UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paul2 said:
This is the whole ball game, sufficient to explain 6,119 posts.
Click to expand...


You are indeed 100% correct.

Mr Rramjet's entire argument, if that's the correct word for it, is based on his failing, at the very outset, to understand what is meant by the simple term, 'Unidentified Flying Object'.

Pretty sad, eh?

What's even sadder is his apparent inability to read the umpteen explanations which have been given to him, most notably the exquisitely clear and concise explanations presented by Astrophotographer.
 
And yet for 150 pages, he claims that he's been trying to provide evidence for UFO's. No wonder he thinks he needs to if he believes every UFO by definition is aliens.
 
You forgot that "aliens" has a special meaning in this thread. It doesn't mean the same thing as aliens.
 
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...
LOL
RoboTimbo said:
Are you doing a bait and switch? UFO means unknown. You sometimes make it mean alien craft when it suits your purpose.
Click to expand...
Rramjet said:
No, I have NEVER contended "alien craft".
Click to expand...
So, no bait and switch, Rramjet? This exchange was from October last year. It's a good thing you had a petard nearby to be hoist by.
 
Paul2 said:
Rramjet said:
Remember also, IF an object can be categorised as a UFO, that means that there is no plausible mundane explanation -
Click to expand...
This is the whole ball game, [...]
Click to expand...


Yes.

[...] sufficient to explain 6,119 posts.
Click to expand...


No. The number of posts can be attributed to several people who seem to be as badly mistaken as Rramjet is about what constitutes evidence. They respond to the kid as if his arguments from incredulity and ignorance are actually evidence that merits some sort of rebuttal. They are helping him validate his irrational position as rational, and as a consequence, they're encouraging more trolling.

Or maybe they actually think they're going to say something that will help Rramjet understand. But believing that would be stupider than misunderstanding that incredulity and ignorance aren't evidence, now wouldn't it?
:dl:​
 
Stray Cat said:
[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Emoticons/bang.gif[/qimg]

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.
Click to expand...

I am sorry (but not surprised) that you seem to have ignored the evidence that rules out "plausible mundane" in the cases I have presented.

For example, in the Rogue River case, "blimp" was shown to be totally implausible, not only on the basis of official historical records, but because the witnesses described a disk-shaped object, (approx.) 35ft in diameter, making no sound as it moved at speeds of a jet plane.

In the White Sands case - NO mundane (let alone a "plausible one) explanation was offered for the UFOs.

In the Tehran case there did not seem to be any mundane explanation offered (unless you count the attempt at unknown Russian technology - but that is a totally implausible explanation on so many levels that it was not seriously pursued).

In the Father Gill case an ad hominem attempt was made to make Father Gill out to be a drunkard - again totally implausible - a helicopter - hovering silently for 4 -5 hour stretches over two nights with "beings" out on the top of it waving at the watching crowd on the ground below - totally implausible.

Lonnie Zamora - a helicopter carrying the Lunar Surveyor - this is so implausible on so many levels that it is simply laughable to even think that people might have seriously put it forward as an explanation - yet they did!

The latest case (NZ) a squid boat was shown to be implausible based on the radar, witness and film data and observations.

I could go on with the other cases I have presented, but you get the idea by now - NO plausible explanation has EVER been offered for ANY of the cases I have presented. That you can say that there has been such explanations offered simply means that you again prove the UFO debunker truism "Don't bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up".
 
Rramjet said:
I am sorry (but not surprised) that you seem to have ignored the evidence that rules out "plausible mundane" in the cases I have presented...snip
Click to expand...


You cannot rule out ANYTHING in something that is unidentified.
 
Rramjet said:
I am sorry (but not surprised) that you seem to have ignored the evidence that rules out "plausible mundane" in the cases I have presented.
Click to expand...
Let me stop you there Rramjet...

... I haven't ignored anything you've posted, I'm probably one of the half dozen people in this thread who's constantly kept up with everything written on it... You obviously haven't provided any evidence that rules out the plausible mundane... you only think you have.

If you had ruled it out, we would all now be agreeing with you.
 
Blackwell said:
You cannot rule out ANYTHING in something that is unidentified.
Click to expand...

Stray Cat said:
Let me stop you there Rramjet...

... I haven't ignored anything you've posted, I'm probably one of the half dozen people in this thread who's constantly kept up with everything written on it... You obviously haven't provided any evidence that rules out the plausible mundane... you only think you have.

If you had ruled it out, we would all now be agreeing with you.
Click to expand...


So how's that strategy of indulging the troll working out for you guys? :D
 
Just two points.

1. Implausible is not the same as impossible.

2. You rule out unknown mundane causes.
 
I'm sure this thread was supposed to be about some evidence. Admittedly, we've seen evidence, but only of Rramjet's determination to make a fool of himself. I don't think that proves aliens, unless someone wants to argue that no human would embarass themselves this much.
 
Rramjet said:
I could go on with the other cases I have presented, but you get the idea by now - NO plausible explanation has EVER been offered for ANY of the cases I have presented.
Click to expand...
To the extent “aliens” is not a plausible explanation I wholeheartedly agree…

Now can you give me a plausible explanation why you ignored my last post?

Are you aware Maccabee wrote a book titled “Abduction In My Life”?

Also, can you give us a plausible explanation why all the "aliens" (“beings” and/or their “spaceships”) in the cases you’ve presented so far apparently have absolutely nothing in common?
 
Stray Cat said:
Let me stop you there Rramjet...

... I haven't ignored anything you've posted, I'm probably one of the half dozen people in this thread who's constantly kept up with everything written on it... You obviously haven't provided any evidence that rules out the plausible mundane... you only think you have.

If you had ruled it out, we would all now be agreeing with you.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have to agree and must give you credit where credit is due (if you remember I have done so before, however I will restate for the record) - you HAVE been one of the few that HAS followed my posts (and apart from your little "diversions") you must be commended for doing so.

Okay - Lets just have a few quick question and answers about Rogue River.

The eyewitness descriptions rule out "blimp" because they describe a "circular" (disk-shaped) object that moved silently at the speed of a jet plane. How does that NOT rule out "blimp" as a plausible explanation?
 
Rramjet said:
The eyewitness descriptions rule out "blimp" because they describe a "circular" (disk-shaped) object that moved silently at the speed of a jet plane. How does that NOT rule out "blimp" as a plausible explanation?
Click to expand...
Already discussed ad nauseum...

Pretending it wasn't only serves to destroy your credibility more than you already have.
 
Access Denied said:
Rramjet, are you afraid of the “aliens”?

If not, why not?

Have the “aliens” told you anything or have they completely ignored you?

Why do you think “they” are here?

I’m serious. Obviously you believe “aliens” are real so let’s pretend for the sake of argument they are... surely you’ve thought about these kind of things?

Please share and be honest… it may help some of us better understand where you’re coming from and why you think this is so important.


[I can’t guarantee some people won’t ridicule you for it but you have to realize some of that's your own fault]
Click to expand...

I am not afraid of “aliens” per se. I just don’t know what they might portend. Good or bad – who knows? If it’s good, then we should find out about them, if it’s bad, then we should find out about them also. Minimising risk. Knowledge is power. I think that minimising risk is a very powerful incentive to indicate that we SHOULD devote some serious research to the problem.

I have no idea “why they are here”. Explorers, scientists, resource gatherers… farmers of humanity… it could be a number of reasons… but in the end – we simply cannot “know” the “mind” of an alien … but there is always the possibility of time travel and they are our future selves (don’t laugh, Einstein’s theory of gravity – his general theory of relativity - allows it… many have argued the possibility/impossibility of it – Einstein, Godel, Weyl, Piper, Niven, Hawking, Varley, Reinganum, Malament, Lewis, Dwyer, Barrow…the list could go on …but all these eminent people take the prospect very seriously indeed).

Access Denied said:
To the extent “aliens” is not a plausible explanation I wholeheartedly agree…

Now can you give me a plausible explanation why you ignored my last post?

Are you aware Maccabee wrote a book titled “Abduction In My Life”?

Also, can you give us a plausible explanation why all the "aliens" (“beings” and/or their “spaceships”) in the cases you’ve presented so far apparently have absolutely nothing in common?
Click to expand...

If SETI finds the prospect of ETI plausible why can’t an “alien” interpretation of UFOs also be plausible? You cannot know what the physics of the future might be look like that might show us ways that allow interstellar travel: Remember Lord Kelvin? In 1885 he stated “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”. Do we fall into that sort of trap?

I did not “ignore” you last post… I simply missed it in the limited time I have… I have now answered it above.

So? It is a sci-fi novel that uses historical fact to support it premise. Have you read it? Perhaps you should! For those who don’t know, here is an interesting review of the book (http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Reviews/Maccabee_Abduction.html)

Have they really “nothing” in common? What commonalities would you expect? They are all humanoid. They seem to “drive” different models of “craft” than seem to be very similar in performance specifications (basically circular, silent, incredible speed, antigravity, etc…). What else do you want in “common”? How do WE know what IS common when it comes to “aliens”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom