squid boat argument is TRULY an argument relying on ignorance. Once you have seen one, on a dark night, you could (literally) identify it with your eyes closed!

 

[RoboTimbo]

Ughh…you know the “squid boat” thing is only really valid (only works) for those who have never seen a squid boat in operation. The simple fact is, that once you have seen one operating, from that point into the future, from no matter where you view it from, there can never be any mistake about whether you are viewing a squid boat or not. They are THAT distinctive. The pilot and crew were familiar with squid boats. Simply, if there was one in the area, they would have known about it! – and indeed they did note a squid fleet 150 miles away! The squid boat argument is TRULY an argument relying on ignorance. Once you have seen one, on a dark night, you could (literally) identify it with your eyes closed!

The same could be said for oil well fires at sea.

 

[TjW]

Ah, now we have the conjunction of a “number of anomalous conditions”…what ever happened to Occam? (after all UFO debunkers love to cite Occam don’t they!)

Well, let's take a look at the two hypotheses:

1) That a condition known to occur in the area (anomalous propogation of radio waves) occurred again, and lights of a known-to-exist, but not always present in the area phenomena (the squid fleet, or Jupiter, or perhaps a night SAR or even, possibly, training for a night SAR) happened to coincide. The two events were connected in the minds of pilots (who have a constant concern over traffic at their altitude, since one midair can ruin your whole flight).

2) Previously unknown aliens, flying a previously unknown something that sometimes did, and sometimes didn't reflect radar from one ground station that could paint the airplane, but never from another ground station that could paint the airplane, and sometimes did, and sometimes didn't emit visible lights, buzzed an airplane.

Whatever happened to Occam? Presented with the second hypothesis as being the one requiring the fewest new entities, I suspect he's doing about ten thousand RPM.

 

[Marduk]

The same could be said for oil well fires at sea.

Or Venus
or any other common object that is frequently mistaken for ufo
When they were handing out logic, what was Rramjet doing ?

 

[Belgian thought]

Once you have seen one, on a dark night, you could (literally) identify it with your eyes closed!

You do not seem to see a lot of things with your eyes opened.... literally

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Good. And not a single shred of evidence to support the claim that aliens exist. Case closed.

Indeed.

The discussion of possible mundane explanations for the Kaikoura lights has been interesting and intriguing, but irrelevant to the claim that aliens exist. Even if we were unable to imagine mundane explanations for this incident, it would remain a UFO incident (albeit with some residual doubt concerning the "F") having no evident connection to aliens. Everyone agrees that unidentified FOs exist, so what's the point?

Unless, you know, you've got some refutation to the hypothesis that this was a manifestation of the gods, created to get some idiot on an Internet forum to make an ass of himself by babbling about it being aliens. That is a serious possibility that you haven't even begun to tackle yet, Rramjet. And it's as good an answer as any until you prove it wrong.

GeeMack's hypothesis may be more economical than Rramjet's, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

The ancients tell of goddesses who make fools of mortal men. Given that history, it would be unwise to commit to gods before undertaking a serious investigation of goddesses and their manifestations.

 

[Stray Cat]

Ughh…you know the “squid boat” thing is only really valid (only works) for those who have never seen a squid boat in operation. The simple fact is, that once you have seen one operating, from that point into the future, from no matter where you view it from, there can never be any mistake about whether you are viewing a squid boat or not. They are THAT distinctive. The pilot and crew were familiar with squid boats. Simply, if there was one in the area, they would have known about it! – and indeed they did note a squid fleet 150 miles away! The squid boat argument is TRULY an argument relying on ignorance. Once you have seen one, on a dark night, you could (literally) identify it with your eyes closed!

You say this with the same amount of certainty that you used when stating that droplets couldn't form on an airplane's windows and that squid boats didn't have green lights on them... as only two of the many examples of your misguided certainty, in this thread.

I would add to the list of common objects that should easily be identified but for what ever reason were reported as 'Unidentified': The Gay Rodeo blimp.

PS: Wonderfully illustrated on the previous page by Akhenaten

 

[Access Denied]

Not all UFOlogists would be so quick to associate themselves with “SEA GULL”…

The Fund for CIA Research?
or
Who's Disinforming Whom?
http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/ufo/cia.research

Some more from the AIR report above that’s relevant to the case currently under discussion and should be pointed out…

“Maccabee first approached the CIA in early 1979 after traveling to New Zealand to investigate the filming of an alledged "UFO" from a plane by a television crew. Although most people who viewed the film were unimpressed by the jumpy blob of nocturnal light, Maccabee for unclear reasons, decided the film represented some sort of probative evidence of UFOs and set out to bring it to the attention of CIA officials.”​

One wonders why Rramjet is promoting this case as “evidence” for aliens when even Maccabee’s own peers, who are UFO proponents themselves, don’t find it compelling?

