UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Paulhoff]

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.

I've been running SETI on some computer since about when it first started. No luck yet, but they do know it is a long shot, and so do I.

Paul

 

[Sledge]

We've had some luck: we've established that all UFOs are blimps.

 

[Marduk]

Hey I just had a great idea, Rramjet, if you keep this thread going long enough (couple of hundred years maybe) then some real aliens could turn up for the first time and leave some evidence.

you could make it a tradition in your family so that your sons (better get yourself a woman) can take over the campaign when you die so that eventually when some evidence does turn up your life won't have been a complete loss

 

[Stray Cat]

They allow UFOlogists to breed?

 

[Marduk]

They allow UFOlogists to breed?

Line-breeding only

 

[Rramjet]

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.

(Emphasis mine. Rr)

Ah, but then you would be wrong...

But it's not research that Rramjet really wants.
All he's looking for is confirmation of his religious belief and he expects other people to do that for him.
Of course research into something that doesn't exist is always going to show a bleever that we just haven't found what they bleeve in yet.

When do we call off the search?

(Emphasis mine. Rr.)

 

[RoboTimbo]

(Emphasis mine. Rr)

Ah, but then you would be wrong...


(Emphasis mine. Rr.)

What do we call this, Rramjet? Strawman, dishonesty, or outright lie? Stray Cat was referring to alien piloted flying vehicles. How many times have how many posters explained this to you? I'm voting for outright lie to go along with your other lies. Didn't I read a previous post of yours declaring how much you abhorred dishonesty? It seems that that was another lie.

Stop being a liar and start presenting your objective evidence that UFOs are alien piloted flying vehicles.


ETA: Ah yes, here it is.

No offense? But how am I to take falsehoods as not being offensive. I take offense at any assault on the “truth”.

Liar.

 

[Marduk]

(Emphasis mine. Rr)

Ah, but then you would be wrong...


(Emphasis mine. Rr.)

Liar
No one here is a UFO debunker
How many times Rroger do you need to be told that to debunk something there has to be some evidence
no one here has claimed at any point that they don't believe in UFO's, everyone believes they exist.
Its your claim that ufos are evidence of Alien ships thats rubbish
you have yet to present any evidence for aliens at all, despite having had 160 pages to do so

so do you have any evidence or not, because if you don't, then stop wasting everyones time with your delusional crap and lies

Remember back on page 1 when you had a little support for your belief in Aliens, all those people now don't believe it, youve done that, no one else, clearly when your posts have dissuaded people who did believe then your posts are not doing what you think they are
they are basically complete and utter rubbish

 

[Astrophotographer]

It is Rramjet's opinion/belief that the word "Unidentified" means that there can be no plausible explanation, which means it must be exotic. What has been stated here is "unidentified" means "unidentified". It does not mean it can not be identified and numerous reasons have been given for why it can not be identified as well as what some of these reports could have been. The main reason is that there is not enough evidence to positively identify the source. This is the difference between the majority of the forum's definition of UFO and Rramjet's.

 

[Akhenaten]

It is Rramjet's opinion/belief that the word "Unidentified" means that there can be no plausible explanation, which means it must be exotic. What has been stated here is "unidentified" means "unidentified". It does not mean it can not be identified and numerous reasons have been given for why it can not be identified as well as what some of these reports could have been. The main reason is that there is not enough evidence to positively identify the source. This is the difference between the majority of the forum's definition of UFO and Rramjet's.

I've thought about this a number of times during the course of the thread in terms of an argumentum reductio ad absurdum.

Rramjet's rredefinition of unidentified means that two identical Boeing 747s could do a side-by-side flyover at an air show in front of thousands of witnesses, leaving clear and unambiguous radar images, photographs, flight plans etcetera, but if the registration numbers of the aircraft were for some reason obscured or unclear either to the witnesses or on film/video/digital imagery, then those two aircraft suddenly become unidentified, and therefore alien.

 

[Rramjet]

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?]

I am not sure how you get all that from my statement that “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”.

I will note however that your preference for ignoring the evidence (my statement above) to simply make things up from whole cloth seems like typical UFO debunker behaviour though. As is the following statement from you completely made up in ignorance of the evidence:

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!

For example, I have posted the following many times now:

UFO categorisation:

1) Known (ie: natural or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information
3) Unknown

Then the speculative hypotheses for the Unknown category might look like:

1) Mundane
2) ET
3) Interdimensional
4) Indigenous "aliens"
5) Jungian consciousness
6) add as you think of one...

