UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

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

...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

Oh no... we definitely have evidence for "aliens", we just don't know what specific type of "alien" we are dealing with (ie; where "they" come from, how "they" got here, what "their" purpose is, etc).

 

[Akhenaten]

Who knows what it is (except those who know - including you of course).

First mistake.

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.

Second mistake.

Clearly it is not a UFO because I KNOW that YOU know what it is.

Third mistake

It is only where such photos positively defy mundane description and explanation (eg: McMinnville) that we have pause for thought.

Fourth mistake.

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.

Fifth mistake.


Congratulations Rramjet. A clean sweep. I did warn you to be careful, but as usual, you chose poorly and ignored the warning.

When I get home from my Niece's birthday party I'll enlighten you. It's going to be hellish embarrassing for you, I'm afraid.


Enjoy the wait.


Cheers,

Waenre

 

[Sledge]

Please just stop. You don't have evidence, Rramjet. Your whole argument consists of saying "I don't know what this is, therefore it's alien." That's so mind-numbingly stupid that I could hardly bring myself to type it. Go away, get some reading comprehension lessons and come back when you've got some EVIDENCE to discuss.

 

[tsig]

Belief Lies In Misinterpretations Perhaps?

But let's interpret mistakes properly

 

[TjW]

I thought you were pretty hot on the "mundane identification" explanation for UFOs.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that all UFO reports have a mundane explanation?

Yes. I think this was best put into words by that famous philosopher, Nana Rosanna Rosandanna, who said: "It's always something."

However, I would be open to evidence for alien visitation. Note that I do not consider arguments from ignorance to be evidence.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Oh no... we definitely have evidence for "aliens", we just don't know what specific type of "alien" we are dealing with (ie; where "they" come from, how "they" got here, what "their" purpose is, etc).

Can anyone remember back to a time when, reading stuff like this, you actually felt as if Rramjet might really be going to try to present some evidence for aliens?

 

[Nonpareil]

Oh no... we definitely have evidence for "aliens", we just don't know what specific type of "alien" we are dealing with (ie; where "they" come from, how "they" got here, what "their" purpose is, etc).

Not knowing what something is does not mean that it is necessarily alien or supernatural.

 

[Sledge]

Can anyone remember back to a time when, reading stuff like this, you actually felt as if Rramjet might really be going to try to present some evidence for aliens?

No.

 

[Rramjet]

Fine.

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

Case: Rogue River (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm).

Hypothesis: This case has no mundane explanation.

Proof: There is no mundane object that fits the description of circular (analogous to a coin), with silent motion (displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed) with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane.

 

[Stray Cat]

But let's interpret mistakes properly

Because Logic Indicates Mundane Properties.

Specially Questioning Unidentified Incidents Directly

 

[Rramjet]

Can anyone remember back to a time when, reading stuff like this, you actually felt as if Rramjet might really be going to try to present some evidence for aliens?

The evidence is contained within the cases I have presented in my OP.

You may choose to ignore that evidence if you like - as you obviously do - but that does not mean that the evidence does not exist.

 

[Sledge]

Case: Rogue River (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm).

Hypothesis: This case has no mundane explanation.

Proof: There is no mundane object that fits the description of circular (analogous to a coin), with silent motion (displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed) with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane.

Ok, this right here? This is trolling. This case was hammered into the GROUND in the previous thread. All joking aside, the only conclusion that can be concretely arrived at is (althogether now) some people saw something in the sky and didn't know what it was. Extensive analysis of the case gives a strong possiblity of being a blimp. Rramjet will not accept this because it screws up his argument that there is no mundane explanation.

Of course, even if there was no mundane explanation, it still doesn't prove aliens, which is the whole sodding point.

 

[Rramjet]

Not knowing what something is does not mean that it is necessarily alien or supernatural.

I agree.

On the other hand knowing that there is NO mundane explanation does mean that by definition[ we are dealing with "aliens". That is, something that is not part of the "natural" environment as we know it. Of course that does not mean that when we discover what UFOs actually represent that we will not then understand them as part of the natural environment ...after all, (for example) even ETI is part of the "natural" universe.

 

[Rramjet]

Ok, this right here? This is trolling. This case was hammered into the GROUND in the previous thread. All joking aside, the only conclusion that can be concretely arrived at is (althogether now) some people saw something in the sky and didn't know what it was. Extensive analysis of the case gives a strong possiblity of being a blimp. Rramjet will not accept this because it screws up his argument that there is no mundane explanation.

Of course, even if there was no mundane explanation, it still doesn't prove aliens, which is the whole sodding point.

Please enlighten us then on precisely HOW a "blimp" fits "circular (analogous to a coin), with silent motion (displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed) with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane."

Of course "blimp" does NOT fit that description and is thus ruled OUT as a plausible explanatory hypothesis.

Your mere repetition that "blimp" is the answer, simply means that you continue to ignore the evidence - but of course THAT is par for the course (that is: " Don't bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up"!).

 

[Sledge]

Oh knock it off. We went over that. Repeatedly. You simply don't want to accept the boring, mundane explanation. You keep on imagining there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, just don't try and insist the rest of us are wrong for not buying into your delusions.

Now, explain how you can be sure there's no mundane explanation for something if you don't know what it was. This oughta be good.

 

[fromdownunder]

Roger, in over 6,000 posts on the other thread, you were not able to convince one person of anything. The people who did support you were not actually convinced by your "scientific" arguments. They were simply True Believers (TM) in the first place. What makes you think that bringing up exactly the same cases yet again is somehow going to have a different result this time?

Seriously! Explain why it will be different this time.

Norm

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Please enlighten us then on precisely HOW a "blimp" fits "circular (analogous to a coin), with silent motion (displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed) with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane."

A blimp fits an oval profile, misinterpreted as a disc seen at an oblique angle (which the witnesses drew). This was flogged to death in the first thread.

Silent motion fits with the blimp being further away than the observers interpreted it to be. Another dead horse beaten to a bloody pulp previously.

Ability to move at the speed of a jet plane is yet another misinterpretation by the witnesses. You may feel inclined to wave this away as inconceivable, but you're in a minority of one.

This and all your other "evidence" has been discussed to death, over and over, and your preposterous assertion that it has been "ignored" makes you sound like a complete loon.

 

[Stray Cat]

Big Lies Include Macabee's Porkies

Seriously, this has all been covered in the other thread
Questions were asked and answered regarding the blimp possibility
Undeniable by everyone except you Rramjet is the
Information provided about the reliability of the witnesses when taking into account
Details that were given & exactly what angular size the object would have been.

But you don't accept it, there is no real reason except for an
Over enthusiastic longing for you to believe in aliens (what ever they are)
And because of your emotional investment, you can't seem to
Take any other possibilities into account... regardless of their possibility.

 

[TjW]

I agree.

On the other hand knowing that there is NO mundane explanation does mean that by definition[ we are dealing with "aliens". That is, something that is not part of the "natural" environment as we know it. Of course that does not mean that when we discover what UFOs actually represent that we will not then understand them as part of the natural environment ...after all, (for example) even ETI is part of the "natural" universe.

You don't know there is no mundane explanation. You assert it. The only way to know that there is no mundane explanation is to have proof that it is aliens. You don't have this. Your refusal to accept plausible "mundane" explanations for the sighting doesn't tell us anything at all about the sighting. It only tells us about you.

 

[wollery]

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

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?

I don't know.

See how easy it is to admit?

I don't know. I have no idea. They could be mundane things that we haven't thought of. They could be evil aliens plotting an invasion. they could be travellers from the future. They could be from another dimension. They could be completely made up by people who know how to spin a yarn.

I don't know.

And here's the important part - neither do you!

And all of these cases that you're examining - nobody will ever know what they were.

So what do you hope to achieve?

That's a serious question. Over 6000 posts in the last thread basically ended up with you admitting what everyone else had been saying all along. UFOs are unidentified. Well, whoop-de-frelling-doo. We all already knew that. The clue is in the title. The U of UFO stands for unidentified. We don't know what they are or were. We don't know. Nobody does (unless they were hoaxes, in which case the hoaxer knows).

So now what?

Examining old cases is fruitless. At best we'll discover that some of them can be explained as mundane. At worst we'll have wasted time and money to conclude that we still don't know what they were.

So what do you want?