UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Astrophotographer]

Big snip of the usual quoting of Dr. M. who has been shown to be gullible to the point of allowing hoaxes to get by him and influence his writings. It is the same stuff we have seen before.

WHAT unknown variables? It is “unsolved” because it is a UFO! Not because the sighting did not occur! ALL the evidence points toward a UFO - NOT AP NOT SB – but UFO. We have radar/visual/film conjunction. THAT is evidence Astrophotographer….

Right. It is a UFO. It is unidentified. There is no evidence that it involves technology or phenomena outside the known natural world and there is no eivdence that the radar/visual/film are positively confirmed. Time to move onward.

Snip...snip...snip...

What term would YOU ascribe to objects that take evasive action when an attempt at approach is made, then returns to station after the approach attempt is called off (this case)? What term would YOU use to describe an object that flees from, and then chases an F-4 (Tehran case)?

You have yet to show this actually happened the way it has been described. Until you can demonstrate this actually happened, it is unknown. Time to move onward.

Snip....snip....snip

That is a blatant untruth (to be polite) Astrophotographer. I cite MANY different sources – as you well know! This is merely the pot calling the kettle black! “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”! LOL.

The ONLY sources you have cited are the sources by Dr. M or those with an interest in the subject. You have not presented any opposiing opinions and when presented, you hand wave them away as if you have no interest in them. You have gone as far as calling scientists dishonest. At least I give Dr. M. the benefit of the doubt and suggest he is just plain gullible.


Big Snip of more ranting and raving.

I examine the evidence both for and against and decide according to the weight of that evidence.

No, you have not examined the evidence entirely and honestly. You give weight to that you want to accept and give no weight to opposing opinions. It is unscientific and biased.

Everybody in this forum has accepted the fact that there are UFO cases that can not be positively explained. However, we also note that none of the evidence to date points towards extraordinary forces (or whatever you want to call them). If you believe they do, then you need better evidence. Once again, I like to point out what the NOVA program commentator stated about this "will to believe".

...like most UFO sightings, part of its interest lies in what it reveals about ourselves. Some people when confronted with unfamiliar lights in the sky like this feel the need to find an unusual explanation. For them, science has taken much of the mystery out of life and by concluding that the answer can be found in beings from other worlds, they return an element of mystery to our own world.

I think I can speak for the forum in that you have not presented a very good case for "aliens" (which is what you stated in your very first post). This is why you have backpeddled to another description but you have not even proven these points. The evidence is anecdotal and that which is not (i.e photos, films etc) is weak or suspect. If you want to say you have proven all of this, feel free to do so. However, you haven't and I suggest you attempt to perform this task with a group of your fellow scientists, who are not involved with the UFO subject. If you can get them to agree with you, then come back and let us know.

Another snip of the usual.

 

[EHocking]

...I think I can speak for the forum in that you have not presented a very good case for "aliens" (which is what you stated in your very first post). This is why you have backpeddled to another description but you have not even proven these points. The evidence is anecdotal and that which is not (i.e photos, films etc) is weak or suspect. If you want to say you have proven all of this, feel free to do so. However, you haven't and I suggest you attempt to perform this task with a group of your fellow scientists, who are not involved with the UFO subject. If you can get them to agree with you, then come back and let us know...

The above does not misrepresent my opinion of the contents of this thread to date.

 

[GeeMack]

Big snip of the usual quoting of Dr. M. who has been shown to be gullible to the point of allowing hoaxes to get by him and influence his writings. It is the same stuff we have seen before.

[...]

And Astrophotographer's argument is trolling the troll. Well played, sir.

 

[Marduk]

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!

I'm not a UFO debunker, nor do I operate under a belief system
"Earth to Rramjet"
"Is evidence from a porn mag extraordinary"
"hello, can you hear me"

 

[Sledge]

What evidence, Rramjet? What evidence have you posted of anything other than people sometimes see something in the sky and don't know what it is? For that matter, how do you interpret "please present some evidence" as "don't bother me with the evidence." Those remedial English lessons really aren't working, are they?

