UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

If only all that were true. Unfortunately the UFO debunkers posting to this thread cannot accept that UFOs exist. Instead they want each and every case to have a mundane explanation. For Rogue River, it was a blimp. For this case it was a squid boat.

Incorrect.
The people you describe as UFO debunkers are freely acknowledging the existence of UNIDENTIFIED Flying Objects. Further to this, they are proposing a POSSIBILITY that the answer lies in the mundane, they are then providing an amount of evidence to show the mundane is a possibility and providing an amount of evidence which shows that the UFOlogists have not ruled out the mundane possibilities.

No one is saying the Blimp possibility or the Squid boat possibility are conclusive, if they were, the objects would not be UFOs, they would be IFOs. In the balance of probabilities, these mundane causes have been shown to be more probable than the completely unevidenced alien space craft (or choose what ever ambiguous title you Rramjet decide to give it).

 

[GeeMack]

If only all that were true. Unfortunately the UFO debunkers posting to this thread cannot accept that UFOs exist. Instead they want each and every case to have a mundane explanation. For Rogue River, it was a blimp. For this case it was a squid boat.

This argument is a lie, of course, and is clearly intended to troll rather than as a contribution to a meaningful discussion. The most appropriate response to this argument is, of course...

​

 

[GeeMack]

Incorrect.
The people you describe as UFO debunkers are freely acknowledging the existence of UNIDENTIFIED Flying Objects. Further to this, they are proposing a POSSIBILITY that the answer lies in the mundane, they are then providing an amount of evidence to show the mundane is a possibility and providing an amount of evidence which shows that the UFOlogists have not ruled out the mundane possibilities.

No one is saying the Blimp possibility or the Squid boat possibility are conclusive, if they were, the objects would not be UFOs, they would be IFOs. In the balance of probabilities, these mundane causes have been shown to be more probable than the completely unevidenced alien space craft (or choose what ever ambiguous title you Rramjet decide to give it).

Oh yeah, because he doesn't already know that. He got you again with his argument by trolling.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Incorrect.
The people you describe as UFO debunkers are freely acknowledging the existence of UNIDENTIFIED Flying Objects. Further to this, they are proposing a POSSIBILITY that the answer lies in the mundane, they are then providing an amount of evidence to show the mundane is a possibility and providing an amount of evidence which shows that the UFOlogists have not ruled out the mundane possibilities.

No one is saying the Blimp possibility or the Squid boat possibility are conclusive, if they were, the objects would not be UFOs, they would be IFOs. In the balance of probabilities, these mundane causes have been shown to be more probable than the completely unevidenced alien space craft (or choose what ever ambiguous title you Rramjet decide to give it).

Rramjet sounds like a broken record. He's been told over and over again that no skeptic holds conclusive explanations for UFOs, but here he is again. Can't believe he is that obtuse.

BTW, I'm sorry that your wonderful illustrations went to AAH....

 

[Stray Cat]

Oh yeah, because he doesn't already know that. He got you again with his argument by trolling.

Well seeing as I'm apparently not allowed to post silly pictures that ridicule his argument anymore, I thought I'd try one more time at words.

 

[Stray Cat]

BTW, I'm sorry that your wonderful illustrations went to AAH....

Has it ever happened before that a post that got nominated ended up in AAH?

Oh well... I'm sure if anyone wanted to look at them, they could go to AAH and have a look... Would be handy if there was a direct link though.

 

[GeeMack]

Rramjet sounds like a broken record. He's been told over and over again that no skeptic holds conclusive explanations for UFOs, but here he is again. Can't believe he is that obtuse.

He's not that obtuse. It's his argument by trolling. He's got a couple suckers on his line and he's enjoying screwing with them.

 

[Access Denied]

I have been trying to present cases for which no plausible mundane explanation is possible.

And failed...

...in every single case.

Furthermore, you’ve yet to present one single shred of evidence that “aliens” exist as claimed in your OP.

And in the end that is just what I am calling for, research.

And as long as there are people like Maccabee using “science” to promote hoaxes you can be sure that will never happen… his brand of UFOlogy is simply not credible. You’re doing a great disservice to your “cause” by promoting his “research” here.

Furthermore, it’s already been pointed out to you ad nauseum what needs to be done differently and I’ve even told where you can go to try and get funding…

…so why are you still here?

 

[Rramjet]

Incorrect.
The people you describe as UFO debunkers are freely acknowledging the existence of UNIDENTIFIED Flying Objects. Further to this, they are proposing a POSSIBILITY that the answer lies in the mundane, they are then providing an amount of evidence to show the mundane is a possibility and providing an amount of evidence which shows that the UFOlogists have not ruled out the mundane possibilities.

No one is saying the Blimp possibility or the Squid boat possibility are conclusive, if they were, the objects would not be UFOs, they would be IFOs. In the balance of probabilities, these mundane causes have been shown to be more probable than the completely unevidenced alien space craft (or choose what ever ambiguous title you Rramjet decide to give it).

For the zillionth time I am NOT claiming “alien space craft”!
(…and I’ve told you a gazillion times…never exaggerate! LOL)

I AM claiming that blimp and squid boat are simply NOT supported by the evidence. As explanations go they are implausible. They do NOT accord with the evidence. You can only claim these things by either ignoring the evidence or by demonstrating the evidence to be incorrect (which latter has not been done in either the Rogue River or NZ cases).

It must also be noted that if you consider "blimp" to be more probable than “alien spacecraft” and if you consider “alien spacecraft” to have an essentially zero probability, then you ARE left with claiming it WAS a blimp! But you cannot have it both ways. It cannot be both a UFO AND a blimp. It IS one or the other… so which DO you claim it to be? (substitute “squid boat” for “blimp” in the above for the NZ case)

 

[Patricio Elicer]

He's not that obtuse. It's his argument by trolling. He's got a couple suckers on his line and he's enjoying screwing with them.

"Argument by Trolling", I like it. You've patented another logical fallacy .

 

[Stray Cat]

For the zillionth time I am NOT claiming “alien space craft”!
(…and I’ve told you a gazillion times…never exaggerate! LOL)

I AM claiming that blimp and squid boat are simply NOT supported by the evidence. As explanations go they are implausible. They do NOT accord with the evidence. You can only claim these things by either ignoring the evidence or by demonstrating the evidence to be incorrect (which latter has not been done in either the Rogue River or NZ cases).

It must also be noted that if you consider "blimp" to be more probable than “alien spacecraft” and if you consider “alien spacecraft” to have an essentially zero probability, then you ARE left with claiming it WAS a blimp! But you cannot have it both ways. It cannot be both a UFO AND a blimp. It IS one or the other… so which DO you claim it to be? (substitute “squid boat” for “blimp” in the above for the NZ case)

Blimp is the most likely possibility, but not conclusive.
Alien Craft (or whatever you choose to call it) is the least likely possibility, but still a possibility regardless of how statistically low it is.

On weight of evidence.

 

[Rramjet]

thats the same Quentin Fogarty who wrote "Let's hope they're friendly!" a bleevers book on UFO's

yeah hes really unbiased I can see that


so your evidence for this is based on a journo with a book out and a porn mag
outstanding source Rramjet, better than all your others by a long shot eh

Being a "bleever" has nothing to do with accurate reporting of what happened during the flight. Evidently you do not understand what is going on in this investigation. The right turn angle (which is actually the present subject of this discussion) was provided by the captain long before there was mention of it in a book or a "porn mag."

You (and Astro and others) apparently want to "bleeve" that the airplane turned more than 92 degrees. This amounts to changing the data in order to force the sighting to be more consistent with the Squid Boat explanation. Sorry, but there is no evidence that there was a lighted squid boat in Pegasus Bay and there is no evidence that the turn angle was anything other than what the captain reported (He based the turn angle on the initial and final magnetic bearings as read off the compass). On the other hand, the copilot clearly stated four days after the event that the light "kept station" with the plane at the right side as the plane turned left. Kind of hard for a squid boat to move that fast.

“After several minutes of travel along the southeastern path the pilot still didn’t have a direct view of the light, so he turned the plane to the left to regain his original heading (point 26 on Figure 6). According to the copilot the light “kept station with us” on the right hand side as the plane turned to the left. That is, the object at the right side traveled at a speed large enough to stay “outside the turn,” at about the same “o’clock position” (like 3:00) as the plane turned left.”​

(A HISTORY OF THE NEW ZEALAND SIGHTINGS OF DECEMBER 31, 1978 - http://brumac.8k.com/)
Yeah, squid boats are able to do that!

Then there is the colour difference mentioned by the copilot:

“Startup’s initial impression was that he was looking at the moon, a slightly squashed moon. Then he realized it couldn’t be the moon, which was far in the west. He described it as a white sphere with a tinge of orange that was slightly flattened at the top and bottom. Guard compared it to a squashed orange. The color was similar to that of a sodium vapor lamp.”​

(A HISTORY OF THE NEW ZEALAND SIGHTINGS OF DECEMBER 31, 1978 - http://brumac.8k.com/)

Regarding the colour of such a lamp:

“…so when the lamp is turned on it emits a dim red/pink light to warm the sodium metal and within a few minutes it turns into the common bright orange/yellow color as the sodium metal vaporizes.”​

(http://en.allexperts.com/e/s/so/sodium_vapor_lamp.htm) …so nothing like the intensely bright, white light of a squid boat.

So the possibility of it being a squid boat (Stray Cat) is about as remote as a possibility can be - and that certainly does NOT equate with (your) "most likely"!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

If only all that were true. Unfortunately the UFO debunkers posting to this thread cannot accept that UFOs exist. Instead they want each and every case to have a mundane explanation.

Not at all. I want goddesses to be involved.

On the other hand, my desire to believe in goddesses has no more to do with what actually happened than does your desire to believe in aliens or Playboy articles or whatever you want your thread to be about this week.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Rramjet please explain to us how you'll achieve funding for UFO research by the way of dissusion on the internet.

 

[Marduk]

You (and Astro and others) apparently want to "bleeve" that the airplane turned more than 92 degrees.

Nope, I haven't even bothered to follow the drivel being written here anymore, I doubt more than one or two other people are either, I'm just amazed that you think a journo with a book who's success is based on a belief in extra terrestrials is a credible source becuase he wrote an article for a porn mag.

that'd be like taking David Icke as a credible source on Reptilians
Or taking Graham Hancock as a credible source on lost ice age civilisations
or taking OJ Simpson as a credible source on being innocent of murder

Can't see it can you Rramjet
you have nothing
can't you hear how ridiculous you sound ??
really ?

 

[Sledge]

Rramjet, you said you'd post evidence of aliens. Please stop posting rambling, poorly-researched walls o' text that no one cares about and provide your evidence.

 

[GeeMack]

Rramjet, you said you'd post evidence of aliens. Please stop posting rambling, poorly-researched walls o' text that no one cares about and provide your evidence.

It's his argument by trolling.

 

[Rramjet]

Marduk stated:
"Nope, I haven't even bothered to follow the drivel being written here anymore, I doubt more than one or two other people are either."
Sledge stated:
"stop posting rambling, poorly-researched walls o' text that no one cares about"

Meaning of course: "Don't bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up." This truism about the mindset UFO debunkers is being proved over and over again in this thread by people such as Marduk and Sledge. The evidence obviously threatens their belief system, so they simply refuse to look at it! JREF a skeptical organisation? Not if Marduk's and Sledge's posts are anything to go by!

 

[GeeMack]

Marduk stated:
"Nope, I haven't even bothered to follow the drivel being written here anymore, I doubt more than one or two other people are either."
Sledge stated:
"stop posting rambling, poorly-researched walls o' text that no one cares about"

Meaning of course: "Don't bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up." This truism about the mindset UFO debunkers is being proved over and over again in this thread by people such as Marduk and Sledge. The evidence obviously threatens their belief system, so they simply refuse to look at it! JREF a skeptical organisation? Not if Marduk's and Sledge's posts are anything to go by!

More trolling.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, perhaps you could post your Best Case then?