UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
jond said:
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...
Click to expand...


I think JREF should give some serious thought to actually publishing Squid Fishing Monthly. It would outsell Cosmo or Playblimp, hands down, I reckon.
 
Belgian thought said:
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!"
Click to expand...


Too late, she cried!

I nominated it as it was.

:)
 
Akhenaten said:
I think JREF should give some serious thought to actually publishing Squid Fishing Monthly. It would outsell Cosmo or Playblimp, hands down, I reckon.
Click to expand...

It certainly has the potential to become a huge underground success. Especially where the targeted audience completely misses the joke. The first issue should have one of those sound files that plays when you open the cover. It'll play Billy Preston's "Nothing from Nothing."
 
I see you have carefully avoided addressing this, Rramjet.
Rramjet said:
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...!([URL="http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)"]http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)[/URL]
Click to expand...

EHocking said:
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 | |
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Rramjet, you call for research on what exactly? Further examination of existing UFO cases, or mobilizing scientists to observe the sky until something shows up and measure then identify what they see? What do you think would be the best UFO research scenario?
 
Rramjet said:
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.
Click to expand...
Science. You're doing it wrong.
 
Akhenaten said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh my...

Can't wait for Rramjet's cherry pick on Wild Weasels... He might end up claiming its proof F4s can track UFOs at 6o'clock!

I am also eager to see Rramjet's plans for a proper UFO research project, as well as to know the reasons why top UFOlogists have not been able to make one so far. You know, it would take only 15KU$...

Here's another possible pathway
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8535582.stm

I wonder why UFObuffs, whom often claim to be innovative and stuff, never venture and explore many paths towards real scientific investigation.

Well, maybe its easier to whine against skeptics and mainstream science, especially if you know the results would not be favorable to aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature... Especially when you can try to pose as a scientist at an internet forum.
 
Rramjet said:
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.
Click to expand...
They have been, ad nauseum. What do you think a plausible explanation for the Campeche sighting with FLIR imagery would have been if it had not been determined to be oil well fires? You may only use the FLIR data and witness testimony to arrive at your answer.
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).
Click to expand...
Burden of proof, check. You don't want to understand it.
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.
Click to expand...
No no, you didn't need to mention burden of proof again, everyone already knows you don't understand it.
So “blimp” IS a categorical and not a mere possibility then?
Click to expand...
Strawman. You asked for plausible mundane explanations and I gave you one. Your dishonest attempt at twisting is noted.
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.
Click to expand...
What would have been a plausible explanation for the objects seen around Campeche based on the eyewitness testimony (trained military observers) and the FLIR video?
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.
Click to expand...
Try something other than, "Nuh uh, you are!"
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.
Click to expand...
LIAR. And I will call you a liar every time you say it. Burden of proof, still yours.
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.
Click to expand...
Nobody but you is making a claim. Your burden of proof.
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.
Click to expand...
Nope, it isn't my evidence to give. It appears to be equal to yours, though, if not stronger. Here's a link or two:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162088
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124603
Read those and tell me where their evidence falls down. I think you'll be a long way down the road to understanding where yours falls down then. Until you can do that, "gods" is a priori equal to "aliens".
 
Whilst I appreciate the sterling work people have put into debunking Rramjet's stream of drivel, it's done. Over. Finished. He lost. He promised to present evidence but had none. Instead, he offered a pile of old cases from the My First Book of UFOs that had nothing of interest at the time and have aged about as well as football socks left in a locker over the summer holidays. We're left with the conclusion we all started from: sometimes people see something in the sky and don't know what it is. All research indicates that these are normal objects that go unidentified because identifying something without being able to judge it's size is difficult. The one real supporter Rramjet has had, SnidelyW, has apparently left. No lurkers have come forward to challenge the notion that Rramjet has failed in his task, so I assert that he has failed.

Of course, we remain open-minded. If Rramjet would care to put forward a hypothesis based on the available evidence, I'm sure we'd be happy to look at it. NEW cases would be equally welcome. But all he has to offer are these tedious old cases cribbed from UFO websites. They've been looked at. If they had anything to offer, the world would already be a different place.

So, Rramjet: bring something new or admit defeat with a touch of decorum. Don't go out in the kicking and screaming manner you've conducted yourself in the rest of the thread.






Oh, and stop throwing around the term "UFO debunker." It makes you look stupid.
 
Last edited:
tomi71 said:
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?
Click to expand...
If you dig a little, tomi, I'm sure you'll find plenty of information as to how Greer has consistently over-exaggerated claims, misrepresented others and generally gone about things in an underhand way. One website carries an actual piece of documentary evidence of his modus operandi, here:

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/?view=article&id=110

It's a letter signed by the former director of the CIA and others who attended a dinner party held by Greer. It's fairly self-explanatory, and reflective - in my opinion - of the way Dr Greer distorts the words of others in an attempt to give his Disclosure Project more credence.
 
Correa Neto said:
Oh my...

Can't wait for Rramjet's cherry pick on Wild Weasels... He might end up claiming its proof F4s can track UFOs at 6o'clock!
Click to expand...

I don't know if Rroger was previously aware of Wild Weasels, but they've certainly heard of him, hence their motto:

Wild_Weasels_patch.jpgWP

I lol'd at the coincidence when PuddleDuck directed "YGBSM" at Rr a few pages back, but I imagined it flew over his head. :)
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you called me a liar and I demonstrated this was not true. I also would like to direct the reader towards several points. One was raised by Allan Hendry concerning BBSR14:

But look at the amount of cases, both "known" and "unknown" that had unstated parameters:

Unstated IFOs UFOs

Shape 23% 27%
Duration 25% 24%
Color 12% 14%
Brightness 65% 68%
Speed 39% 31%
Number 2% 1%

In my own reports, I would never have dreamed of making an IFO/UFO judgement without important parameters like shape and duration. Instead of dumping these reports into the "insufficient information" pile where they belong (or better yet, seeking out the additional data) they saw fit to make commitments on them. To judge reports like these as "UFOs" and "IFOs" and to include them in the chi-square tests is sloppy investigative and statistical process...No wonder the study could find only 12 UFO descriptions out of the 434 that were complete enough to sketch. (Hendry The UFO Handbook p.267)

Based on Hendry's comments it appears that at least 1/4th of the "unknowns" was using very poor data.

Additionally, you are not using the ENTIRE 316 pages because you ignore what is stated in the pagess outside the one statistic you find compelling. For instance read pages 93-94:

It is pointed out that some of the cases of KNOWNS, before identification, appeared fully as bizarre as any of the 12 cases of good UNKNOWNS, and, in fact, would have been placed in the class of good UNKNOWNS had it not been possible to establish their identity.
This is, of course, contrary to the bulk of the publicity that has been given to this problem.--The reason for the nature of this publicity was clearly brought out during the re-evaluation study. It is a definite fact that upon reading a few reports, the reader becomes convinced that "flying saucers" are real and are some form of sinister contrivance. This reaction is independent of the training of the reader or of his attitude toward the problem prior to the initial contact. It is unfortunate that practically all of
the articles, books, and news stories dealing with the phenomenon of the "flying saucer" were written by men who were in this category, that is, men who had read only a few selected reports. This is accentuated by the fact that, as a rule, only the more lurid - sounding reports are cited in these publications. Were it not for this common psychological tendency to be captivated by the mysterious, it is possible that no problem of this nature would exist.
The reaction, mentioned above, that after reading a few reports,, the reader is convinced that "flying saucers" are real and are some form of sinister contrivance, is very misleading. As more and more of the reports are read, the feeling that "saucers" are real fades, and is replaced by a feeling of skepticism regarding their existence. The reader eventually reaches a point of saturation, after which the reports contain no new information at all and are no longer of any interest. This feeling of surfeit was universal among the personnel who worked on this project, and continually necessitated a conscious effort on their part to remain objective.

and

A critical examination of the distributions of the important characteristics of sightings, plus an intensive study of the sightings evaluated as UNKNOWN, led to the conclusion that a combination of factors, principally the reported maneuvers of the objects and the unavailability of supplemental data such as aircraft flight plans or balloon-launching records, resulted in the failure to identify as KNOWNS most of the reports of objects classified as UNKNOWNS.
....Thus, the probability that any of the UNKNOWNS considered in this study are "flying saucers" is concluded to be extremely small, since the most complete and reliable reports from the present data, when isolated and studied, conclusively failed to reveal even a rough model, and since the data as a whole failed to reveal any marked patterns or trends. Therefore, on the basis of this evaluation of the information, it is considered to be highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects examined in this study represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day scientific knowledge.

Points to gather from these comments is that:
1) The data to indentify the unknowns was insufficient. They could have been aircraft or balloons but without the records, it was hard to verify. This is why they reevaluated the 434 UNKNOWNS to see if they had probable explanations.
2) The data for even classifying an object as KNOWN or UNKNOWN was not good enough for many of the reports according to Hendry. Many reports lacked specific data that was important to determine the classification of the report.
3) The evaluators of the data began to feel skeptical about the reports after reading them.
4) Most important was the last highlighted statement. The probability of any of these UFO reports being something exotic/"alien" was very low.

I suggest you learn to read the entire report and stop cherry picking what you want. This is completely UNSCIENTIFIC for a "man of science". Did you get that degree out of a cracker jack box?
 
Last edited:
Correa Neto said:
Oh my...

I wonder why UFObuffs, whom often claim to be innovative and stuff, never venture and explore many paths towards real scientific investigation.
Click to expand...


This is quite a distinct characteristic of people like Rramjet.

They like to accuse sceptics of having restricted their thinking by placing artificial bounding-boxes around themselves, and yet any casual observer can see from this very thread that the complete opposite is true.

The incredibly varied and creative content of this thread is in fact being provided by everyone but the so-called free thinker who is so blinkered into a single dull and unimaginative mindset that he is incapable of seeing either the forest or the trees.


Or even the bloody great blimps flying around all over the place.
 
tomi71 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because Greer is not grounded in reality. If you have ever read the CSETI website, you would understand. See my commentary at:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/disclosure.htm

Scroll towards the bottom. There is plenty of information regarding Greer's "disclosure project" witnesses and Greer himself.
 
Astrophotographer said:
Yes, but you called me a liar and I demonstrated this was not true. I also would like to direct the reader towards several points. One was raised by Allan Hendry concerning BBSR14:
Click to expand...


Astro, no offence mate, but you do know that this is just going to generate another Rramjet wall o' text and allow him to ignore everyone else, don't you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom