UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoboTimbo said:
Using your "scientific" methodology, Rramjet, once we rule out the highly improbable, it can only be something that is more probable. Since "alien" is so highly improbable and no evidence has been forthcoming for "alien" as an answer, what are we left with?
Click to expand...

Perhaps Rramjet, and judging by his previous reading comprehension abilities, has not understood Doyle's famous detective who despairingly quoted the following; - "You will not apply my precept," …. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

Not bad for a man addicted to opium and cocaine amongst other mind altering paraphernalia. But, Rramjet dear boy, please refrain from these pleasures as they might interfere with your reasoning process. I hope my advice is not too late?.

Doyle’s detective example reminds me of the 2002, second placed, “World's funniest joke” – sorry BTW if you have all seen/heard it before.

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson go on a camping trip, and after finishing their dinner they retire for the night, and go to sleep. Some hours later, Holmes wakes up and nudges his faithful friend.
"Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see." "I see millions and millions of stars, Holmes" exclaims Watson. "And what do you deduce from that?" Watson ponders for a minute. "Well, astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful, and that we are a small and insignificant part of the universe. What does it tell you, Holmes?" "Watson, you idiot!" He exclaims, "Somebody's stolen our tent!"

Off topic aside, I return to, and paraphrase, my earlier post.

Since your opening thread, wherein you stated ‘.... that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”’, has resulted in no evidence so far, you Rramjet, I am afraid, are left with the only option from your statement (post Nr. 6237), i.e. “Finally, we cannot “call off the search” before we have begun searching”, and to begin a new scientific search for evidence to back up your opening post. I am sure you know what I mean by scientific, since you could and should have read and learnt a lot of knowledge on the subject to date from this thread alone.

So I repeat, please stop trolling, debating semantics for no other purpose then mere distraction from your chosen OP, and tootle off and get researching properly on cases from today onwards. Be a Holmes, and not a Watson! Please also tell us when you plan to provide us with the objective evidence you so long wish for. (No PowerPoints please)

On a personal note, this thread lost a lot when Stray Cat’s admirable and precise pictorial summaries of discussed cases were deemed inappropriate, especially when your drivel has been deemed not to be – not by some moderators anyway.
 
Last edited:
Stray Cat said:
I think (hope) you are aware that the point Cuddles was making, was against your assertion that the term 'outer space' was "an invention, (and promulgated by Hollywood movies)"
Click to expand...

According to the Open Dictionary (http://open-dictionary.com/Outer_space) the first use of the term was in 1842. It is an invented term deriving from a conjunction of the terms “outer” and “space”. Prior to such literary uses of the term (as outlined in the above), the term “space” (alone) was used.

While the term clearly was used earlier than “Hollywood” it was certainly promulgated and popularised by Hollywood movies such as “It came from Outer Space” (1953), “Evil Brain from Outer Space” (1956- actually this one is Japanese), “Queen of Outer Space” (1958), “I Married a Monster from Outer Space” (1958), “Teenagers from Outer Space” (1959), and my favourite, “Plan 9 from Outer Space” (1958).
 
4880489de0b480839.gif


Paul

:) :) :)
 
Rramjet said:
According to the Open Dictionary (http://open-dictionary.com/Outer_space) the first use of the term was in 1842. It is an invented term deriving from a conjunction of the terms “outer” and “space”. Prior to such literary uses of the term (as outlined in the above), the term “space” (alone) was used.

While the term clearly was used earlier than “Hollywood” it was certainly promulgated and popularised by Hollywood movies such as “It came from Outer Space” (1953), “Evil Brain from Outer Space” (1956- actually this one is Japanese), “Queen of Outer Space” (1958), “I Married a Monster from Outer Space” (1958), “Teenagers from Outer Space” (1959), and my favourite, “Plan 9 from Outer Space” (1958).
Click to expand...

My favourite being Invasion of the Wing Mirrors from Outer Space

Wing-Mirror-Poster.jpg


But it's odd that you claim Hollywood popularised the term 'Outer Space' and yet deny that Hollywood popularised the common visual representations of UFOs and Aliens reported in countless sightings.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Using your "scientific" methodology, Rramjet, once we rule out the highly improbable, it can only be something that is more probable. Since "alien" is so highly improbable and no evidence has been forthcoming for "alien" as an answer, what are we left with?

I mean, as long as your mind isn't already made up.
Click to expand...
Actually you are attempting to use logic here… so let us examine your logic (scientifically).

“Once we rule out the highly improbable…”.

So what DOES this mean? What precisely IS the “highly improbable” thing (or things) we have ruled out? If we take the cases I have presented as examples, we can (for example) note that it is the mundane we have ruled out (presumably as “highly improbable”).

(therefore) “…it can only be something that is more probable.”

What does THIS mean? Taking the cases I have presented and the example above it can only mean more probable that mundane!

Put together then: “Once we rule out the mundane, it can only be something more probable than the mundane.” Somehow this does not make sense – and that of course indicates that the original logic is flawed. That is if we cannot substitute real events or circumstances into the logical structure without them becoming irrational – then the logic IS flawed. Unless of course you contend that "alien" is more probable than "mundane" - but I sure you don't want to do that! LOL.

Next we have:

“Since "alien" is so highly improbable…”

Says who? Certainly not the SETI people… or perhaps you are referring to the “Physics is dead.” argument (wherein interstellar travel is improbable because we don’t understand how it could be plausible)? Either way, it cannot be stated for certain that your contention here is accurate. That is it is an unfounded assumption.

“…and no evidence has been forthcoming for "alien" as an answer…”

But if “mundane” is ruled out… what is left?

“…what are we left with?”

Well…obviously we ARE left with “alien”! (That is, if not “mundane, then by definition it MUST be “alien”)

As you can see, I make up my mind by examination of the evidence. Here the evidence indicates that your logic is flawed and that your conclusions are incorrect.
 
Stray Cat said:
But it's odd that you claim Hollywood popularised the term 'Outer Space' and yet deny that Hollywood popularised the common visual representations of UFOs and Aliens reported in countless sightings.
Click to expand...

Very good poster and point - I read recently that statistics show larger number of sightings coinciding when "Hollywood" blockbusters featuring "aliens", but not "aliens", but outside the dim... anyway back to the point, sorry, “THINGS FROM OUTER SPACE*” *’Outer Space’©1842 came out. If I remember "Independence Day" was cited as an example.

And we also had this last week from the Beeb

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8520717.stm - fourth from bottom paragraph.
 
Last edited:
One of the biggest contributors to the increase of UFO sighting in the 70's was Close Encounters. Before that time, I can't find a single case of anyone reporting seeing a giant mothership.
 
Rramjet said:
<garbage>

Well…obviously we ARE left with “alien”! (That is, if not “mundane, then by definition it MUST be “alien”)

As you can see, I make up my mind by examination of the evidence. Here the evidence indicates that your logic is flawed and that your conclusions are incorrect.
Click to expand...


What I can see is the most ridiculous false dichotomy since your previous post.
 
Rramjet said:
“Since "alien" is so highly improbable…”

Says who? Certainly not the SETI people… or perhaps you are referring to the “Physics is dead.” argument (wherein interstellar travel is improbable because we don’t understand how it could be plausible)?
Click to expand...
Physics is dead? Look, if you not happy with this universe, feel free to try another one. :D

Bottom line, to put things a little in perspective, make the sun the size of a grain of salt, the next star is about 9 miles away at that scale. Now the energy along to make that trip within a reasonable time would be enormous, and to play hide and seek when you get there is just plain dumb.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Rramjet said:
Actually you are attempting to use logic here… so let us examine your logic (scientifically).

“Once we rule out the highly improbable…”.

So what DOES this mean? What precisely IS the “highly improbable” thing (or things) we have ruled out? If we take the cases I have presented as examples, we can (for example) note that it is the mundane we have ruled out (presumably as “highly improbable”).
Click to expand...
Nope, only you have ruled it out because it doesn't match your religious beliefs.
(therefore) “…it can only be something that is more probable.”

