UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
rorylee said:
UFO Footage related

Click to expand...

Anyone want to talk about Podesta being in the employ of General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. Two of the biggest military contractors who have both been accused by the wacky world of UFOlogy of already being in possession of UFO technology reverse engineered from the recovered UFO crash at Roswell.
My question to anyone citing Podesta as an ally (as conman Greer does) is why do Podesta's paymasters at Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics allow their employee to potentially expose their Black Op UFO projects?

And as Podesta has already been personally responsible for the release of 8,000,000 pages of secret files under Executive Order 12958, isn't it more likely he already knows there is nothing of Alien Origin to expose?
 
Sledge said:
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?
Click to expand...

The mass of stupid may be too heavy, we may achieve a singwoolarity.
 
EHocking said:
Having been a birdwatcher most of my life, I know that this is patently untrue. HTH
Click to expand...
Well darn, I guess I'll have to go with #1, all flying objects have been identified. No wait... Maybe I should wait for Rramjet to tell us which category UFO debunkers belong in. Seriously though, I don't think I've seen a single person in this monster thread who didn't believe that there were Unidentified Flying Objects.
 
Maybe we should start arguing there are no UFOs? It would be slightly more of a challenge than debunking Rramjet's drivel at the moment.
 
Sledge said:
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?
Click to expand...
In an emergency, it could be cured with an infinitessiminally small concentration of insanity....
 
Stray Cat said:
[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. ;)
Click to expand...
I'd just like to say that octopus doesn't remind me too much of an octopus at first glance.
But it does seem strangely appropriate hanging from a GayRodeo blimp.
 
Rramjet said:
“Flying saucer” is a term that is purely media invention and arose after Kenneth Arnold described the motion of the objects he saw as like a “saucer” skipped across the surface of a lake. I do not, nor have I ever used the term “flying saucer”. It is an inaccurate invention – so yes, I AM saying that a UFO is NOT a “flying saucer”. It is perhaps amusing to speculate what would have happened if he had described them as the more familiar “rock” or “stone” skipped across the surface…
Click to expand...
Right, but this is beyond disingenuous… you believe the Rogue River sighting was a) flying and b) saucer (“circular”, “coin”, “pancake”) shaped … hence the term “flying saucer”.

You’re not fooling anyone here… it’s obvious you bought into the mythology.

Now, how about a discussion of what makes you think a “flying saucer” makes sense for the design of a transatmospheric vehicle? (or if you prefer, ET “scout ship”)

[surely you don’t believe they came all the way from Zeta Reticuli in a little tin can do you?]

Rramjet said:
Second, there is no direct evidence that UFOs come from “outer space”. The term “outer space” is itself an invention, (and promulgated by Hollywood movies – my all time favourite being “Plan 9 from Outer Space”). Again I do not, nor have I ever, used the term “outer space” – nor do I intend to begin doing so.
Click to expand...
I see, so what you’re doing is ruling out the ETH (specifically, the hypothesis that some UFOs may have an extraterrestrial origin) based on lack of evidence… good for you, I agree.

Progress!

Rramjet said:
Both terms, IMO, are inaccurate misrepresentations.
Click to expand...
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill… sheesh.

Rramjet said:
How do you KNOW that there are no “flying saucers” manufactured on earth?
Click to expand...
Well, let’s just say I’m in a fairly good position to know we aren’t manufacturing any “flying saucers” on Earth. Now, I suppose it’s possible, however improbable, invisible fairies could be so I guess you got me there…
 
Forgive me if any of this has already been addressed by others…

Rramjet said:
The US “Air Force” did NOT “investigate” UFOs for 20 years.
Click to expand...
Right, I said “over”… it was actually a few months shy of 22 years total. Your disingenuous appeal to the difference of one letter between the USAAF and USAF has been duly noted…

Rramjet said:
From the very beginning the attitude was to publically debunk UFOs, but to privately investigate.
Click to expand...
You say that like debunking is a bad thing and UFOs are alien spaceships…

Rramjet said:
Soon however it became clear that even serious “private” investigation was not to be conducted and the whole mess devolved rapidly into one with two primary objectives – to “explain” every UFO report and then to announce how the Air Force had “solved” all the UFO sightings.
Click to expand...
Officially, 701 cases out of 12,618 reported remained “unidentified” so clearly you’ve been misled or you’re trying to mislead others…

[that’s 5.5% in case you still haven’t learned how to calculate percentages]

Rramjet said:
Now if you contend that there was actually a secret effort to study UFOs behind the scenes then you are in good company – but I am afraid you would be howled down by your fellow debunkers as a conspiracy theorist.
Click to expand...
The military’s UFO investigations were SECRET… what are you new?