 

[carlitos]

Please, pretty please:

BEST CASE
SIMPLE ONE-SENTENCE HYPOTHESIS THAT 'EXPLAINS' BEST CASE
ETA - Example (aliens were piloting a spacecraft over Teheran)

 

[tsig]

As I stopped reading Rramjets wall of text posts about 149 pages ago I have to ask the other members:
1. Has the magical process which transforms loads of old anecdotes into convincing evidence started?
2. Need we wait for a hundredthousand pages more of the same to reach critical mass?
3. When will the miracle happen?
I make guesses:
ad 1: No, and never will
ad 2: Only if we have strong believe into Santa and the Easter Bunny
ad 3: Never ever
Tell me if my guesses are wrong.

I think we're being subjected to the metamorphic proof.

That's when a mountain of anecdotes metamorphises into one hard fact.

 

[Vortigern99]

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

This.

 

[Alley Cat]

I object to that. Those pictures you took away were on topic... very much on topic...

Yes. I absolutely agree

I can't write what I really think of what's happened, because of the threat made against the Thread.

But I have to say, the action taken and the threat made, is unhelpful and disgraceful. Bull and China Shop come to mind.

 

[tsig]

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.

Yes posts sent to AAH have been nominated before which shows what a fine line it is.

I thought your pictures were the highpoint of this whole thread and made the best arguments if you read the text in them.

 

[Stray Cat]

Yes posts sent to AAH have been nominated before which shows what a fine line it is.

I thought your pictures were the highpoint of this whole thread and made the best arguments if you read the text in them.

Well apparently the Mods haven't been reading them (nor the thread) as they have now also moved my latest poster to AAH too.

So Rramjet: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence?
UFOs exist (all agreed on that one)
The research has been shown to be spurious (and that's being kind)
The evidence consists of anecdote, exaggeration, misinterpretation and in some cases lies. (on which only you disagree)

What else you got to share that's going to convince anyone?

 

[GeeMack]

What else you got to share that's going to convince anyone?

Arguments from incredulity, ignorance, lies, and trolling is the complete inventory. Even the bootlickers have been dropping out.

 

[Rramjet]

Big snip of the usual quoting of Dr. M. who has been shown to be gullible to the point of allowing hoaxes to get by him and influence his writings. It is the same stuff we have seen before.

So here we have a neat encapsulation of UFO debunker methodology. First we have “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up” (“Big snip…”), then we have the ad hominem attack (attack the man, not the argument), then we have the “hand-waving dismissal”.

Right. It is a UFO. It is unidentified. There is no evidence that it involves technology or phenomena outside the known natural world and there is no eivdence that the radar/visual/film are positively confirmed. Time to move onward.

Snip...snip...snip...

So, you admit the New Zealand Pegasus Bay object sighting (31 Dec 1978) was a UFO sighting. Okay, now we are getting somewhere!

Now the question becomes Is there anything in the description of the UFO that might lend support to any alternate hypothesis that we can think of?”.

The first alternate hypothesis (“Mundane”) has been ruled out. There were no other aircraft in the sky. There is no evidence for any squid boat in the area – besides “squid boat” does not accord with the eyewitness testimony. There are no known anomalous propagation radar phenomena that accord with the radar evidence.

However, there is one “mundane” possibility left – some natural phenomena as yet undiscovered by science. Leaving aside the obvious objection concerning the explanation of one unknown with another unknown”, is there anything in the sighting descriptions that would rule that out as well?

Well, there is the “intelligent behaviour” of the object! Remember the object took evasive action when the Captain of the Argosy, Bill Startup, tried to turn the plane toward it. Then, after the plane was turned back to regain its original heading, the UFO “kept station” with the plane during the turn. That is, the UFO moved with a large enough speed to stay outside the turn of the plane at the same relative position to the plane (3:00 position) during the left hand turn. Thus on any reasonable definition “unknown natural phenomenon” can be ruled out – no such phenomena will display “intelligent behaviour” of such seemingly purposeful magnitude.

So now what alternative hypotheses are we left with? Well, there is “alien”. But what does THAT mean? Does it mean ETI? Does it mean “interdimensional” beings? Does it mean time travellers? What DOES “alien” mean in the context? Of course the most plausible alternative (that is the alternative least fraught with physical and logical “impossibilities”) – IS the ETI hypothesis. This hypothesis might then seem to be the most likely possibility, but still, there is only circumstantial evidence to support it. So while we might entertain the ETI hypothesis as a working hypothesis until something better comes along, we cannot state categorically that it IS the explanation.

You have yet to show this actually happened the way it has been described. Until you can demonstrate this actually happened, it is unknown. Time to move onward.