What does THIS mean? Taking the cases I have presented and the example above it can only mean more probable that mundane!
Click to expand...
You're struggling.
Put together then: “Once we rule out the mundane, it can only be something more probable than the mundane.” Somehow this does not make sense
Click to expand...
Well, you said it so of course it doesn't make sense.
– and that of course indicates that the original logic is flawed.
Click to expand...
Nope, your understanding of it was flawed.
That is if we cannot substitute real events or circumstances into the logical structure without them becoming irrational – then the logic IS flawed. Unless of course you contend that "alien" is more probable than "mundane" - but I sure you don't want to do that! LOL.
Click to expand...
And you haven't been able to. LOL.
Next we have:

“Since "alien" is so highly improbable…”

Says who? Certainly not the SETI people… or perhaps you are referring to the “Physics is dead.” argument (wherein interstellar travel is improbable because we don’t understand how it could be plausible)? Either way, it cannot be stated for certain that your contention here is accurate. That is it is an unfounded assumption.
Click to expand...
One statement, two strawmen. Not a bad day's work for you.
“…and no evidence has been forthcoming for "alien" as an answer…”

But if “mundane” is ruled out… what is left?

“…what are we left with?”

Well…obviously we ARE left with “alien”! (That is, if not “mundane, then by definition it MUST be “alien”)

As you can see, I make up my mind by examination of the evidence. Here the evidence indicates that your logic is flawed and that your conclusions are incorrect.
Click to expand...
As everyone can see, your mind is made up based on your UFO religion and you ignore and handwave away actual evidence while worshipping anecdotes.

You've repeatedly made a fool of yourself with your scientific pronouncements that are soundly shot down and laughed at. Do you remember saying that drops of moisture couldn't cling to an airplane window in flight?
 
Rramjet said:
<garbage>
Well…obviously we ARE left with “alien”! (That is, if not “mundane, then by definition it MUST be “alien”)

As you can see, I make up my mind by examination of the evidence. Here the evidence indicates that your logic is flawed and that your conclusions are incorrect.</garbage>
Click to expand...


Fixed it, and will be contacting W3C shortly
 
Last edited:
Stray Cat said:
One of the biggest contributors to the increase of UFO sighting in the 70's was Close Encounters. Before that time, I can't find a single case of anyone reporting seeing a giant mothership.
Click to expand...


You're doing it wrong. You see, the term "mothership" is a mythological term. It's a part of the modern ET mythology that is evolving. So if you want to find a case of anyone reporting a "giant mothership" before the ET mythology had taken root, then you need to look beyond the mythological form to the archetype beneath it. Then find that archetype in other mythologies and see if anyone reports seeing their mythological equivalent of a mothership.

For instance, take the Hindu concept of Vimanas. Same thing as a "UFO", but a different mythology.
 
Last edited:
Oh God, please no.

ETA - No. comprendo, amigo. La pinche mierda que tu estas diciendo aqui, y por alla, no significa nada. Mierda 100%. Basura. Vete a la chingada con Sr. Jung, y no nos molesten mas. Cabron.
 
Last edited:
Stray Cat said:
But it's odd that you claim Hollywood popularised the term 'Outer Space' and yet deny that Hollywood popularised the common visual representations of UFOs and Aliens reported in countless sightings.
Click to expand...

And from Belgian Thought’s link:

“It's impossible to prove a direct link between what people are reading and watching and what they report as UFOs but one interpretation could be that the latest advances in technology may be influencing what people see in the sky” (Dr David Clarke - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8520717.stm)

But these unfounded assertions (dates of Hollywood films and technological advances) do not seem to match with the actual events...!

(sorry, but haven't learned how to do "side by side" columns here...)

Table 1.1 Major UFO Waves
Gradual
-
1897
Pandemic 1908 - 1916
1909
1913
1946
-
1952
-
Pandemic 1964 - 1968
-
-
1987
Explosive
1896
-
-
Pandemic 1908 - 1916
-
-
1947
-
1957
Pandemic 1964 - 1968
1973
1983
-
(http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)
 
If I may be so bold as to contribute to this august thread:

1 - Bollocks Rramjet, you are full of it.
2 - Please post your 'best case' for aliens, and your hypothesis for it.

Cheers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom