UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Correa Neto said:
Hey, Stray Cat, what about a thread with your work at the Hunor section?
We could always link to them when the proper situation arises...
Click to expand...
A few people have suggested this now, I'm flattered.

I was thinking of putting my next one straight into AAH myself to save the Mods the bother. :)
 
Stray Cat said:
Here's not here to talk about aliens, he's on a crusade. I'd do a picture of a fairground hawker selling bottles of snake oil but it'd only get moved. ;)
Click to expand...
That's just not right, your pictures were the highlights of this thread. I know, I'm a bad boy, I should only talk about it in Forum Management.
 
Oh, and I was thinking I was being very original and innovative.
Wait!
These people suggested creating a thread at the hunor section?

Alien gods bless the cell phone's small screen & keyboard for they saved my face from my procastinating and debunking ways!
 
Last edited:
SusanB-M1 said:
It will be interesting to read what rRamjet has to say about aliens.
Click to expand...


He won't be getting around to discussing aliens until he convinces at least a few people that there actually are unidentified flying objects. He's working hard at that and might eventually get a couple of the UFO debunkers to agree that they exist.
 
Astrophotographer said:
To be honest, I dislike the idea of Skeptics “battling” UFOlogists or “us against them”. I try and view it as two opposing opinions about the same problem for which there is no solution...yet. Too often proponents ignore critical information and it is my desire to make sure everyone gets the rest of the story. I have no interest in swaying those who want to believe in UFOs. They will always draw their conclusion based on emotion. I am more interested in providing the information to those willing to make a more objective evaluation of the evidence.
Click to expand...

Even though your appeal to critical thinking hasn't found fertile ground in anyone you've found yourself "against" here, remember that a lot of us were UFO proponents at one time and sometimes with help from outside ourselves, were able to make the transition over. You never know what the source of that outside help will be so don't begrudge anyone that same opportunity by withdrawing. By all means, please, do draw attention to yourself.

Hey look, I found a helpful link: http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite.htm)
 
Astrophotographer said:
As much as I would be tempted to enjoy the "praise" being sent my way, it is not my intention to attract this kind of attention. I only want to present another point of view. I think others have offerred some very valid points and arguments, which were, as expected, simply dismissed as nothing of consequence. As I stated in SUNlite 1-3 (You can download any issue at http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite.htm)
Click to expand...
WHERE are these “valid points and arguments”? As far as I can tell (as evidenced by their posts), “others” are merely here to ridicule and scorn – they do not put “valid points and arguments” at all!

You have offered your opinions and I have rebutted those opinions and shown them (in a majority of cases) to be false. If they (your opinions) WERE “nothing of consequence” I WOULD ignore them in precisely the manner you ignore my arguments!

UFO debunkers don’t seem to “play” by the rules of open and honest debate and objective scientific inquiry. IMO, in the face of a serious lack of valid, scientific argument to support their case against UFOs (or to refute my arguments for them), they resort to “dirty” tactics – such as Astrophotographer has just indulged in above: That is, false modesty and flat out untruths. For example, Astro claims not to want to ”attract” attention yet shamelessly advertises his own collection of web diatribes and not only that, proceeds to quote himself! (– thus false modesty). Also for example, Astro claims I “dismiss” his points and arguments as “nothing of consequence” when CLEARLY I spend a great deal of time refuting them (- thus the “flat out untruths”).

Then there is the following quite shameless self-promotion (as if quoting oneself makes the point any more valid!):
Astrophotographer said:
To be honest, I dislike the idea of Skeptics “battling” UFOlogists or “us against them”. I try and view it as two opposing opinions about the same problem for which there is no solution...yet. Too often proponents ignore critical information and it is my desire to make sure everyone gets the rest of the story. I have no interest in swaying those who want to believe in UFOs. They will always draw their conclusion based on emotion. I am more interested in providing the information to those willing to make a more objective evaluation of the evidence.
Click to expand...
“To be honest”… this is about as biased a diatribe as exists. Astro claims to “dislike” the “us against them” “battle”. Yet he proceeds to slander UFO proponents (“ignore critical information”, "conclusions based on emotion”) while falsely claiming to make sure everyone “gets the rest of the story”. For example, I have already demonstrated this to be an utterly false assertion. Remember Astro’s support of Ireland and Andrews who were positively shown to have ignored the evidence to make up a diagram to suit their own preconceived ideas? When it was demonstrated to Astrophotographer that this WAS the case, did he withdraw his support? No he did not. He continued to argue in support of the Ireland and Andrews model! Thus Astro’s statement claiming he is “interested” in a “more objective evaluation of the evidence” is demonstrably an out and out falsehood.

Astrophotographer said:
I have tried to be objective with Rramjet's presentation but it has been combative since day one and has, unfortunately, sent me down that path as well. The evidence presented to date can be interpreted many ways. Could it be evidence of aliens? Sure but it could be evidence of many things (i.e. gods, dragons, angels, fairies, etc.). We have no evidence that proves aliens even exist (only that it is probable that aliens do exist). The only thing we know for sure about UFO reports to date is that a great majority are misidentifications/hoaxes. Until better evidence surfaces, that is where it will stand.
Click to expand...
IF Astro WAS “objective” then he would NOT continually ignore my points and arguments - and everyone I am sure can remember his recent series of posts that contained many, many “statements” such as “snip of irrelevancies” (or words to that effect) which merely “dismissed as irrelevant” those points I made in those sections of my posts in direct reply to him - and if mere refutation of his points makes me “combative” then so be it. I DO have a right to defend myself (and the contentions and arguments of UFO proponents) against Astro’s demonstrated falsehoods.

IF Astophotographer REALLY were supporting “gods, dragons, fairies, etc” as an explanation for UFOs, then he would argue FOR those things. But of course he DOES NOT support such things – and he has NEVER argued for such things as explanations for UFOs – until recently when the “gods” hypothesis was raised as a “spoiling tactic – a mere “point scoring exercise” – and now Astro has latched onto that in order to point score himself. THIS is NOT a man who is “objective” and willing to look at the evidence! This is a man who will stoop to arguing FOR things that he IS opposed to in principle!

He also “twists” the argument for UFOs into an argument for aliens – without ever making clear that by “aliens” he MEANS ETI. I have NEVER argued for ETI. He also twists the very meaning of UFO – Astro actually MEANS “UFMO” (Unidentified Flying Mundane Object) when he states “UFO”. Whereas the common meaning of the term is such that “mundane” and “alien” merely are speculative explanatory hypotheses.

Astrophotographer said:
Repeating the tried and failed process of debating old cases ad infinitum achieves nothing. I wish UFO proponents would understand this and move on to actually gathering real scientific data about UFOs. I have already suggested how this could be done but no UFO proponent seems to have the courage or intellect to attempt it. It is much easier to dig up old 'unsolved' cases for digestion by the mindless masses.
Click to expand...
IF such “repetition” of debating “old cases” IS a “failed process” then why does Astro indulge in it? There MUST be something to it if he feels the need to pronounce on the cases presented. However, it must be noted that it is only a “failed” process from HIS perspective - because HIS “points and arguments” have been consistently demonstrated not to be valid (eg: squid boat, blimp, etc).

Then Astro claims that all anyone really has to do is gather “real scientific data” - as if such data has not already been gathered - for example in the NZ case there is a conjunction of visual/radar/film evidence – but when such evidence is shown to Astrophotographer – he simply dismisses it!

Then he falsely asserts a “lack of courage or intellect” in UFO proponents (as if it does not take courage or intellect for me to be arguing as I have done in this forum) yet when it is pointed out the VERY SOUND reasons WHY UFO proponents have difficulty in conducting the type of research he calls for (lack of funding, a climate of ridicule and scorn, the attraction of certain abuse and censure by such people as himself), then he dismisses these as if they were of no consequence!

Then of course he lets his (what can only be described as) arrogantly pompous thinking about the bulk of humanity come to the fore with his “mindless masses” statement. In survey after survey, “common” folk and “scientists” alike believe that there should at the very least be more research conducted into the subject of UFOs – yet who is it that positively stands in the way of such research? Why, it is people like Astrophotographer (of course) who argue forcefully that a “belief” UFOs is merely “nonsense” and “woo” and that proponents “ignore the evidence” and base their conclusions on “emotion” etc, etc, etc…IF Astrophotographer WERE genuinely objective and supportive of research, then he would cease his emotive objections and apply an objective scientific rigour to his own arguments – instead of supporting people like Ireland and Andrews who have demonstrably ignored the evidence in support of their own preconceived notions.
 
On evidence for "aliens"

People have complained that I have presented no evidence for aliens. I simply ask then how would those people describe the “beings” apparent in such cases as the following - if not “alien”?

Remember also, IF an object can be categorised as a UFO, that means that there is no plausible mundane explanation - and that in turn means that – if not mundane – then by definition it must be “alien” (remembering also that “alien” does NOT necessarily mean ETI).

The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora2.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)

The Travis Walton Abduction (5 Nov 1975)
(http://www.travis-walton.com/index.shtml)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/traviswalton.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Walton.html)
 
Rramjet said:
Remember also, IF an object can be categorised as a UFO, that means that there is no plausible mundane explanation - and that in turn means that – if not mundane – then by definition it must be “alien” (remembering also that “alien” does NOT necessarily mean ETI).
Click to expand...

Which discipline are you a scientist in again?
 
bang.gif


Rramjet:-
If an object is categorised as a UFO, it is because it is unidentified.
That means not enough information is available to categorise it as ANYTHING except unidentified. 'Plausible mundane' is only relevant when speculating what it MIGHT have been, just as 'plausible alien' is speculative.

However:- Weight of evidence seems to indicate at the moment that 'plausible mundane' is much more likely (statistically) to be where the answer is and despite your insistence that you have ruled out the mundane, you haven't.

Get it yet?



No, didn't think so.
 
omg he didn't really just put forward the Travis Walton case as evidence of Aliens did he ?
wow
:D
 
Meh. Travis Walton...

Where's the short platinum blonde with red pubic and armpit hair? Now, thats material for a movie!
 
Rramjet said:
WHERE are these “valid points and arguments”? As far as I can tell (as evidenced by their posts), “others” are merely here to ridicule and scorn – they do not put “valid points and arguments” at all!
Click to expand...
This is a gross misrepresentation of practically all posters participating here. Yes, there has been some recent ridicule, but that is not wipe out the worthiness of previous posts countering your "evidence".
You have offered your opinions and I have rebutted those opinions and shown them (in a majority of cases) to be false.
Click to expand...
Only to yourself.
Other reading this thread have a completely different appraisal of the counter arguments to your "evidence".
If they (your opinions) WERE “nothing of consequence” I WOULD ignore them in precisely the manner you ignore my arguments!

UFO debunkers don’t seem to “play” by the rules of open and honest debate and objective scientific inquiry. IMO, in the face of a serious lack of valid, scientific argument to support their case against UFOs (or to refute my arguments for them), they resort to “dirty” tactics – such as Astrophotographer has just indulged in above:
Click to expand...
Ad hominem.
That is, false modesty and flat out untruths. For example, Astro claims not to want to ”attract” attention yet shamelessly advertises his own collection of web diatribes and not only that, proceeds to quote himself! (– thus false modesty).
Click to expand...
Ad hominem.
Also for example, Astro claims I “dismiss” his points and arguments as “nothing of consequence” when CLEARLY I spend a great deal of time refuting them (- thus the “flat out untruths”).

Then there is the following quite shameless self-promotion (as if quoting oneself makes the point any more valid!):
Click to expand...
Ad hominem.
<snip of rant>
Click to expand...

Play the ball and not the man, Rramjet.

Demonstrate to us that Astrophotographer's arguments are invalid by demolishing with incontrovertable evidence and logical argument.
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
People have complained that I have presented no evidence for aliens. I simply ask then how would those people describe the “beings” apparent in such cases as the following - if not “alien”?
Click to expand...

A rather odd question, given that you wouldn't describe them as alien:
Rramjet said:
“aliens” (and especially ETI) cannot be the conclusion.
Click to expand...
 
Rramjet, don't just point at websites and say "there's the evidence," tell us what it is. And please tell me it's more than "well this guy said he saw something."
 
Another big snip of ranting and raving.

Rramjet said:
Then there is the following quite shameless self-promotion (as if quoting oneself makes the point any more valid!)
Click to expand...

I was just trying to point out where my position has always been. If you don't like it and want to call me a liar, go right ahead. I could care less since, as this thread progressed, I have determined that your opinion is not something of much value.

Rramjet said:
IF such “repetition” of debating “old cases” IS a “failed process” then why does Astro indulge in it?
Click to expand...

Because it proves nothing. My argument is to look at the evidence from another point of view. You are the one who is trying prove that UFOs are "aliens", "intelligent", "craft", whatever. I simply point out that the evidence is not good enough and others have shown potential other sources for these cases. The presenting/debating of old cases has not helped UFOlogy one iota in over 50 years of "investigation". That is my point but you seem to want to go down the same old rat hole that UFOlogists have been down. It resolves absolutely nothing.


Rramjet said:
Then Astro claims that all anyone really has to do is gather “real scientific data” - as if such data has not already been gathered - for example in the NZ case there is a conjunction of visual/radar/film evidence – but when such evidence is shown to Astrophotographer – he simply dismisses it!
Click to expand...

It is not real data though. It is mostly anecdotal. How many times do I have to say that? We are left with no precise values,times, or real-time data. We have people saying they saw/filmed a light in a certain direction and that somebody stated the radar indicated that there was a contact in that general direction with a distance. That is not "confirmation" of solid data. Real data would be two observations of the light from two different locations with actual azimuth and angles of elevation. Real data would be exact times that were recorded by instrumentation. Then one might be able to determine the approximate distance to the light and see if it matched up with what the radar was indicating. That is scientific data. What you present is guesswork that can be interpreted different ways. It has a wide margin for error.

The rest is more of the usual. I won't waste my time on it. Feel free to pontificate someplace else. Your overstate your evidence and it fails to compell.
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
Remember also, IF an object can be categorised as a UFO, that means that there is no plausible mundane explanation - and that in turn means that – if not mundane – then by definition it must be “alien” (remembering also that “alien” does NOT necessarily mean ETI).
Click to expand...


Unidentified means that it is unidentified. Nothing more and nothing less. The reasons for lack of identification can be many. The fact that the data is anecdotal in nature indicates it is not very good and is subject to human error, which can prevent identification. Read Hendry's book.
 
truth is in the all caps...i'll leave the "quotes" to others...

Rramjet said:
WHERE WERE WOULD CLEARLY WAS WAS NOT I DO REALLY FOR DOES NOT NEVER THIS is NOT FOR IS MEANS ETI. I NEVER MEANS “UFMO” IF IS MUST HIS VERY SOUND WHY UFO WERE
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised that the three cases Rramjet linked are all more than 35 years old.

Rramjet, best case and hypothesis please?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom