UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Sledge]

I appreciate the effort you put into assembling a large quantity of information in a post, but it's not the right format to start off a discussion thread. Why not focus on one case at a time, beginning with the one you believe is the strongest?

We've looked at his best case. It was a blimp.

 

[Wolrab]

Great,
Again
You,
Ramjet,
Obfuscate
Detailed
Evidence
Obstinately.

 

[Wolrab]

Got
Any
Yarns
Regarding
Obviously
Detected
Erroneous
Objects?

 

[Akhenaten]

Blimps all the way down.

 

[Akhenaten]

Rramjet, you never did say what you thought was behind the mysterious Campeche UFO incident based on eyewitness testimony of the trained military observers and FLIR data. Now that's real evidence, wouldn't you agree?

It is highly implausible to be oil well fires, using your criteria. Oil well fires couldn't have surrounded the plane or chased it. Oil well fires don't fly at 3500 feet. Oil well fires don't disappear after military jets stop chasing them. So, do you believe the answer to be aliens?

I'm betting that this is the post that attracts the wall o' text.

 

[Akhenaten]

must.....resist.....to....eat....peanuts......

Nothing new here. Another failed argument based on "the will to believe".

Where may I send your truckload of cookies?

 

[Akhenaten]

Unfortunately, due to the bad behaviour of a few posters, the moderators have seen fit to close the previous thread of this name down. In my opinion this was premature and I have appealed the decision.

my bolding

Rramjet, since I am loathe to call anyone, even you, a liar, I will restrict myself to pointing out that this statement is factually wrong, and therefore your cheap shot at the other posters and your alleged appeal are both quite laughable.


Comments?

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
“Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that all UFO reports have a mundane explanation?”

I don't know

Okay then, finally an honest answer. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Let me ask you another question then. Given there is some doubt in your mind and given that you are obviously interested in the topic (otherwise you would not be posting in this thread), in your opinion, what might the UFO reports that do not seem to have mundane explanations represent?

 

[carlitos]

Didn't you say that you were a scientist on the other thread? Couldn't we please use the scientific method^WP instead of walls o'text this time?

1 - Choose best case.
2 - Simple hypothesis to explain 'best case'
3 - Prove / disprove hypothesis

Really:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, you never did say what you thought was behind the mysterious Campeche UFO incident based on eyewitness testimony of the trained military observers and FLIR data. Now that's real evidence, wouldn't you agree?

It is highly implausible to be oil well fires, using your criteria. Oil well fires couldn't have surrounded the plane or chased it. Oil well fires don't fly at 3500 feet. Oil well fires don't disappear after military jets stop chasing them. So, do you believe the answer to be aliens?

I am interested in the research and the evidence for UFOs. I am not interested in cases that are "solved" as mundane.

I understand your point though. You are attempting to show that this is a case where "trained" pilots misinterpreted what they were seeing - and that if such could happen in this case, how do we know it has not happened in other cases.

But I agree with you. Misinterpretations obviously occur. In fact it is fair to say that a majority of UFO reports result from misinterpretations of mundane objects. But at the same time, there do exist cases where such explanations are not applicable (see my case list in the OP) and it is those cases that are the real puzzlers.

 

[Rramjet]

I think I may have asked you this before but have you ever seen a UFO Rramjet?

Yes I have observed a number of UFOs. There have also been multiple witnesses to some of the observations.

 

[Stray Cat]

But I agree with you. Misinterpretations obviously occur. In fact it is fair to say that a majority of UFO reports result from misinterpretations of mundane objects. But at the same time, there do exist cases where such explanations are not applicable (see my case list in the OP) and it is those cases that are the real puzzlers.

Belief Lies In Misinterpretations Perhaps?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I am interested in the research and the evidence for UFOs. I am not interested in cases that are "solved" as mundane.

I think you should foster an interest in the "solved" cases because they have lessons that we can apply to the unsolved ones.

I understand your point though. You are attempting to show that this is a case where "trained" pilots misinterpreted what they were seeing - and that if such could happen in this case, how do we know it has not happened in other cases.

Yes, that was part of the point. It isn't just the eyewitness testimony that can be suspect, though. Remember this case also had FLIR video and seemingly confirmed radar lock on two of the eleven objects.

But I agree with you. Misinterpretations obviously occur. In fact it is fair to say that a majority of UFO reports result from misinterpretations of mundane objects. But at the same time, there do exist cases where such explanations are not applicable (see my case list in the OP) and it is those cases that are the real puzzlers.

The bolded part is the handwaving away of everything you had just acknowledged. Campeche would be just such a case, based on the eyewitness testimony, FLIR video, and radar data. That's the whole point of why I have been and will continue to bring up Campeche.

 

[Limbo]

Yes I have observed a number of UFOs. There have also been multiple witnesses to some of the observations.

Any that have made the news or a documentary or anything?

 

[Akhenaten]

I think I may have asked you this before but have you ever seen a UFO Rramjet?

Yes I have observed a number of UFOs. There have also been multiple witnesses to some of the observations.

OK, here's a question for both of you.


What are these?

Hints:

1. They are flying.

2. They are objects.


I'd answer very carefully if I were you, Rramjet, considering that I am one of the people whom you claim deny the existence of these things.

 

[Rramjet]

Didn't you say that you were a scientist on the other thread? Couldn't we please use the scientific method^WP instead of walls o'text this time?

1 - Choose best case.
2 - Simple hypothesis to explain 'best case'
3 - Prove / disprove hypothesis

Really:

There is no single “best case”.

I have chosen a number of cases (see the OP) which represent a great deal of supporting evidence for the contention that not all UFO reports have mundane explanations.

I then contend that, by definition, if a UFO report does not have a mundane explanation, then it is “alien”.

However, I do not know what “alien” actually means. There seems to be circumstantial evidence to suggest that we are being “visited” by intelligent beings who use technological “craft” as a mode of transport. However, appearances can be deceiving and there is no direct evidence that these “beings” DO represent ETI (although that does seem to be perhaps thee most obvious explanation – though not necessarily the correct one).

 

[fromdownunder]

However, appearances can be deceiving and there is no direct evidence that these “beings” DO represent ETI (although that does seem to be perhaps thee most obvious explanation – though not necessarily the correct one).

So, you have abandoned this claim from the previous thread:

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”. The following set of links provides just that.

...and we are back to UFO's, which everybody has already agreed exit, and in fact did so on Page 1 of the previous thread.

Second verse, same as the first.

Norm

 

[Sledge]

I'd say it's good to see that nothing changes, but Rramjet hammering away at this one with the same open-mouthed lack of comprehension is just depressing.

 

[Rramjet]

OK, here's a question for both of you.


What are these?

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/UFO5.jpg[/qimg]​

Hints:

1. They are flying.

2. They are objects.


I'd answer very carefully if I were you, Rramjet, considering that I am one of the people whom you claim deny the existence of these things.

Who knows what it is (except those who know - including you of course). However, a mere photo of an object that looks like any number of mundane objects that I can think of is evidence of nothing at all. Clearly it is not a UFO because I KNOW that YOU know what it is. It is only where such photos positively defy mundane description and explanation (eg: McMinnville) that we have pause for thought.

Clearly, given the source of the photo and the nature of the photo itself - it obviously has a mundane explanation and is thus not a UFO.

 

[carlitos]

Fine.

1 - Choose best ANY case.
2 - Simple hypothesis to explain 'ANY case'
3 - Prove / disprove hypothesis