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…

Yeah…right…sure you are… (and “invisible fairies” are possible?) …LOL.

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…

No, I think you misunderstood my meaning. I meant that the US Air Force did not ”investigate“ for the time period you mention. That is they NEVER undertook a serious research program aimed at investigating the true cause of UFOs, all their efforts were put into explaining them away”

On Completion of the Robertson Panel report and recommendations (1953) Dr Allen Hynek (of Blue Book fame) wrote:

“ Blue Book was now under direct orders to debunk, and what captain, or even major, would go against the recommendations of such an august body of scientists as was relayed through the Pentagon.”​

(p. 22 - The Hynek UFO Report (1977) Sphere, London.)

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]

I presume your talking about Blue Book here (it must be noted that Hynek “officially” states “In all there are 13,134 reports in the Air Force files” – and he should know!). But as Hynek already pointed out – the official directive was to “debunk” – and he states that “sometimes I stretched too far”. He has many other things to say about Blue Book and its approach to (non) investigation, but I think you get the point.

The only serious attempt to categorise UFO reports during the period was the Battelle Study (Blue Book Special report No. 14 - http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf), which found twenty two percent (22% of nearly 3000 cases!) UNKNOWN.

I stated:
“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…”

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-f...class/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.

So the CIA self-proclaims no involvement. Do we believe them? (shrugs) It really is neither here nor there. My main point was that we just do not know if the “government” (or something like Eisenhower’s military/industrial complex) is involved in UFOs or not. Moreover, “disclosure” is a fantasy – promoted by charlatans like Greer. It just ain’t gonna happen! First because if there really IS no “involvement” (as “they” claim) then there is nothing to disclose! Second, if there IS “involvement” – then there is absolutely NO upside for them in “disclosure”. So NO disclosure. (I would note that the US government has NOT released its UFO files a la UK, Brazil, and as NZ is going to in the near future – so it claims…)

There you go with the saucer logic again… you’re assuming UFOs are “aliens”.

Once we have ruled out mundane explanations, UFOs are by definition “alien”.

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.

…but you claim the DO NOT investigate… so what’s your point? Besides, the issue is that the US Air Force (various militaries around the world) have proclaimed UFOs not to be a “threat to national security”. Plainly that is bunk! They consider the possibility of mass hysteria and the tying up of communication channels in times of crisis as possible results of a belief in UFOs, and THAT IS a threat to national security!

I stated:
“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.”

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”

No, it’s a matter of record. I simply observe and respond to the evidence.

On time travel:

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…

Actually, your playing with words here. Of course time travel is theoretical since no-one (that we know of) has achieved it, but the fact remains that Einstein’s theory of general relativity allows time travel in principle. It is a speculative cause of UFOs… the future come to visit us…

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]

Yeah sure, and I could wheel out respected philosophers and scientists who refute all that…and in your last paragraph you just contradicted your previous statement that “as I understand it, one could hypothetically travel back to the time and place you turned your “time machine” on but no further.” … so yes, your brain HAS “exploded”. LOL. Get back to me when you do some more study on the theory.

And that rules out human causes how?

Intelligent behaviour that defies the laws of physics as we know them? Humans are struggling with “intelligent behaviour”, let alone the rest of it!

I mean the “aliens” that are ignoring you by not telling you why they’re here. I would be if I believed in them…

You seem to have a very high opinion of me if you believe that “aliens” would contact me to tell me why they are here. You also seem to have a concurrent extraordinarily high opinion of yourself!

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…

Of course. Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind IS made up!” When the evidence rules out plausible mundane solutions, then we ARE left with “alien”. Simple as that really.

You also try (as is the UFO debunker’s wont) to shift the burden of proof here (again). I advance NO particular hypothesis. I merely note that we cannot explain (at least) the cases I have been presenting as mundane. Once THAT occurs, then I am free to speculate. The key is to explore ALL potential explanatory hypotheses.

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.

Wow! You have NO evidence and you have NOT read the book. Do you even KNOW what the book is about? Of course you do not! You just make things up, based on NO evidence! This is of course a modus operandi typical of UFO debunkers. IGNORE the evidence and make things up that seem to conform to their own beliefs. In my opinion this simply shows a particularly nasty streak in you Access Denied.Just a mud slinging exercise!

..and to prove the point you go on to assert that I am a “liar” (more than once). Of course this type of behaviour says more about you than it does me. In my opinion you feel threatened by my presence here and thus feel the need to mount personal attacks on me (and others) –especially when you run out of rational contributions to the debate (as obviously you have done).

 

[Marcus]

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.

You missed it, we're all one big happy family now, we've established that everyone believes that UFO's exist.

 

[Marcus]

(Emphasis mine. Rr)

Ah, but then you would be wrong...


(Emphasis mine. Rr.)

That's possible, of course, but you need to quote a post where someone says that UFO's don't exist. You haven't done that.

 

[Sunsneezer]

This is of course a modus operandi typical of UFO debunkers. IGNORE the evidence and make things up that seem to conform to their own beliefs.

Making things up that seem to conform to your own belief is what you do when you "speculate" about "aliens".
Debunking is not ignoring the evidence, it's exposing the far fetched claims and wild theories that are made up about the evidence for what they are.
You bunk, we debunk. So it goes. Keep it coming.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You also try (as is the UFO debunker’s wont) to shift the burden of proof here (again).

Which discipline do you practice your scientisty stuff in again?

I advance NO particular hypothesis.

You don't believe that some UFOs are alien?

I merely note that we cannot explain (at least) the cases I have been presenting as mundane. Once THAT occurs, then I am free to speculate.

That's your problem, it hasn't occurred yet. You've handwaved away a lot of plausible explanations and tried to shift the burden of proof. Is that what you're referring to?

The key is to explore ALL potential explanatory hypotheses.

Then why have you dismissed out of hand GeeMack's "gods" hypothesis? Disingenuous much?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...the US Air Force (various militaries around the world) have proclaimed UFOs not to be a “threat to national security”. Plainly that is bunk! They consider the possibility of mass hysteria and the tying up of communication channels in times of crisis as possible results of a belief in UFOs, and THAT IS a threat to national security!

Have you considered the possibility that, all over the world, various militaries have independently concluded that reported UFOs are not worthwhile evidence of visiting aliens, that spaceships are not therefore about to land on the local equivalent of the White House lawn, that the general population is not in a froth about such a possibility and UFO reports consistently do not lead to panic in the streets, and therefore UFOs really do pose no threat to their nation's security?

 

[Correa Neto]

Then the speculative hypotheses for the Unknown category might look like:

1) Mundane
2) ET
3) Interdimensional
4) Indigenous "aliens"
5) Jungian consciousness
6) add as you think of one...

Shall we check them?

1) Mundane- plausible, possible, lots of evidence around, solid theoretical background
2) ET-possible, no reliable evidence around, theoretical background a bit shaky
3) Interdimensional- bullcrap
4) Indigenous "aliens"- bullcrap
5) Jungian consciousness- bullcrap
6) add as you think of one... OK- Hoaxes: plausible, possible, lots of evidence around, solid theoretical background

Now, the fact that Rramject added (3), (4) and (5) is a clear indication that we must seriously consider the possibility that he/she is a poseur and that his/hers alleged scientific training is a lie. Those items belong to science fiction/fantasy and woo lore, not science.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The only serious attempt to categorise UFO reports during the period was the Battelle Study (Blue Book Special report No. 14 - http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf), which found twenty two percent (22% of nearly 3000 cases!) UNKNOWN.

As always, Rramjet picked and chose the one statistic he likes to use (the 21.5% value is of 3201 sightings of all kinds). The report pretty much focused mostly only on "object sightings", which had a slightly lower percentage of 19.5% (434/2199). He also omits many of the statements made in this report that the data was subjective and that should not be ignored. Even though they attempted to categorize them, the recognized that the data really was not very good.

We have already been over one of those "UNKNOWNS" (Rogue River) and found the obervations to be less than 100% reliable and have offered potential explanations that might explain the event (blimp/airplane).

Also Rramjet does not mention the part of the report (p.76-78) where they looked at all of these "unknowns" and reevaluated them with potential explanations. After that the number of "unknowns" shrank considerably. In fact, they eventually stated:

Thus, out of the 434 OBJECT SIGHTINGS that were identified as UNKNOWNS by the data reduction process, there were only 12 that were described with sufficient detail that they could be used in an attempt to derive a model of a "flying saucer". (P.78)

12 out of nearly 2199 is not that high a percentage. I am sure Rramjet will state this part of the report is invalid. Of coure, he is a UFO proponent and will only select that part of the report he desires and thinks is valid (even though he ignores the warnings of those writers of the report about the subjectivity of the data).

 

[Stray Cat]

(Emphasis mine. Rr)

Ah, but then you would be wrong...


(Emphasis mine. Rr.)

(B)limp!

 

[Correa Neto]

Piloted by...