UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[tsig]

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.

So you agree they were blimps, good now we can move on to your next best case.

 

[Jocce]

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.

That's what we have been saying all along. I'm glad you finally agree.

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).

That's what we have been saying all along. I'm glad you finally agree. If no objective evidence is present, then we can't know for certain that the witnesses are correct.

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

That's what we have been saying all along. I'm glad you finally agree.

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).

Precisely? Really? I'm sure you mean approximately but you are exaggerating as always.

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.

That's what we have been saying all along. I'm glad you finally agree. Proving undeniably is exactly what you need to do.

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.

That's what we have been saying all along. I'm glad you finally agree.

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.

Noone is denying that the car was damaged. You claim that it was damaged by something alien to us. You haven't shown that. Evidence of damage is not evidence of a cause.

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.

And they all sat in the same rocky boat, watching an object in the distance, on a hazy day, using binoculars of dubious quality. What does that tell you about the value of their observations?

Re: Project twinkle:

The filmed AND triangulated objects they could not identify.

No, they couldn't make a good triangulation. Read the final report.

Re Tehran:

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).

Provide evidence that it was splitting apart and shapeshift. That is only your interpretation of the events and not shown to be factually correct.

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.

Can you please make up your mind. Either you deny that blimp is a possibility or you claim that it is utterly implausible. Those two things are mutually exclusive. Either it can be, or it can not.

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.

For you to continue to ignore the evidence indicating that the observed object could 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.

as scientists were MUST maintain a conservative position in this regard - no matter what our private beliefs might be.

This is so ironic comming from you. You have really no self criticism huh.

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.

Except a blimp.

Nope, nothing of my own at all - it's all copy and paste …LOL.

Yeah, I know. It's really frustrating.

 

[Belgian thought]

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

You forgot to consider TV (and Radio to a lesser degree) in your amazing ability at critical thinking.

Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_Zone_(1959_TV_series)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek

 

[Correa Neto]

Yes, you are correct. The object "presented" as an ellipse. However, the object presented the same "circular" ASPECT throughout the sighting. Remember the object, when first sighted was travelling toward the observers, and then it turned and travelled at an angle laterally away from the observers. The consistent elliptical (interpreted as circular) ASPECT would have been impossible for a blimp to have maintained throughout such a motion!

Flawed reasoning.

First, the sketches show a considerable shape (X/Y ratio) diference which could be related to a change in the relative orientation of the blimp in respect to the observers. Stray Cat presented a comparison of the renderings with pictures of blimps seen from diferent angles and they match.

Second, a good description for a blimp would be a prolate ellipsoid with a circular YZ section. A circular shape would be seen only if the blimp is moving directly towards or away from the observers. And here's the problem: Given the (estimated) distance of the objecty from the observers an the fact that the observers were all at a single site, you can not be sure if the observers evaluated the object's trajectory correctly. Actually the odds are that the trajectory was not properly understood (anyone used to look at airplanes from distance can check this). Not only the trajectory, but also the shape of the object. Remember- no stereoscopy beyond 600m with the naked eye.

A real scientist would have noticed these issues...

 

[Correa Neto]

Simple, we need a properly constituted and funded research program.

Oh, really?

Tell me, why top UFOlogists don't fund one? They make money selling books, right? Remember Astro's 15K estimate? Not even joining forces with organizations such as MUFON you guys can reach it? How much an UFOhunters episode costs?

Please expose us you project. A radar and optical devices network? There are lots of them already. Where are the UFOs they should be detecting if UFO lore is correct?

Hey, why not add some Phantom fighters in QRA? I bet you can get some surplus Phnatoms by a relatively small ammount of cash when comared with the newest fighters. Not to mention I heard Phantoms' radar warning systems are pretty good to track aliens from beyond the boundaries of what we call nature (whatever that means) coming from 6 o'clock.

That's sheer scientific incompetency.

But that is just the point. I DON’T justify a belief in “aliens”. I don’t know what “alien” means in this context. All I DO know is that there is an ostensible intelligence at work – that is, UFOs display what we would call “intelligent” behaviour. Also there are sightings that involve “beings”. But specifically what “they” are and how “they” “physically” manifests I do NOT have any evidence on which to base a conclusion.

No, you don't know there's "an ostensible intelligence at work". You believe there is, for you don't have reliable evidence to know. A real scientist would know the diference.

…we obviously DO have evidence… you simply dismiss it out of hand.

There are pieces of unreliable evidence wich were dismissed after being examined with more care than UFOlogists do. They fail to resist basic reliability tests, they do not meet the scientific parameters for data quality. They may be enough to fuel you belief but not to scientifically back the claims you are making. A real scientist would know this and avoid such a mischaracterization of skeptic's positions.

I have not “ignored” all the discussion here… I have (so far) been able to refute every single point raised in objection to UFOs … This is another UFO debunker “trick”…accuse your opponent of the very thing that you do. It is devious and underhanded. Again it is subversive of rational thought and the scientific process.

You have refuted the points only in your dreams or according to you low standards for evidence and debate with the mildest scientific tinges.

Humanoid beings, basically circular craft, silent, incredible speed, antigravity – these are generalities that might or might not be displayed in individual cases.

Misrepresentations of what UFO lore contains.
Check the illustration below, composed by artistic and alleged eyewitnesses renderings- UFOnauts are actually beter described as the the stuff of low-budget B-movies from the 50's and 60's.

And regarding the craft, once again you are making a gross misrepresentation. UFOs are decribed as disks, spheres, triangles, cigars, ellipsoids, bullets, bellrings, etc.

In both cases, you are displaying low data-handling skills. Very unscientific.

 

[Correa Neto]

I really don’t know how to put it any more clearly. The drawings represent a CIRCULAR (like a “coin” or “pancake”) object.

Wrong. The drawings represent the eyewitnesses' interpretation of the object they claim to have seen; an interpreation as a circular object.

An interpretation made of an object which even when seen through binoculars was of a small relative size, rendering detail observation difficult. Not that the alleged eyewitnesses were at a boat, what would bring extra difficulties when trying to keep it in focus and within the field of view.

If you continue to ignore the evidence (this undeniable FACT of a circular craft) – than I don’t know what to make of you anymore…mad, bad or indifferent? Well “mad” is obviously a given (your signature), “bad” is demonstrated (clear deliberate attempts at misconstruing the evidence in order to obscure the facts), indifferent (to the truth, you just don’t care about the truth, merely your own beliefs).

All I can do is just keep coming back to you with the FACTS of the case - and presenting the evidence... that's all I can and will do.

These so-called facts are highly debatable at best. You are turning a blind eye towards the many problems with the data, problems wich render your interpretations and claims based on it flawed. A real scientist would acknowledge this and move on.

 

[EHocking]

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...)

I have - here's a short selection of milestones in aviation technology put next to the dates.

A number of significant events that had worldwide coverage and interest line up with the Explosive Waves.

Demonstrably, from a very small set of significant events, it can be shown that Dr.Clarke's is NOT an wholly unfounded assertion - but your attempt at refutation is unfounded, since you offered no evidence to back your claim.

Table 1.1 Major UFO Waves

Gradual | Explosive | Events | 1896 | First flight of unmanned Aerodrome No. 5 from a houseboat on the Potomac river | | An organised flyer camp at Lake Michigan. Tested was a Lilienthal-glider (reconstruction) and a biplane built by Chanute, which was the basis for the further development of flight technique | | Unmanned Aerodrome No. 6 flies a distance of 4,200 ft. | | David Schwarz's rigid airship makes its first flight at Tempelhof field | | Germans August Parseval and Bartsch Sigsfeld invent the kite balloon for observations in strong winds 1897 | | Pandemic| 1908 - 1916 | Wright brothers. 1909 | | 1913 | | 1946 | | | |1947 | Northrop_YB-49 Flying Wing | | Chuck Yeager first man to break the sound barrier in level flight 1952 | | | |1957 | Sputnik 1 Pandemic |1964 - 1968 | Apollo missions, including landing on the moon | 1973 | Mizar flying car | 1983 | Beechcraft_Starship | | F/A-18 Hornet 1987 | |

 

[Marcus]

So your entire "argument" is directed at people who claim that there is no such thing as an unidentified flying object.

Are you claiming that there are people here who believe:

1. That all flying objects have been identified?

2. That no object can fly unless it has been identified?

3. That any unidentified flying "thing" is not an object?


Pick whichever totally bogus answer floats your boat, Rramjet, but they're the only ones available to you, and all are equally representative of the paucity of thought that you've actually put into this fiasco.

Dragging it up to zero would be a huge boost to your credibility at this stage. I imagiine that behind your bluster, you realise this.

I choose "2". It's not possible for an object to fly unless it has been identified. Can I be a UFO debunker now?

 

[EHocking]

I choose "2". It's not possible for an object to fly unless it has been identified. Can I be a UFO debunker now?

Having been a birdwatcher most of my life, I know that this is patently untrue. HTH

 

[Stray Cat]

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.

Sorry, I think I may have put this in the wrong thread... I meant to put it in AAH.

 

[Sledge]

Does anyone else think it's hilarious to mention blimps then watch Rramjet froth at the mouth?

 

[Marduk]

Does anyone else think it's hilarious to mention blimps then watch Rramjet froth at the mouth?

I think Rramjets hilarious no matter whats coming out of his mouth, pity he was aiming for credible really

 

[RoboTimbo]

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/AlienOnBlimp.jpg[/qimg]

Sorry, I think I may have put this in the wrong thread... I meant to put it in AAH.

I'm sure Rramjet can get someone to move it for you.

 

[rorylee]

UFO Footage related

 

[Correa Neto]

tl;ds

 

[Sledge]

Rramjet, Limbo AND rorylee all posting in the same thread? No. Please FSM, no. Shouldn't there be some sort of rule against allowing that sort of concentration of insanity?

 

[Akhenaten]

I wonder what Critical Mass is for woo.

 

[Toke]

I wonder what Critical Mass is for woo.

We could invite Bjarne over and see if that is enough.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, Limbo AND rorylee all posting in the same thread? No. Please FSM, no. Shouldn't there be some sort of rule against allowing that sort of concentration of insanity?

...and here was me thinking they were on your side! LOL.

 

[Sledge]

You thought you were on my side? You ARE easily confused.

Blimps.