As Astrophotographer has pointed out a number of times and Ramjet continues to ignore at his own peril, Maccabee is known for promoting hoaxes and cases most serious researchers have long since rejected…

“No single individual bears greater responsiblity for promoting the Gulf Breeze case to the ufological community and probably the general public than Dr. Bruce Maccabee. Dr. Maccabee was one of the earliest and most vociferous proponents of the case. His technical evaluation of the photographic evidence in the case was forceful and stressed that the hoax explanation was unlikely due to the high degree of technical difficulty that would be required to fabricate similar photographs. Yet after far too much wasted time and resources most serious researchers have come to the conclusion that indeed the case is a hoax.

One must question Dr. Maccabee's personal and professional judgement in this case. Did he simply become emotionally involved with the participants (he became close friends with Ed & Frances Walters early in the investigation) and then allow this involvement to cloud his critical facilities? Or, is his technical ability to analyze photographic evidence really that poor? Given his then ongoing relationship with Ron Pandolfi of the CIA (and his admission to having briefed intelligence officials on the case) one could speculate that Dr. Maccabee's public support for the case might have been encouraged by his intelligence contacts. This would certainly have served the CIA's interest in keeping serious investigation of the UFO phenomena out of the public domain. It is important to note that Pandolfi has stated to others that he considers Ed Walters to be a "total fraud."​

Are you trying to prevent serious investigation of the UFO phenomena Rramjet? If so, I have to admit, you’re doing a great job…

 

[Access Denied]

And as a simple reminder, you introduced Freidman's website and asked us to discuss it. I did, and you avoided the discussion.

After all your recent criticisms of other posters' behaviour it would be extremely hypocritical of you to continue doing so, don't you think?

I concur...

Clearly Rramjet is incapable of thinking for himself so he simply ignores answering “out of the box” questions that he can’t answer by quoting somebody else… in this case Friedman has painted him into a corner by deliberately misinforming him.

 

[Akhenaten]

Indeed.

GeeMack's hypothesis may be more economical than Rramjet's, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

The ancients tell of goddesses who make fools of mortal men. Given that history, it would be unwise to commit to gods before undertaking a serious investigation of goddesses and their manifestations.

Cool. Now we can have a proper debate, with two teams and everything - gods vs godesses. We can also call the theory 'contovertial' to boost sales of the books and movies when they come out.

I would add to the list of common objects that should easily be identified but for what ever reason were reported as 'Unidentified': The Gay Rodeo blimp.

PS: Wonderfully illustrated on the previous page by Akhenaten

Not as wonderful as if someone turned it into a movie poster.

 

[carlitos]

Bye all. Good luck.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

You could verify the virginity ?

Unfortunately, (or fortunately) due to the uncertainty principle, the method I use for verifying virginity neccesarily influences the results.

A

 

[Stray Cat]

Not as wonderful as if someone turned it into a movie poster.

I'm right on it... be back in a bit.

 

[Stray Cat]

OK, I'm back now...

 

[Rramjet]

Access Denied
There is just a tiny detail you are missing in your "debunking" of Dr Maccabee...

He is only the messenger in this case. That is, we do not necessarily have to rely on his analysis at all. What is of direct interest is the history (the sequence of events) of the case. That is - what the WATCC stated and saw; what the pilot and co-pilot stated and saw, what the cameraman stated, saw and filmed and what the reporter stated and saw (and at what times and positions all these occurred). The rest is peripheral to the case - That is, the case does NOT stand or fall merely on one man's analysis (no matter HOW expert and professional that analysis might be).

You CANNOT escape the FACTS of the case (even by trying to discredit the messenger).

The FACTS are that there were a number of confirmed radar/visual conjunctions and at least one radar/visual/film conjunction. This evidence clearly demonstrates that there was at least one very REAL object in the sky that night and it is THIS object that must be explained - no matter HOW odd it's behaviour might seem to us.

 

[Stray Cat]

The FACTS are that there were a number of confirmed radar/visual conjunctions and at least one radar/visual/film conjunction. This evidence clearly demonstrates that there was at least one very REAL object in the sky that night and it is THIS object that must be explained - no matter HOW odd it's behaviour might seem to us.

Sorry Rramjet, you haven't conclusively shown how anyone can accurately measure by eye a light source against a black sky and black sea to be able to tell how far away it was to be able to confirm it was the same blip that was on the radar.

Until you can do this, you can not say that there was any radar visual tie up.