UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

He can't say this anymore:

I do not, nor have I ever used the term “flying saucer”.

 

[Access Denied]

Not 'quite' true. They aren’t now but at one time they were.

Meh, that’s the Navy for you. The Air Force had a real flying saucer…

VZ-9 AV Avrocar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VZ-9_AV_Avrocar

[now don’t go getting any ideas Stray Cat]

 

[Rramjet]

You haven't ascertained that everything mundane is implausible. Blimp is a plausible hypothesis for Rogue River. The fact that you won't admit it, doesn't make you Sherlock Holmes.

The are no plausible mundane explanations for the cases I have presented. By a scientific and logical process of elimination, ALL plausible mundane explanations have been positively ruled out. If you can find any that have not yet been ruled out, then please present them for consideration.

The fact that you repeat ad nauseam your unfounded assertions does not make them true (although I do note that UFO debunkers hold the belief that mere statement of assertion makes the assertion true – in the real world, supporting evidence is required – and THAT is the burden of proof you continually fail to meet).

Shenanigans like asserting that all hypotheses are equal? Shenanigans like "I make no claims"? Shenanigans like shifting the burden of proof? Rramjet, no matter how you twist and contort, the burden of proof if yours.

All hypotheses are a priori equal. That is a fact of the real world. Based on evidence we can make value judgements about the plausibility of certain hypotheses – however, no matter what the hypotheses, its veracity must be assessed on the available evidence. Your attempt to shift the burden of proof does not negate this reality.

Blimp. And I don't care whether you consider it or not. You're demonstrably a believer who will not and probably now cannot disbelieve.

So “blimp” IS a categorical and not a mere possibility then? So you continue to IGNORE the evidence against “blimp” being a plausible explanation then? The evidence that the object was circular (like a coin), moved at the speed of a jet plane, had no fins, engines or gondola… then the truism Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up” as applied to UFO debunkers is (again) confirmed in your above statements.

Patently it is YOU who hold a system of faith based belief concerning UFOs and you refuse to consider the evidence that might disconfirm those beliefs.

Nope. Null hypothesis, extraordinary claim, burden of proof, stop me if you've heard these terms before. If you want them explained, just ask.

If the null hypothesis is “UFOs do not exist”, then patently you are incorrect. I have been presenting evidence to show that null hypothesis is invalid.

If you have a claim that any of the objects represented in the cases I have been presenting have a mundane explanation, then you must support that claim with evidence. THAT is YOUR burden of proof. That you continue to assert the opposite demonstrates your clear lack of understanding of the methodology of science and logic. If YOU make a claim then YOU must supply evidence to support that claim. Simple, factual, straightforward logic.

There are many threads active right now on this forum that claim evidence for gods. You should be the last person to deny them their evidence.

I am not aware of any such threads. If they contain evidence that supports the existence of “gods” as an explanation for UFOs and since you ARE obviously aware of them, then you will have no trouble outlining evidence in support of your claims in this regard.

Unidentified Flying Saucer? Methinks you made a wee typo there Rramjet.

Yes, thank you for pointing that out to me. Obviously I did make a “typo”. That I did so demonstrates just how insidious UFO debunker “speak” is.

I think I speak for most people when I say that we believe UFMO is the most likely explanation, but not the only one possible. The point isn't the FO (or FMO) part, it's the U part. They're unidentified. You can speculate all you want, but in the end it's just that, speculation. You have nothing more than that, and until you get your head around that simple, unavoidable, fact you'll continue to make a fool of yourself here.

Okay, then WHAT are the alternate possibilities that you acknowledge exist? If “mundane” can be shown to be unlikely or implausible (as in the cases I have been presenting), then what are we left with?

But in science any speculation is only valid if it leads to a testable hypothesis, i.e. does your speculation give us any method to differentiate between UFO, UFMO and FS? If the answer is "no", then your speculation is not scientific, and is, in fact, futile.

There are UFO cases where no mundane explanation is possible. That is a testable hypothesis.

All UFO reports have a plausible mundane explanation. That is another testable hypothesis.

How about "moronic argument disprover"? At least then you could say we're MAD.

If you wish to apply that sobriquet to yourself, then go ahead. I would not be so rude as to do so myself. I take it that the term “UFO debunker” stands until a better term can be thought of?

Except that there isn't a single case where the "mundane" hypothesis has been ruled out, because the "mundane" hypothesis doesn't end with every mundane explanation that we can think of. Removing the known mundane explanations simply leaves us with "unknown" as our category. Yep, there's that word again. Not "alien", just "unknown".

So you now hypothesise “unknown” mundane explanation to explain UFOs? But that is the same as me proposing ET as an explanation – in fact it is worse, because at least ET is a testable hypothesis, whereas “unknown” is NOT a testable hypothesis.

Sure, “unknown” in terms of “mundane” explanations, but that should not limit our speculation in terms of non-mundane explanations.

This has been explained before, but I'll try again anyway.

You are the only one making an actual claim. You claim that UFOs are some particular thing, i.e. "alien", and you are the one who must therefore provide evidence.

We do not claim any particular thing, we simply refute your arguments and and show where they are weak, or just downright silly. Yes, on occasion we suggest possible alternatives, and on those occasions we offer evidence, but we don't have to provide evidence of alternative explanations in order to show that your explanations are wrong.

I am making NO claim that UFOs represent ANYTHING at all. The only claim I DO make is that there exist UFO cases that have NO plausible mundane explanations. The rest is speculation, for which I make no direct claims about – in fact I repeatedly have pointed out that we have no direct evidence to support claims of (for example) ETI - though I AM allowed an opinion surely.

Thus the only burden of proof I have is to show that there ARE no mundane explanations for the cases I have been presenting. Thus I contend that when a circular (like a coin) “craft” is observed moving silently at the speeds of a jet plane I simply note the (accepted knowledge fact) that we have no known technology that fits that description that could have been at the place and time in question. IF you propose that a particular mundane solution fits the example, then of course you MUST provide supporting evidence, just as I am obliged then to supply contrary evidence to that claim. Thus (for example) if “blimp” is proposed as a mundane explanation – I DO provide descriptive sighting evidence and historical records to show that “blimp” is NOT the answer…of course YOU then must ignore that evidence to maintain your claim… but that is a matter of having to maintain your faith based belief system rather than any truly logical or scientific examination of the evidence.

But you are arguing for visiting "aliens". Go figure.

I am not, nor ever have “argued” for “visiting aliens”. (and by visiting aliens I presume YOU mean ETI). I DO however have an opinion - that I rarely express - but I have NEVER argued that there is direct evidence to support such opinions – in fact I have been at pains to point out the distinct lack of direct evidence in that direction.

I'm not sure what you saying here, so I can't really respond to your point.

Well that is a refreshing statement. I must commend you on your forbearance in not resorting to personal abuse like so many of your compatriots in this thread who have found themselves in a similar position. Thank you.

Do they actually have the video from White Sands? If so then I'd like to see it. I'd also like to see the actual numbers that they used in that case.

Oh yes indeed there is a video! However, the “military” has NOT released it! I simply ask WHY not? What is on that video that they must maintain a cloak of secrecy for? Thus I (and everyone else who has investigated this case) would like to see that video too! They have also not released the “actual numbers” either…so why not? IF it is as the officer who penned the “final” report says that there IS nothing to this sighting – then why NOT release the raw data?

Yes, 19.5% is a large proportion. 19.5% of sightings are really unidentified. Oh, look, there's that word again. Unidentified.

Indeed. There IS that word again. What ARE we to make of it?

What does that suggest to you, exactly? How, precisely, do they rate the "excellence" of these reports?

They gathered a team of experts together who independently rated the sighting reports and then got them together to make a final assessment. Don’t forget that the categories of “not enough information” (which ruled out about 1000 cases), “poor”, “doubtful” and “good” were available as categorisation BEFORE “excellent” was considered.

It suggests to me that there are things about this world which we don’t know and that it behoves us to find out about.

So, witness unreliability makes witnesses reliable, is that what you're saying? The only reason independent witnesses would say they saw exactly the same thing was if they weren't really independent, or they were accurately reporting something that really occurred. It does happen you know.

No, I am saying that perceptual and psychological research points us in the direction where we might expect discrepancies in multiple witness sighting reports. IF we observe NO such discrepancies, THEN we become suspicious that the whole thing is “too neat”, to be true – or as you would have it, that the witnesses were NOT independent and that we must be suspicious of their reports.

How far away was the object? What direction was the wind in. How loud are Blimp engines? What was the thing on the back end of one of the drawings if not a fin? Why are the drawings not circular? (If I was a professional draughtsman trying to draw something like that I'd probably draw both plan and elevation aspects, but hey, maybe that's just me)

The object was close enough to observe that its shape was “circular” without the aid of binoculars. WITH binoculars, the object was easier to see. There was no “wind” mentioned. It was a “clear blue-sky” day and the sun was at the witnesses back. We don’t know that the thing on the back was a “fin”… but even if it WAS, then for the “blimp” hypothesis to stand up, then WHERE are the other “fins”? Yeah... maybe that’s just you. They drew what they drew. Their drawings represent the “craft” as they saw it.

The bottom line is that you are speculating about unknowns. Your opponents in the debate don't doubt for a second that UFOs exist. But for some reason you can't see the wood for the trees. So I'll underline it for you again. They're UNIDENTIFIED! Nobody knows what they are. Not me, not you, not the military. And we never will know what any of the objects in your cases were. Never. There simply isn't enough evidence in any of these cases to positively identify what they were. That's why they're called Unidentified Flying Objects.

So speculate all you want, in the end it's all just mental masturbation.

Yes, nobody knows WHAT UFOs really are. THAT is why I call for a properly constituted peer-reviewed research program. To contend that we will NEVER know what UFOs are is merely an unfounded assertion in the face of a lack of genuine research.

 

[Rramjet]

Meh, that’s the Navy for you. The Air Force had a real flying saucer…

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/Colour_avrocar_59.jpg/480px-Colour_avrocar_59.jpg[/qimg]

VZ-9 AV Avrocar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VZ-9_AV_Avrocar

[now don’t go getting any ideas Stray Cat]

Yeah...and that thing flew...HOW far? LOL.

 

[Akhenaten]

<drivelsnip>

Yes, nobody knows WHAT UFOs really are.

Well done, Captain Obvious.

Do you suppose that's why they're called Unidentified Flying Objects?

THAT is why I call for a properly constituted peer-reviewed research program.

You don't really think anyone cares what you call for, do you?

Even if someone here did care, what exactly do you think they'd do about it for you?

To contend that we will NEVER know what UFOs are is merely an unfounded assertion in the face of a lack of genuine research.

Unidentified, Rramjet. Is that word totally incomprehensible to you?

By definition (the real one, not your fantasy version) 'unidentified' means we don't know what they are/were.

If we ever find out, then they cease to be UFOs.

How does something so simple continue to elude you?

 

[Akhenaten]

Yeah...and that thing flew...HOW far? LOL.

Nowhere near as far as the Rogue River blimp.


Blimp.

 

[Rramjet]

Ahhh... then how do you explain these statements?

In general, the data were subjective, consisting of qualified estimates of physical characteristics rather than of precise measurements. Furthermore most of the reports were not reduced to written form immediately. The time between sighting and report varied from one day to several years. Both of these factors introduce an element of doubt concerning the validity of the original data, and increased its subjectivity. This was intensified by the recognized inability of the average individual to estimate speeds, distances, and sizes of objects in the air with any degree of accuracy. In spite of these limitations, methods of statistical analysis of such reports in sufficiently large groups is valid. The danger lies in the possibility of forgetting the subjectivity of the data at the time that conclusions are drawn from the analysis. It must be emphasized, again and again, that any conclusions contained in this report are based NOT on facts, but on what many observers thought and estimated the true facts to be. (p. 3-4)


They are addressing the data. If it were good data, they would not have remind the reader (apparently directing it towards those wanting to make a mountain out of a molehill - like UFO proponents) that the data were subjective and open to interpretation. If you were a REAL scientiist, you could understand this. Calling me a liar in order to make your emphasis on certain statistics seem to be correct (while ignoring the rest of the report) is just being.....well......unscientific.

The rest of your usual rant is not worth commenting upon. It is the usual handwaving and ignoring the parts of the report that demonstrate these UNKNOWNS were not as good as you claim.

They also said (on the same page you quote from):

“Some reports were of high quality, conservative, and as complete as the observer could make them; a few originated from people confined to mental institutions. A critical examination of reports revealed, however, that a high percentage of them were submitted by serious people, mystified by what they had seen and motivated by patriotic responsibility.” (p.3)

…and notwithstanding the “subjective” caveat, they WERE able to classify nearly 10% of reports as “excellent and 34% as “good” (that’s a total of 44% of all reports that were classified as “GOOD” or better reports).

There is no “mountain out of a molehill” here. If the data were open to interpretation - then even with the “subjective” caveat in mind - the scientists STILL classified the reports as above.

However, YOU are able to cite only very small sections (that is from p. 3 and p. 76) of the report to support your contentions - while I am able to cite from the REST of the report (all 316 pages of it!) to support mine. I leave the reader to judge exactly WHO is “ignoring” the evidence here.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet , If you want to go around quoting Conan Doyle, for FSM's sake,at least quote him accurately. He never said anything about getting rid of the implausible. What he said is:

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Arthur Conan Doyle

Tell us how you ascertain that any & all mundane hypotheses are impossible.

If you noticed (which you obviously did not - you merely saw what you wanted to see) I was NOT "quoting" Conan Doyle at all - I merely stated that "the implication of his statement was" (or words to that effect...) and I was using the implications of his statement as an analogy of what is occurring in the cases I was presenting. That is, once the implausible was ruled out, what we were left with, no matter how improbable it might seem to UFO debunkers, must then be considered.

 

[Akhenaten]

I leave the reader to judge exactly WHO is “ignoring” the evidence here.

How many times do you need to be told.

The reader already knows that it's you who is incapable of a correct interpretation of the available evidence.


Do you need to see it flashing down from the side of a blimp in order to realise this simple fact?


Blimp.

 

[Akhenaten]

If you noticed (which you obviously did not - you merely saw what you wanted to see) I was NOT "quoting" Conan Doyle at all - I merely stated that "the implication of his statement was" (or words to that effect...) and I was using the implications of his statement as an analogy of what is occurring in the cases I was presenting. That is, once the implausible was ruled out, what we were left with, no matter how improbable it might seem to UFO debunkers, must then be considered.

You need to Google 'weasel words' Rramjet, and then you'd probably be less fanatical about using them all the time.

While you're in the area, Google 'Wild Weasel' too. It's a type of F4 - something else that you know nothing about.

Like blimps.

 

[Belgian thought]

By the way...
http://www.universetoday.com/2010/02/24/report-two-objects-crash-to-ground-in-mongolia/

Seems some UFObuffs claim its a "leaked UFO crash picture".

Maybe Rramjet at last will be vindicated.

Alien 1 "OK. We're nearly there, let's go through our checklist."

Alien2 "Right you are captain. Exciting this! We might even meet their moustached leader who seems to have such a great following. Strange that they worship the sign for the gents toilet though."

Alien 1 "That's what we're here to find out."

Alien2 "Indeed, nothing beats looking for evidence does it?"

Alien 1 "Indeed not officer sub class. OK. Here goes. Engines that work outside the realms of physics, switch to manual!"

Alien2 "Check!"

Alien 1 "Anti-photo focus shield!"

Alien2 "Check!"

Alien 1 "Erratic movement engine - switch to automatic!"

Alien2 "Check!"

Alien 1 "Five hour waving hand machine and batteries!"

Alien2 "Check! May I say sir that was an inspired idea.."

Alien 1 "Simple officer sub class, I studied the film of the moustached leader carefully, and in addition to their worshipping the sign of the gent's toilet, followers moved their arms continuously. Anal Dildoes!"

Alien2 "Check! Err…. Sir? Why did you pack these?"

Alien 1 "Never you mind office sub class, and no word to base about trying them out during this long and lonely flight, you hear?"

Alien2 "Right you are sir."

Alien 1 "Cattle cutting lasers!"

Alien2 "Check!"

Alien 1 "Automatic planetary search location for least populated area to automatic."

Alien2 "Check! Sir? Do you think that will help us find their leader? I mean our worshipful leader, may black ink be upon him, lives in the centre of our largest city."

Alien 1 "Never mind officer sub class, we are simply following protocol."

Alien2 "Are anal dildoes protocol sir? "

Alien 1 "In a way they are officer sub class. Paragraph 45, subsection 2 "Each crew member is allowed to take one item of personal belongings". That reminds me sub class, what did you bring?"

Alien2 "Just before boarding I got these from a site on the web."

Alien 1 "What are they? I can't see anything."

Alien2 "That's the thing - they are… invisible implants! You simply put them in other beings, and you can track them, read their thoughts, and in some cases control them"

Alien 1 "How do you implant them then?"

Alien2 "You just tell the being that they have one, and Bingo! They work."

Alien 1 "I think the guy saw you coming sub class. Sounds like a scam to me."

Alien2 "I resent that sir. The selling of such an item from UFOs - Catch your beings first.com shows its veracity. Or do you not trust the web sir?"

Alien 1 "Not much, old school me, books, when I can get them, and sometimes "art" magazines. In fact, I bought that very dildo from one. "

Alien2 "Wow! Look at that! Blue and green, just like home."

Alien 1 "Brings a tear to the eye - it's a bit large though."

Alien2 "Certainly bigger than home, I'd guess some 10 times bigger."

Alien 1 "Indeed, Ok, let’s go in. By the way sub class - graviton G setting, what do you have it set to?"

Alien2 "Not changed it since we left sir."

Alien 1 "Oh crap!"

 

[tomi71]

Just a quick question, but what do you think is wrong with Greer and disclosure project? I am specially interested in Rramjet´s point of view.

Why do you feel that Greer is a charlatan? What about the panel of people willing to testify their experiences?

 

[Stray Cat]

Just a quick question, but what do you think is wrong with Greer and disclosure project? I am specially interested in Rramjet´s point of view.

Why do you feel that Greer is a charlatan? What about the panel of people willing to testify their experiences?

There is a short thread about the DP here with links to information about Greer and his circus.

 

[Stray Cat]

Meh, that’s the Navy for you. The Air Force had a real flying saucer…

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ur_avrocar_59.jpg/480px-Colour_avrocar_59.jpg

VZ-9 AV Avrocar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VZ-9_AV_Avrocar

[now don’t go getting any ideas Stray Cat]

I've done something like this before, but looking it up (see below), it's not the same machine. In another place, someone suggested they made one in British racing green:

Which I thought was a bit of a cheesy idea

But I've got no idea what it actually is... It's labeled 'Heat shield'

 

[Correa Neto]

Belgian thought:

To keep it more faithfull regarding UFO lore, I would mak a subtle change...

Alien2 "Just before boarding I got these from a site on the web."

Alien 1 "What are they? I can't see anything."

Alien2 "That's the thing - they are… invisible implants! You simply put them in other beings, and you can track them, read their thoughts, and in some cases control them"

Alien 1 "How do you implant them then?"

Alien2 "Thats when enters the anal dildo."

Instert obvious refference to Gay Rodeo blimp here.

 

[Toke]

I am pretty impressed with the alien invisibility and mind wiping technology.

A bunch of gay rodeo blimps herding people together for probing would otherwise have been a spectacular sight, and not something the participants/victims forgot in a hurry.

 

[Correa Neto]

funny they should get mentioned.
I clipped this ad from page 15 of my most recent copy of squid fishing monthly (i have it on subscription now)

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/thepsychoclown/star-clusters.jpg[/qimg]

rotflmaol

 

[jond]

Not just the Olympics, either.

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/GayRodeoRaces.jpg[/qimg]​

I'm only posting this in case the Master is inspired to do something with it.

Thankfully, this one and the ad from Squid Fishing didn't get sent away before I saw them. What a great sight in the morning! Unfortunately, Rramjet still appears to believe that 0+0+0+0=something other than 0...

 

[amb]

Just a quick question, but what do you think is wrong with Greer and disclosure project? I am specially interested in Rramjet´s point of view.

Why do you feel that Greer is a charlatan? What about the panel of people willing to testify their experiences?

If you get a group of say, 20 people in a location outside the city limits where the glare of the city lights are not a factor. Now get these people to look up at the pitch black sky dotted with thousands of stars. Then yell, look, that star is moving and changing colors! Out of that group of twenty people, it's almost guaranteed that at least 5-7 will confirm a sighting. It's human nature to say ''me too.''
Welcome to the forum by the way.

 

[Belgian thought]

Belgian thought:

To keep it more faithfull regarding UFO lore, I would mak a subtle change...

Alien2 "Just before boarding I got these from a site on the web."

Alien 1 "What are they? I can't see anything."

Alien2 "That's the thing - they are… invisible implants! You simply put them in other beings, and you can track them, read their thoughts, and in some cases control them"

Alien 1 "How do you implant them then?"

Alien2 "Thats when enters the anal dildo."

Instert obvious refference to Gay Rodeo blimp here.

And this section:

Alien 1 "Indeed not officer sub class. OK. Here goes. Engines that work outside the realms of physics, switch to manual!"

Alien2 "Check!"

Should perhaps change to:

Alien 1 "Indeed not officer sub class. OK. Here goes. Engines that work outside the realms of physics, switch to reality!"

Alien2 "Check!"