UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[gambling_cruiser]

The whole thread reminds me of Michael Endes "Neverending Story".

 

[Stray Cat]

The whole thread reminds me of Michael Endes "Neverending Story".

Don't say things like that, I'm still sulking at my last movie poster being removed by the Mods... oh, hang on... no, I'm over it now.

Funny how Rramjet assumes that the scientists assume the evidence is not worth looking at... That's real research that is.

Infact with such attention to inaccurate detail, Rramjet could maybe get a job working for Microsoft?... Or perhaps Toyota are looking for a gas pedal development manager?

 

[Akhenaten]

I might be the only person on Earth who liked the movie version.

Hi bro. You are in dubious company.

The whole thread reminds me of Michael Endes "Neverending Story".

Turn around
Look at what you see....
In her face
The mirror of your dreams....
Make believe I'm everywhere
Given in the light
Written on the pages
Is the answer to a never ending story...

Reach the stars
Fly a fantasy....
Dream a dream
And what you see will be....
Rhymes that keep their secrets
Will unfold behind the clouds
And there upon a rainbow
Is the answer to a never ending story...

-limahl​

Infact with such attention to inaccurate detail, Rramjet could maybe get a job working for Microsoft?... Or perhaps Toyota are looking for a gas pedal development manager?

Must be willing to relocate . . . suddenly.

 

[Rramjet]

WRONG, you are the only using it as a negative connotation. So you can make strew men out of people's arguments who you disagree with, also that wall of text says nothing about ufo's being alien.

Again I make the point - if the actions and methodology of the UFO debunkers posting in this thread were NOT negative, then I would be unable to describe them in negative terms. It is up to the UFO debunkers - if they act and debate positively, then negative descriptors would no longer be applicable.

As for UFOs and aliens - perhaps you missed the following small section in my previous post:

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.

 

[Stray Cat]

Again I make the point - if the actions and methodology of the UFO debunkers posting in this thread were NOT negative, then I would be unable to describe them in negative terms. It is up to the UFO debunkers - if they act and debate positively, then negative descriptors would no longer be applicable.

And again, you miss the point. Being a debunker is nothing to be ashamed of, it is not a negative description. You use it like it's an insult or a derogatory term, when in reality as Astrophotographer has pointed out several times and more recently PuddleDuck has given you the dictionary definition:

A person who exposes false claims

So every time you call us debunkers, you are admitting that we are exposing false claims... which is really good of you when it's taken into consideration that we don't offer you compliments in return. Thanks.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet seemed to be intimating that there is actual evidence that could be shown to scientists that would be persuasive. Naturally, I assumed that he wasn't referring to these same retold anecdotes of hoaxes and misperceptions.

Or perhaps you simply missed the Sturrock Panel recommendations about UFOs: the research and the evidence. Here:

(...)

You really should read the Sturrock Panel report. It discusses quite a deal of evidence contained within a number of UFO cases and it also provides concrete recommendations on how to deal with - and effectively research - the evidence in UFO reports and cases.

 

[Rramjet]

And again, you miss the point. Being a debunker is nothing to be ashamed of, it is not a negative description. You use it like it's an insult or a derogatory term, when in reality as Astrophotographer has pointed out several times and more recently PuddleDuck has given you the dictionary definition:

A person who exposes false claims

So every time you call us debunkers, you are admitting that we are exposing false claims... which is really good of you when it's taken into consideration that we don't offer you compliments in return. Thanks.

Then you should have no complaint about my use of the term. But as I explained to Puddle Duck (et al.) ...it is not the term itself that is the problem, but the behaviour and methodology of those who are associated with the term that allows me to ascribe negative descriptors which you do not like. It's simple really, behave positively and debate rationally I and will have no grounds for the use of negative descriptors in association with UFO debunkers.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Or perhaps you simply missed the Sturrock Panel recommendations about UFOs: the research and the evidence. Here:

You really should read the Sturrock Panel report. It discusses quite a deal of evidence contained within a number of UFO cases and it also provides concrete recommendations on how to deal with - and effectively research - the evidence in UFO reports and cases.

Will you start effectively researching UFO reports and cases now? Posting anecdotes on a skeptic's forum doesn't seem to be all that effective as a method of research for a scientist.

 

[Stray Cat]

Will you start effectively researching UFO reports and cases now? Posting anecdotes on a skeptic's forum doesn't seem to be all that effective as a method of research for a scientist.

I certainly dont remember the chapter in the Sturrock report that recommended posting old unreliable anecdotes on a sceptics forum as one of their: "concrete recommendations on how to deal with - and effectively research - the evidence in UFO reports and cases"

Maybe I missed that chapter.

 

[Stray Cat]

Then you should have no complaint about my use of the term. But as I explained to Puddle Duck (et al.) ...it is not the term itself that is the problem, but the behaviour and methodology of those who are associated with the term that allows me to ascribe negative descriptors which you do not like. It's simple really, behave positively and debate rationally I and will have no grounds for the use of negative descriptors in association with UFO debunkers.

I don't have any complaint about the word debunker and I doubt anyone else does.
The issue that has been raised is why we are particularly called UFO debunkers. We are not exposing false claims about UFOs. Maybe UFOlogist debunker would be more accurate.
Everyone here to a man accepts the existence of UFOs and no one is debunking them. We are debunking the evidence that you claim points conclusively to a non mundane cause.

 

[Akhenaten]

Then you should have no complaint about my use of the term. But as I explained to Puddle Duck (et al.) ...it is not the term itself that is the problem, but the behaviour and methodology of those who are associated with the term that allows me to ascribe negative descriptors which you do not like. It's simple really, behave positively and debate rationally I and will have no grounds for the use of negative descriptors in association with UFO debunkers.

Put the thesaurus down and bring us your best case, Mr Rramjet, lest we decide to shut down 'your' thread because we're bored with it.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Even a train wreck fascination wears out with the time.

 

[Toke]

I can't shake the image of stray cat standing in a corn circle with a map with some lines on and a flight log for a blimp.

(it is his facial expression when the ufo-nuts just wave it off that does it)

 

[carlitos]

1 - Best Case
2 - Hypothesis to explain Best Case
3 - Discussion

 

[tsig]

Even a train wreck fascination wears out with the time.

Yes. I'm tired of it.

 

[Astrophotographer]

More big snip of useless nonsense and the usual pasting of the UFO propoganda websites (who try desperately to spin the story their way). I suggest you read what the actual scientists stated (I posted them previously in another post - they were unimpressed). We have seen your version of the "facts". They don't influence the scientific community and you have not established any facts beyond the fact that people see things they can not identify.

These results are consistent with the findings of an earlier but more limited survey of members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (Sturrock, 1974b), except that the opinions of astronomers (expressed in 1975) concerning the significance of the UFO problem were more positive than were the views of aeronautical engineers (expressed in 1973).” [/I][/INDENT] (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc604.htm)

You do realize that the survey was "loaded" (3 of the 5 questions asking for a positive response) and that almost half did not bother responding to the survey. Most important was that only 2% stated they had sightings they could not explain (One of which Klass presented in UFOs: The public deceived. It was a Titan rocket launch.). A rate significantly lower than those produced by the general public. A similar survey was conducted with Amateur astronomers resulting in roughly 5% UFO sightings. Again, this is a rate much lower than the general public. The best sightings listed were not very compelling. One appeared to be the observation of a spy satellite making a course correction. Others were just irregular clouds and such. There was no "prize cases" in either survey.

Of course, the $1000 question is are you going to settle on a best case for use to discuss and are you going to do as you originally claimed, give us proof that "aliens" are involved? This was your original post:

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

Note the term "aliens". It was not "alien" as in exotic but a plural noun indicating you have evidence that "aliens" were the cause of these UFO reports. Feel free to present the evidence with your best case. So far what you have presented has not shown evidence of "aliens".

 

[Paulhoff]

This is an unfortunate consequence of a complex series of circumstances that has inappropriately made UFOs a topic of scorn and ridicule and anyone associated becomes tarred with that brush. It is not a matter of “lack of interest” (clearly there is a huge interest it the topic) but it IS a fact that many “scientists” DO consider the evidence inadequate. However this is NOT because they have examined the evidence and found it to be so, it is because the merely assume it is so given the general climate of scorn and ridicule that has built up around the subject.

And if the subject was anything else, with the same type of evidence, it still would be inadequate, it has nothing to do with it being a subject about UFO's. Huge interest by the public does not make something that is creditable.

Paul

 

[Astrophotographer]

No, it is fear of sanction leading to a potential (or the perceived potential) for a loss of standing, funding or even employment. This is an unfortunate consequence of a complex series of circumstances that has inappropriately made UFOs a topic of scorn and ridicule and anyone associated becomes tarred with that brush. It is not a matter of “lack of interest” (clearly there is a huge interest it the topic) but it IS a fact that many “scientists” DO consider the evidence inadequate. However this is NOT because they have examined the evidence and found it to be so, it is because the merely assume it is so given the general climate of scorn and ridicule that has built up around the subject.

Can you demonstrate how any scientists have lost standing, employment, or funding because they chose to investigate UFOs? If not, this is a bogus argument designed by UFOlogists as an excuse for not getting scientists interested in the subject. Not one of the Sturrock panel scientists found the evidence the least bit compelling. NONE dropped their current projects in order to pursue UFOs. That says a lot about the evidence.

 

[Astrophotographer]

You really should read the Sturrock Panel report. It discusses quite a deal of evidence contained within a number of UFO cases and it also provides concrete recommendations on how to deal with - and effectively research - the evidence in UFO reports and cases.

And none of the scientists who were present shifted their focus towards studying UFOs. They all agreed there was no evidence for ET or anything else so exotic.

 

[GeeMack]

You really should read the Sturrock Panel report. It discusses quite a deal of evidence contained within a number of UFO cases and it also provides concrete recommendations on how to deal with - and effectively research - the evidence in UFO reports and cases.

Trolling Internet forums wasn't recommended.