Rramjet said:
Funny thing is that these same debunkers acknowledge “secret” (black) military projects – indeed they may from time to time appeal to them to “explain” UFOs - but still they cannot countenance the prospect that such projects might involve the study of UFOs…
Click to expand...
Why would we need a “black” project to “study” UFOs? Oh right, you need that to explain why there’s no evidence for any more secret studies being conducted.

[rolls eyes]

Not sure if I already posted this but it’s worth repeating in case you missed it…

CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...ations/csi-studies/studies/97unclass/ufo.html

[don’t click on the link if you’re paranoid!]

“An extraordinary 95 percent of all Americans have at least heard or read something about Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), and 57 percent believe they are real. (1) Former US Presidents Carter and Reagan claim to have seen a UFO. UFOlogists--a neologism for UFO buffs--and private UFO organizations are found throughout the United States. Many are convinced that the US Government, and particularly CIA, are engaged in a massive conspiracy and coverup of the issue. The idea that CIA has secretly concealed its research into UFOs has been a major theme of UFO buffs since the modern UFO phenomena emerged in the late 1940s. (2)

In late 1993, after being pressured by UFOlogists for the release of additional CIA information on UFOs, (3) DCI R. James Woolsey ordered another review of all Agency files on UFOs. Using CIA records compiled from that review, this study traces CIA interest and involvement in the UFO controversy from the late 1940s to 1990. It chronologically examines the Agency's efforts to solve the mystery of UFOs, its programs that had an impact on UFO sightings, and its attempts to conceal CIA involvement in the entire UFO issue. What emerges from this examination is that, while Agency concern over UFOs was substantial until the early 1950s, CIA has since paid only limited and peripheral attention to the phenomena. ”​
​

So there’s your “disclosure”… what’s the big deal? Now I should add at least one of the last two CIA scientists who paid any attention (part-time by the way) doesn’t appear to be “all there” at times… at least not in any of the conversations I’ve had with him. The other seems to think it’s all nonsense… go figure.

Rramjet said:
So bringing things back to the actual historical record, when you state that the US and UK defence organisations have publically determined UFOs NOT to be a “threat”, then this is precisely what their aim has been all along – that is, to publically debunk UFOs.
Click to expand...
There you go with the saucer logic again… you’re assuming UFOs are “aliens”.

Rramjet said:
Moreover, the assessment is clearly at odds with earlier statements to the effect that UFOs could cause mass hysteria and that their reporting, etc, could tie up and confuse communication channels needed for defence purposes. In other words, UFOs were a threat to national security – but given the type of threat publically acknowledged, then what better way to ameliorate THIS type of threat than to reassure the public that UFOs were NOT a security threat…? So no matter WHAT type of threat UFOs posed (direct or via public reaction) the BEST course for the military (no matter what) IS to claim they are not a threat!
Click to expand...
Wow, that’s some seriously twisted UFOlogical thinking there… if UFOs are not a physical threat then the best way to avoid such an “operational” threat is to no longer investigate sightings reported by the public. Problem solved.

Rramjet said:
However, it does NOT follow that UFOs DO represent a threat (or that the military has discovered one way or other that there are or are not). We just don’t know – and until the military actually “comes clean” – perhaps we might never know.
Click to expand...
Appeal to vague conspiracy theory duly noted…

Rramjet said:
The trouble with “Contactees” (and abductees for that matter) is that whatever the “aliens” tell them, usually turns out to be false – or some guff about “saving the planet” etc. So we simply cannot believe what the “aliens” have to say on the matter at all.
Click to expand...
I see, so now you’re the one who’s dismissing “eyewitness testimony” out of hand…

“Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up”

Rramjet said:
Well, that is not true at all. Einstein’s theory does make it physically possible – the energy requirements are enormous - but physically possible nevertheless…
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t… some mathematical solutions to GR seem to make it theoretically possible to return to a point in spacetime that one previously visited via a closed timelike curve (CTC). In other words, as I understand it, one could hypothetically travel back to the time and place you turned your “time machine” on but no further. Wake me up when you figure out how that’s relevant to UFOs…

Rramjet said:
As I stated, some argue against it – but they are all philosophical arguments – the Hawking CPA, the Grandfather paradox, even Reinganum’s economic argument – and none account for quantum mechanics. We are uncomfortable with time travel because of the paradoxes (like getting something for nothing) and “dangers for historians” it throws up, but we have yet to come up with any firm principles that prohibit it.
Click to expand...
And your point is? Speaking of philosophy…

Time Travel and Modern Physics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-travel-phys/

“… it does not follow that time travel is physically possible, only that some specific physical considerations cannot rule it out. The only serious proof of the possibility of time travel would be a demonstration of its actuality. For if we agree that there is no actual time travel in our universe, the supposition that there might have been involves postulating a substantial difference from actuality, a difference unlike in kind from anything we could know if firsthand. It is unclear to us exactly what the content of possible would be if one were to either maintain or deny the possibility of time travel in these circumstances, unless one merely meant that the possibility is not ruled out by some delineated set of constraints.”​
​

Again, the bottom line is, even if by some stretch of the imagination it’s actually possible, it’s not going to work the way you learned about it from science fiction. It would seem any time traveling “aliens” would have to be from here and now, or before…

[or something like that… I think my brain just exploded]

Rramjet said:
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.
Click to expand...
And that rules out human causes how?

Rramjet said:
I am not sure what or who you suppose I should be “mad” at – your meaning in that sentence is unclear.
Click to expand...
I mean the “aliens” that are ignoring you by not telling you why they’re here. I would be if I believed in them…

Rramjet said:
…we obviously DO have evidence… you simply dismiss it out of hand. And what do you mean by “UFO”? I suspect you actually mean UFMO (Unidentified Flying Mundane Object). And that is precisely the point where we part company. YOU mean “mundane” where I contend that “mundane” and “alien” are mere speculative hypotheses – and when “mundane” is ruled out, we are left with “alien” as the remaining contender (remembering that “alien” is a definition that could encompass things we have not even thought of yet and does NOT necessarily mean ETI – just “not mundane”).
Click to expand...
We’ve already been over this ad nauseum… mundane is not speculative, it is the default (or null) hypothesis. If you wish to advance your alternative hypothesis the burden is on you to falsify it is by presenting some unambiguous objective evidence that supports it…

Rramjet said:
My point was that before aircraft, many eminent people (who should have known better) considered the prospect impossible – just as the UFO debunkers now consider the prospect of realistic interstellar travel impossible. You are simply arguing in hindsight here.
Click to expand...
Who said it’s impossible? You are simply creating another straw man here…

Rramjet said:
No offense? But how am I to take falsehoods as not being offensive. I take offense at any assault on the “truth”. You statement IS offensive to anyone who has seriously studied UFOs.
Click to expand...
I see, so once again you’re dismissing “eyewitness testimony” out of hand…

“Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up”

Rramjet said:
Where is your evidence? You are just making things up… but I can expect no less from UFO debunkers by now. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you indulge in this type of behaviour? And as an aside – so what if he was? His research is to be assessed on its value. But again this is typical UFO debunker behaviour. Don’t explore the argument…attack the messenger!
Click to expand...
Don’t have any, Maccabee publicly denies it. However, some people I know who know him and have read his book [“Abduction in My Life”] are convinced otherwise… in the end only Maccabee knows for sure and why he chose to write the book the way he did. Personally, I see no reason to take anything he says seriously… for all I know it could be another hoax.

Rramjet said:
Now you indulge yourself in misinformation (again). The cases I present are MUCH more than people seeing things in the sky that they cannot identify. This type of misdirection/misinformation is typical of UFO debunkers. The intention is to obscure rather than illuminate, to forestall investigation rather than encourage it, to promulgate rumour rather knowledge. It represents anti-rationalism and anti-science. It is the behaviour of cult members who must at all costs protect their belief systems.
Click to expand...
Don’t shoot the messenger, it’s not the debunker’s fault the data doesn’t support your hypothesis…

”If one can't attack the data, attack the people; it is easier”

Rramjet said:
…and “cherry-picking? So if I present a “best case”, YOU would then call it cherry picking! I present a range of cases and you STILL call it “cherry picking”! The only way I could avoid this charge from you is present every case known to mankind – and that is plainly not possible.
Click to expand...
Liar…

Rramjet said:
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.
Click to expand...
Liar…

Rramjet said:
I ask help form no-one – all I expect is that people explore the evidence I present. Plainly you are not one who is willing to do so.
Click to expand...
Pants on fire.

Rramjet said:
Humanoid beings, basically circular craft, silent, incredible speed, antigravity – these are generalities that might or might not be displayed in individual cases. Just as your car might be able to travel at speeds well above the law, does not mean that every time you drive it you must travel at such speeds. You are not restricted to cars either, it is possible to travel by bus, train or airplane (or bobcat, or bulldozer, or scooter, etc) … and you need not get out of your car at every stoplight to reveal who the driver is… so my question to YOU was how do you KNOW what IS “commonality” for “aliens”?
Click to expand...
I don’t… and neither do you, but that doesn’t stop you from attributing things you don’t understand to “aliens”. That’s religion, not science…

AD
 
Just popped in to this thread to see if any Earth shattering new evidence for aliens has been produced. No? Didn't expect it in reality. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom