UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[wollery]

Well. I think that he has proven that not all UFO sightings have a mundane solution thus being an alien (not necessarily ET but alien to Earth).

By definition, no UFO has a known mundane solution. That's why they're UFOs. Why redefine the phrase to mean "alien"? In the context of UFOs it's a rather emotive word.

Where Rramjet is losing is that he hasn't demonstrated anything beyond the already well established fact that UFOs are unidentified. How was that already established? Well, the clue is in the title. Unidentified flying objects.

Certainly there could be a mundane solution yet to find but that is another debate until then the UFOs are alien by definition.

No, they are, by definition, unidentified.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well. I think that he has proven that not all UFO sightings have a mundane solution thus being an alien (not necessarily ET but alien to Earth).

Certainly there could be a mundane solution yet to find but that is another debate until then the UFOs are alien by definition.

Cool, you're still funny.

The thread's been getting a bit stale lately and you seem to be just the tonic we need.

Poast moar.

 

[tomi71]

This is an answer to Sledge (I had to remove the quote since it had a link and I can´t provide a link before posting 15 posts, so here we go)

Sure if that was the case (we, the people don´t know what it is). There are UFOs that are known to be TRUEly unexplained meaning: We know what it is NOT (a bird, plane, satellite, Venus etc.) and so it´s not true to say that we don´t know what it is, since we know what it is not.

Unknown is not same as alien. There are UFO cases where insufficient amount of data gives us the conclusion that the phenomena was UFO and that is what you were looking. More interesting are the cases where there is the remaining 5-about 30% depending on the UFO research (or study) where the phenomena is not "unknown" (since there is enough data to say what it certainly is not) but the case remains open as the data suggests the phenomena to have some attributes which can show for example an intelligent sort of like behaviour.

This I call alien since mundanity of the phenomenon could be counted out by having enough data to analyze it.

Sure one can still keep a very sceptic opinion since there are still things that can affect that conclusion for example the possibility of hoaxed, scientific errors etc. but when these can be ruled out (I guess never in a scientific field really) the conclusion must be alien.

If the phenomenon is not an unknown (we know what it is NOT) and it has characteristics that indicates not mundane explanation then what are we left with?

Not-Mundane but what the hell is that?

 

[Dockie]

Well. I think that he has proven that not all UFO sightings have a mundane solution thus being an alien (not necessarily ET but alien to Earth).

Certainly there could be a mundane solution yet to find but that is another debate until then the UFOs are alien by definition.

The difference between aliens and "aliens" as expounded by Rramjet a few hundred pages ago was much too subtle for me but I'm glad that you seem to have mastered it.

 

[wollery]

This is an answer to Sledge (I had to remove the quote since it had a link and I can´t provide a link before posting 15 posts, so here we go)

Sure if that was the case (we, the people don´t know what it is). There are UFOs that are known to be TRUEly unexplained meaning: We know what it is NOT (a bird, plane, satellite, Venus etc.) and so it´s not true to say that we don´t know what it is, since we know what it is not.

Unknown is not same as alien. There are UFO cases where insufficient amount of data gives us the conclusion that the phenomena was UFO and that is what you were looking. More interesting are the cases where there is the remaining 5-about 30% depending on the UFO research (or study) where the phenomena is not "unknown" (since there is enough data to say what it certainly is not) but the case remains open as the data suggests the phenomena to have some attributes which can show for example an intelligent sort of like behaviour.

This I call alien since mundanity of the phenomenon could be counted out by having enough data to analyze it.

Sure one can still keep a very sceptic opinion since there are still things that can affect that conclusion for example the possibility of hoaxed, scientific errors etc. but when these can be ruled out (I guess never in a scientific field really) the conclusion must be alien.

If the phenomenon is not an unknown (we know what it is NOT) and it has characteristics that indicates not mundane explanation then what are we left with?

Not-Mundane but what the hell is that?

Pointing out what something is not does not automatically provide any answers. It just removes a few possibilities from the table.

For instance, if oil-well fires hadn't been identified in the Campeche case it would be featuring as one of Rramjets best cases. The objects totally defied physics, and according to the pilots reports were doing things that no oil-well fire could do. Yet Rramjet fully accepts oil-well fires as the explanation. More to the point, if he'd brought the case in without the known explanation, and someone here had suggested oil-well fires as the cause he would have instantly dismissed the idea, after all, how can oil-well fires chase and surround a military jet?

Just because an object appears to defy physics doesn't mean that it actually has.

 

[Dockie]

..........................

Unknown is not same as alien.
...........................

Isn't this exactly what people have been telling Rramjet for thousands of posts and all to no avail???

 

[tomi71]

Okay. What is your opinion about the subject of UFO phenomena?

1. Do all the UFOs have a mundane explanation?

If yes: then present them or give somekind of a possible scenario.

If no: explain what are we left with. What´s the explanation then and how can you fit it into the realm of science as we know it.

I think this is the whole issue in a nut shell.

Thanks for calling me funny. Well it could be my engrish too, since it ain´t my mother language.

I think that you are funny too. In a funny and fuzzy way.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

If the phenomenon is not an unknown (we know what it is NOT) and it has characteristics that indicates not mundane explanation then what are we left with?

Really bad English.

Not-Mundane . . .

How do you know that?

. . . but what the hell is that?

That would be a UFO.

Although an Amega Blimp seems a strong possibility, and I'd give it a vote.

 

[Akhenaten]

Okay. What is your opinion about the subject of UFO phenomena?

Who? Me?

I think that the subject of UFO phenomena is UFOs, or would that be the object? I always get those two mixed up.

1. Do all the UFOs have a mundane explanation?

They don't have an explanation. That's rather the point of calling them UFOs.

You do know what the 'U' stands for, don't you?

If yes: then present them or give somekind of a possible scenario.

No, you.

If no: explain what are we left with. What´s the explanation then and how can you fit it into the realm of science as we know it.

You haven't been doing this long, have you?

I think this is the whole issue in a nut shell.

Well. golly. You'd best PM Rramjet and let him know that we're ready to wind the thread up.

Thanks for calling me funny. Well it could be my engrish too, since it ain´t my mother language.

Nor mine. 'strayan, I'm happy to say. It's similar, but has more words than English.

I think that you are funny too. In a funny and fuzzy way.

Cool. Make sure you vote for me in the Pith Poll then.

 

[wollery]

Okay. What is your opinion about the subject of UFO phenomena?

1. Do all the UFOs have a mundane explanation?

Do they all have know mundane explanations? No, that's why they're called unidentified. Do they definitely all have unknown mundane explanations? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But calling them "alien" because we don't know what they are is just silly.

If yes: then present them or give somekind of a possible scenario.

If no: explain what are we left with. What´s the explanation then and how can you fit it into the realm of science as we know it.

I think this is the whole issue in a nut shell.

This entire line of reasoning depends on the assumption that there are UFOs which are definitely "alien". That assumption is a leap of faith, and unwarranted. As I've pointed out to Rramjet on more than one occasion (he usually ignores me), speculation on the nature of an object is a pointless exercise if the nature of that object is unknown. We could come up with dozens of possibilities for them, but without better data we'll never be able to differentiate between the possibilities.

 

[Stray Cat]

How do YOU know the colour has changed…? Are you deliberately withholding evidence? And the style is certainly very similar over time…

The design and colourways of the Goodyear logo has developed over the years much like any other logo:

Original Logo designed in 1900

1960's Coverall patch

Keyline version used against white background

More usual present day logo reversed out of solid block

Depending upon it's use, it can be single colour (either reversed out of a colour or solid colour printed on)

Even in the photos you yourself provided it is clearly painted onto the various blimps using different stylings, sizes and you can even see that it is differently coloured in some of them (even though the photos are black and white).

On this photo, the logo is the yellow with a thin blue keyline variant

This photo from the 1960s shows the solid (presume blue) colour logo and much bigger than the previous 1929 photo.

You will also see in this photo that gloss paint/ink was used as the shiny reflection of the sunlight hitting the blimp partly obscures the logo (bear this in mind when considering the RR sighting with the sun reflecting from directly behind the viewers)

This is how people know Rramjet, by doing some research into other possibilities... An unfamiliar concept to you.

However, what matters is that it was designed as an advertising logo and if you can cite cases where such logos are NOT designed to be clearly visible you might have a case.

Well this logo is meant to be clearly visible too:

However, if you're at the wrong angle or too far away, it still aint going to be clear. And as the Goodyear blimp delivers it's advertising message mostly by floating 200 feet above a football stadium and other sports events, it's optimum viewing distance nor angle would have been attained when it was being viewed from about 1 mile away and as it was at an altitude of 5000 feet. Through a pair of binoculars of questionable quality from the rocking platform of a fishing boat in the tidal section of a river estuary.

However, Goodyear wanted to there to be no mistake whose blimps they were (for example here - http://www.goodyearblimp.com/archive/). Even if the logo was just “black and white” (because obviously colour had not been invented yet) it is clearly a highly visible logo!

It is only a highly visible logo in a highly visible blimp, the further that blimp get away, the less visible both the blimp and logo get.

And besides Goodyear made blimps for the navy and navy reserves too. They didn't have the Goodyear logo on them at all and they were just as proud of those as evidenced here in this Goodyear ad from 1945:

Did I get enough blimp photos in this post for everyone? If not here are few more examples of the differing style of Goodyear logo on blimps over the years:

Blimp 1920's

Blimp 1970's

Blimp 2000's

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Tomi, in many UFO cases the observed object is unknown because the eyewitness reports are so bad and lacking critical details, that identification was, is and will always be impossible.
The jump from unknown to alien is simple unjustified, because we have no knowledge of aliens existing.
The assumption that an UFO really defied "physics as we know it" is an argument from ignorance. Most UFO-witnesses have just no idea what is physically possible.
Somewhere in this thread is a link to optical illusions. Check it out.
And welcome to the JREF forum.

 

[tomi71]

Tomi, in many UFO cases the observed object is unknown because the eyewitness reports are so bad and lacking critical details, that identification was, is and will always be impossible.
The jump from unknown to alien is simple unjustified, because we have no knowledge of aliens existing.
The assumption that an UFO really defied "physics as we know it" is an argument from ignorance. Most UFO-witnesses have just no idea what is physically possible.
Somewhere in this thread is a link to optical illusions. Check it out.
And welcome to the JREF forum.

Well. According to UFO research there are cases where the data is absolutely good. So you are discussing about the cases where the data is not good.

Btw. if we are speaking UFOs in their terminology then UFO will always remain UFO since unidentified can´t be anything else. Yes, there are also IFO´s which means that the UFO is no longer in unidentified category, but what will the case be when the UFO is both identified by the means that it is nothing ordinary but remains unidentified in a sense that we don´t know what it is.

That should open a debate to speculate.

Unidentified is a word that doesn´t explain the truly unidentified objects. There is a difference but many here doesn´t want to admit it. However that difference between unidentified and "unidentified" is the point here.

You could see a flying saucer with some really weird hieroglyph-sort of signs on it and see little bulb-headed guys waving their hands in the windows and by definition it would still be unidentified because we wouldn´t know what it is and we could only speculate.

Or we could see a light phenomenon which we wouldn´t know what it is and it would also be unidentified.

Unidentified objects can be unidentified in many ways.

 

[Stray Cat]

Hi Tomi71 - Welcome to the forum.

Are you next going to demonstrate a lack of understanding about Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence too?

 

[tomi71]

Hi Tomi71 - Welcome to the forum.

Are you next going to demonstrate a lack of understanding about Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence too?

I wonder if anybody would believe in such an evidence. Probably not.

 

[Garrette]

I wonder if anybody would believe in such an evidence. Probably not.

As there remains no such evidence to present, I suppose we shall never know.

 

[Stray Cat]

I wonder if anybody would believe in such an evidence. Probably not.

If it was extraordinarily compelling enough to outweigh the evidence to it's contrary, yes, I'm sure people would HAVE to believe it... Got any?

 

[AWPrime]

Well. According to UFO research there are cases where the data is absolutely good.

So where are these cases with good evidence?

 

[tomi71]

If it was extraordinarily compelling enough to outweigh the evidence to it's contrary, yes, I'm sure people would HAVE to believe it... Got any?

Nope.

 

[Garrette]

Nope.

And there we have it. The reason for the lack of belief in alien origins of UFOs. Quite a simple concept, really.