UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rramjet said:
I did not “ignore” you last post… I simply missed it in the limited time I have… I have now answered it above.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I don’t have time to respond in kind at the moment but in the meantime I just wanted to say I appreciate you being so candid… I think it helps to know where someone is coming from. Perhaps this may lead to some more interesting discussion than we’ve been having up until this point…
 
Akhenaten said:
A strange bifurcation indeed. What would the eyewitnesses say?
Click to expand...

Beauty/Eye/Beholder I guess.

All the eyewitness were abducted and taken to an isolated planet to act out an alien version of "Survivor".
 
I wonder why it is that Rramjet believes eyewitnesses are never mistaken in their recollections?

ETA: Actually, I don't think I ever got an answer to this hypothetical before, so I'll try again. Rramjet: suppose someone tells you that a man has been stabbed to death in your front room whilst you were out. On returning to your home, you can find no sign that anyone has entered since you left. There is no body in the front room. There is no trace of blood. Other people in the area did not see the murderer or the victim enter your home. Do you go with the lack of evidence and conclude there was no murder, or do you support the eyewitness?
 
Last edited:
Because without 100% reliability of the memory of his eyewitnesses his argument fails even more spectacular than it did so far.:D
 
Last edited:
Hey, I just found a UFO under the stone here, wait a minute, that would be a UTSNF-UFO, Under The Stone Not Flying-UFO.


Paul

:) :) :)
 
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...

Rramjet said:
No, I have NEVER contended "alien craft".
Click to expand...

Reiterating this blatant self-contradiction in case Roger has RoboTimbo on ignore.
 
Rramjet said:
This is misleading in the extreme. For a start we are talking about a real world observation - not a false-coloured, poorly resolved drawing. And the witnesses described the object as “resolving” itself in to a circular shape (with the “fin” on top) when binoculars were applied. Obviously they could see the object quite clearly.
Click to expand...

They could see clearly now the haze is gone
They can see all UFO's in their way
Gone are the dark doubts that held them down
It's gonna be a bright, bright, bright bright UFO day.
 
Sledge said:
I wonder why it is that Rramjet believes eyewitnesses are never mistaken in their recollections?

ETA: Actually, I don't think I ever got an answer to this hypothetical before, so I'll try again. Rramjet: suppose someone tells you that a man has been stabbed to death in your front room whilst you were out. On returning to your home, you can find no sign that anyone has entered since you left. There is no body in the front room. There is no trace of blood. Other people in the area did not see the murderer or the victim enter your home. Do you go with the lack of evidence and conclude there was no murder, or do you support the eyewitness?
Click to expand...
Eyewitnesses clearly ARE sometimes mistaken.

First, unusual/odd/exciting events act as a positive aid to memory. Often such events are remembered vividly throughout a lifetime, whereas such things as (for example) what you had for lunch the day before yesterday, are often lost within a few days.

Second we can USE the results of perceptual research to aid in our assessment of witness descriptions. For example in the Rogue River case: If the witness descriptions of size and distance matched, then we would be suspicious because perceptual research tells us that such estimates in a clear blue sky will be error prone. The fact that they do not match is a then point in favour of the veracity of the sighting.

In your hypothetical murder story there are two groups of witnesses. One group tells you a murder occurred. The other group tells you they saw no victim or perpetrators enter the house. Which group do I believe? I would have to do some basic research before I could answer the question. First I would obtain another opinion – ask the police for example (do they have a victim – is there a missing person report – have they conducted any investigation? etc). I would then look at the details of the case – who was where and when in relation to the time of the murder. I would then do some background on the witnesses themselves (credibility/reliability). If it seems that it was possible (according to all above sources) that a murder could have occurred (and I had the resources) I would then conduct a forensic examination of the area. Yet even after all the above I might not be in a position to positively answer yes or no as to whether a murder occurred or not.
 
Rramjet said:
whereas such things as (for example) what you had for lunch the day before yesterday, are often lost within a few days.
Click to expand...

Sometimes within minutes
beingsick.gif
 
Stray Cat said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5283586&postcount=2246
Click to expand...
A school of red herrings!

The binoculars were clearly in good working order. We know that they aided observation of the object – it “resolved” with their aid.

Blimps have no surfaces that could reflect specularly in such a way as to obscure fins, gondola, engines, etc – especially as the object moved substantially both toward and laterally away from the observers. The witness descriptions of the object do NOT match the description of a blimp.

The day was a clear, "blue-sky" day. The witnesses had the sun at their backs. No mist, no dust, no “pollen” (!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom