There is still no conclusive evidence that they are here so speculating in what "they " want is kinda premature I'd say.
As you say, no “conclusive” evidence. But at the same time, to simply ignore the evidence that we DO have would not seem to be a rational course of action.
Something is going on that needs explaining and in the face of a lack of explanation, speculation – and testing those speculations against the evidence – is the only way of progressing short of mounting a concerted research protocol.
Eye witness accounts are not evidence. You have not been able to show undeniable radar confirmation of witness accounts. You have photographs of light in the sky but no physical traces.
To suppose eyewitness accounts do not constitute evidence is simply not rational. Sure, there may be inherent problems associated, but we have a great deal of perceptual research to guide us in the interpretation of such evidence. We cannot simply “dismiss” such evidence “out of hand” (as the UFO debunkers do). The eyewitness evidence is telling us something about the world and our place within it. We need to explore it, not ignore it.
We have confirmed radar evidence. That is, we have cases where radar has indicated that the witnesses should look to a certain place, and when the witnesses have done so they have visually identified an object at that place. Now you may object that strictly speaking we cannot know “at that place” because it is visually difficult to confirm if the distance of the object is accurate (the direction of course presents no such problem). However, if there IS a visual object there (in the direction the radar indicates), then to suppose that we are seeing one visible object (that is NOT “visible” on radar), while there is another
invisible object (On the radar at some other distance) in
precisely the same direction – would mean that we have TWO inexplicable objects out there (one visible, one invisible). This would,
on the evidence, not seem to be a rational or parsimonious conclusion to reach. Thus we conclude that the radar evidence is visually confirmed (by a reasonable causal inference - which is after all they way much of science works). This situation is apparent in the NZ Pegasus Bay incident.
Alternatively we have cases where an object is sighted visually and radar then confirms that sighting. Basically the same considerations apply as above – and similar conclusions can be reached. We have such a situation in the Tehran case.
So while in an extraordinarily narrow sense we cannot “prove undeniably” that there is visual/radar (and vice versa) confirmatory evidence – it would be unrealistic in the real world to assume that we do not have such evidence.
For you to state that the photographs we have are merely of “lights” in the sky (I presume you mean the NZ case because that is where we have visual/radar/film confirmation) is not correct. We have for example the McMinnville and Trindade island photos. Of course you may object that “hoax” cannot be ruled out, and this is true. However, the photos have been expertly examined and no indications of a hoax were apparent. We also have MANY other photos (and video) where it is KNOWN for certain that they are not hoaxes…however it is
known only to a small group of people that such photos/videos are not a hoax – and convincing anyone else becomes problematic. Again however, it is simply unrealistic to suppose that EVERY SINGLE photo/video IS a hoax. Plainly, some of them ARE genuine – and it is merely from our own purely
personal perspective that we cannot tell which is which.
Then you contend we have “no physical trace” evidence. This is simply false. We DO have such evidence. The Val Johnson case is a good example. His police car was extensively (and peculiarly) damaged by
something and we have no reason to suspect that it was not damaged in precisely the manner in which the officer described. ALL the evidence points to that conclusion. There is NO evidence to suggest otherwise - except of course if we take the UFO debunker
belief that
“It is impossible, therefore it cannot be” as evidence… but that is not a rational basis on which to form a conclusion about the Johnson case (or any other case!).
Unconfirmed eyewitness accounts doesn't count (no pun intended)
No pun apparent. And of course when we DO have multiple witness accounts – such as Rogue River – their value as evidence is increased proportionally. That is, in such cases, we can compare the accounts of the witnesses and using what we know about the conclusions of perceptual and psychological research, make comparative assessments as to the veracity of those accounts. For example, if the accounts match too closely, we would be suspicious, because research tells us that there should be at least small differences in the accounts - and not only that, research can inform us
where differences should be apparent. Again if we note no differences in these places, then we would be suspicious. Thus we CAN use research to inform us about the veracity of multiple eyewitness accounts – something we cannot accomplish with single witness accounts.
Re: Project twinkle:
They filmed something unidentified but couldn't tell how high it was, how far away it was, how big it was or how fast it flied. Reread the final report.
The filmed AND triangulated objects they could not identify. That they could not identify the objects is perplexing. These were White Sands trained technicians using the equipment they were trained to use. These people KNEW what the US had in the sky at the precise moment of observation (or at least if they did not personally – their command certainly did) and the fact that the technicians and analysts involved could NOT identify the observed “craft” under the circumstances is telling. The “final report” was written by an officer who was NOT directly involved in the investigation and his comments (that nothing unusual was found) are contradicted by the analysts report that clearly stated that something unusual WAS observed, triangulated and captured on film. IF, as the officer claims, nothing unusual was found – why then has the film never been released?
Re Tehran:
There was no radar confirmation of visual observations. They saw bright lights and couldn't tell what it was. Reread the report.
The F-4s had radar locks on the target. That is there WAS radar confirmation of a visual target and this was reported to the tower controller
as it happened. (perhaps YOU should read the report – this is contained within it)… and sure they saw bright lights… but whatever the light was it alternately fled from and then chased the F-4s – outmanoeuvring them – and it also performed other “manoeuvres” that defy physics (like splitting apart and rejoining and shapeshifting).
I am my own person thank you very much. You can't know what I think. Blimp is a possibility and I'm glad you finally admit that.
You can misinterpret and make things up if you like – but the fact remains that I have admitted no such thing. I have explicitly and consistently denied that “blimp’ is a possibility and have consistently claimed that it is utterly implausible even as a hypothetical explanation. For you to continue to ignore the evidence indicating that the observed object could NOT have been blimp - and then to resort to simply making things up that are patently not true - says more about YOUR state of mind (or belief set) than it does about either the case or myself.
Name some key details of an alien ship that matches the observed object then. I'm waiting...
I can understand to some extent the UFO debunker obsession with “alien ships”, because SETI (which they support) is looking for ETI and if ETI then perhaps there are “alien ships” (of course just NOT here and now…) – but it is NOT as simple as that. The “alien ship” explanation for UFOs is speculative. We do not have any direct evidence that “alien ship” is
necessarily the answer. While the evidence IS suggestive, it is certainly FAR from definitive -and as scientists were MUST maintain a conservative position in this regard - no matter what our private beliefs might be.
Interestingly, this latter point is precisely the opposite of what occurs in the UFO debunker world. Rather than a conservative position (as is properly dictated by science and the scientific method) they take a hard line position - UFO proponents are “lunatics” and discussion surrounding UFOs is “woo” - yet they still claim to be sceptics and scientists!
But the primary point here is that the description of the craft at Rogue River (and the drawings of the object) indicate it is NO mundane object – and certainly NOT a blimp. Nothing we humans have flying around in our skies matches the description of this object. Does that leave us concluding “alien”? Definitively yes, but there is a problem. We do NOT KNOW what “alien” IS. We can only define “alien” by what it is NOT – and that is NOT mundane. Certainly we can look for characteristics in the sighting reports that might give us clues in this direction – and there are some notable generalities that might apply (for example silent operation and gravity and inertia defying) – but the fact is we simply do not KNOW what a definitive set of descriptors might be that would allow us to categorically define “alien”.
So for the UFO debunkers to ask for descriptions of observed UFOs that “match” an “alien craft” is to ask a question that (at present) has no answer. The
reason why they post the question is of course to make some sort of (spurious) point about the lack of an answer somehow constituting a “proof” that “aliens” do not exist. This is nonsense and reminds one of that other adage as applied to UFO debunkers, the fallacy of
“Absence of evidence means evidence of absence” the difference being here that the absence of an answer to a question is being forced to do the same job.
You should really work on putting forward your arguments in a more condensed/concise format. Whatever points you are trying to make get lost in the walls of copy and paste that you provide. Can't you formulate anything on your own?
Nope, nothing of my own at all - it's all copy and paste …LOL.