Snip....snip....snip

In the NZ case we have the radar data showing a solid object (at least radar reflective). We have the eyewitness testimony visually confirming an object in precisely the direction the radar indicated it would be. We also have film evidence to support both the radar and the (multiple) eyewitness testimony. To contend the event did not “actually happen” is simply to ignore that evidence!

The ONLY sources you have cited are the sources by Dr. M or those with an interest in the subject. You have not presented any opposiing opinions and when presented, you hand wave them away as if you have no interest in them. You have gone as far as calling scientists dishonest. At least I give Dr. M. the benefit of the doubt and suggest he is just plain gullible.

Big Snip of more ranting and raving.

This is absolutely untrue. I have cited MANY opposing sources (including Condon, Klass, Sheaffer, etc) and many technical and historical sources in support of my contentions. On the other hand, what sources do YOU cite – as far as I can tell it is ONLY UFO debunker sources! So demonstrably, YOU are the one who has “…not presented any opposiing opinions and when presented, you hand wave them away as if you have no interest in them.” YOU are the one making the ad hominem attacks on scientists and YOU are the one (with your “Big snip of more ranting and raving”) who is making unfounded assertions and displaying the mindset “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”!

No, you have not examined the evidence entirely and honestly. You give weight to that you want to accept and give no weight to opposing opinions. It is unscientific and biased.

IF I have not “examined the evidence entirely and honestly”, than you need to support that assertion with evidence. You make a number of unfounded assertions here (displaying another UFO debunker trait “Just because I say it, it must be true”) and that IS “unscientific and biased”. …and there is yet another UFO debunker trait on display here – that is the propensity to accuse your opponent of the very things you are guilty of!

Everybody in this forum has accepted the fact that there are UFO cases that can not be positively explained. However, we also note that none of the evidence to date points towards extraordinary forces (or whatever you want to call them). If you believe they do, then you need better evidence.

I have demonstrated above that once we acknowledge that “UFO” is the correct catagorisation for a sighted object, then we can examine the sighting characteristics for more information concerning potential support for alternate hypotheses. Of course the evidence for these alternate hypotheses may be circumstantial - which is why we cannot categorically state any of them to be “true” – but it is an entirely legitimate scientific practice to create working hypotheses in the absence of direct evidence (in the presence of circumstantial evidence).

Once again, I like to point out what the NOVA program commentator stated about this "will to believe".

...like most UFO sightings, part of its interest lies in what it reveals about ourselves. Some people when confronted with unfamiliar lights in the sky like this feel the need to find an unusual explanation. For them, science has taken much of the mystery out of life and by concluding that the answer can be found in beings from other worlds, they return an element of mystery to our own world.

In a case like the NZ one we have been “discussing”, then it is hard to see how the “will to believe” comes into it. Does radar have a “will to believe”? Does a film camera have a “will to believe”? Of course not. These instruments provide us with solid data. We then must interpret that data. On examination of such evidence we have found NO plausible mundane explanation – thus UFO is the categorisation. This is not a “will to believe” – it is merely a rational, scientific examination of the evidence.

I think I can speak for the forum in that you have not presented a very good case for "aliens" (which is what you stated in your very first post). This is why you have backpeddled to another description but you have not even proven these points. The evidence is anecdotal and that which is not (i.e photos, films etc) is weak or suspect. If you want to say you have proven all of this, feel free to do so. However, you haven't and I suggest you attempt to perform this task with a group of your fellow scientists, who are not involved with the UFO subject. If you can get them to agree with you, then come back and let us know.

I have made NO claims of “proof” – NONE whatsoever. YOU want to believe that I have presented no “good” cases to support my contentions ( you display a “will to believe”) but just because YOU believe that I have presented no good cases, does NOT make YOUR belief true. Again you make unfounded assertions (such as “backpeddling” and “weak or suspect” evidence) but again you provide NO supporting evidence for your belief about these things.

As far as “fellow scientists” are concerned, I believe that if they could get past the UFO debunker ridicule and abuse (the ad hominem attacks – and let’s face it, what scientist wants to expose themselves to the certainty of such attacks when most of them have careers that need protecting – especially in the face of a scientific cultural zeitgeist that has been built up over time that has ridicule and scorn at its heart) and if they could rationally examine the evidence (and not fall into the debunker mentality of “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”) then they WOULD see that there is a genuine mystery here that is deserving of properly constituted scientific research. But in the end I am merely presenting cases here that support my contentions. What others make of them is their own business, but I DO have the right to defend my position and I DO expect that counterarguments be put (especially by an organisation such as the JREF that claims to represent sceptical thought) rationally, logically and scientifically AND in consideration of the evidence.

 

[carlitos]

Astrophotographer, if we offered you cookies, would you refrain from answering these walls o'text until he posts a hypothesis?

*Although, I liked this bit.

scientific cultural zeitgeist that has been built up over time

 

[RoboTimbo]

...The first alternate hypothesis (“Mundane”) has been ruled out.

Nope. This is your handwaving. Your belief system requires that you handwave away all mundane explanations so that your "god", aliens, is the only thing left. Remember Campeche?

That only worked for Sherlock Holmes because it was fiction.

 

[Astrophotographer]

More big snip of the same old arguments. Beyond what Dr. M. has written, you have added nothing new. Therefore, it is the same argument that Dr. M. has provided, which has not swayed the court of scientific opinion. As a result, your argument is a case of "rinse, lather, repeat". I suggest you rinse, get out of the shower and move onward. Otherwise, you are going to be stuck in the shower forever.

As far as “fellow scientists” are concerned, I believe that if they could get past the UFO debunker ridicule and abuse (the ad hominem attacks – and let’s face it, what scientist wants to expose themselves to the certainty of such attacks when most of them have careers that need protecting – especially in the face of a scientific cultural zeitgeist that has been built up over time that has ridicule and scorn at its heart) and if they could rationally examine the evidence (and not fall into the debunker mentality of “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”) then they WOULD see that there is a genuine mystery here that is deserving of properly constituted scientific research. But in the end I am merely presenting cases here that support my contentions. What others make of them is their own business, but I DO have the right to defend my position and I DO expect that counterarguments be put (especially by an organisation such as the JREF that claims to represent sceptical thought) rationally, logically and scientifically AND in consideration of the evidence.

So, it is the fear of ridicule that prevents them from examining the evidence objectively? Is that your contention? What kind of scientists would you want to examine such evidence if they fear ridicule? They are not very good ones IMO. If the UFO evidence was so compelling, why aren't more scientists picking up the banner? It is my opinion that their lack of interest is because they consider the evidence inadequate even when they are presented the evidence in a controlled setting (see Sturrock panel for a recent example).

 

[Astrophotographer]

Astrophotographer, if we offered you cookies, would you refrain from answering these walls o'text until he posts a hypothesis?

I have been trying to "cut to the chase" on these "Walls o'text". Sorry that it has not been successful in having him present a best case or a hypothesis. Basically, I think we all agree that there are Unidentifieds. However, we do not agree with his conclusion that everything that could possibly explain these events has been ruled out.

What kind of cookies? You make a VERY COMPELLING argument.

 

[GeeMack]

I have been trying to "cut to the chase" on these "Walls o'text". Sorry that it has not been successful in having him present a best case or a hypothesis. Basically, I think we all agree that there are Unidentifieds. However, we do not agree with his conclusion that everything that could possibly explain these events has been ruled out.

Do you feel like you're gaining any ground?

What kind of cookies? You make a VERY COMPELLING argument.

Home made chocolate chip.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

This is absolutely untrue. I have cited MANY opposing sources (including Condon, Klass, Sheaffer, etc) and many technical and historical sources in support of my contentions. On the other hand, what sources do YOU cite – as far as I can tell it is ONLY UFO debunker sources! So demonstrably, YOU are the one who has “…not presented any opposiing opinions and when presented, you hand wave them away as if you have no interest in them.” YOU are the one making the ad hominem attacks on scientists and YOU are the one (with your “Big snip of more ranting and raving”) who is making unfounded assertions and displaying the mindset “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”!

It's up to you to make the claim that ufo's are alien not the other people on this thread, also you only mentioned Klass, Condon and Sheaffer in passing as you hand waved them off and you continued with the big M's report for all your information. Also I dig how you keep using Friedmen's big 4 rules with out any hint of irony.

 

[Sledge]

Rramjet, you're talking utter cobblers. What does the phrase "UFO debunker" even mean? Everyone here is totally happy to accept that UFOs exist. Where is this "UFO debunking" you speak of? The only debunking going on is of the unmitigated arse gravy that flows through your every post.