UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Correa Neto]

Stray Cat, check the position of the Goodyear logo on the blimps at the pics you posted. Note that it is roughly coincident with the dark patch, marks, warp engine field grille, whatever, drawn by one of the alleged eyewitnesses.

Just sayin...

By the way, anyone know the odds of a flying wing such as the YB-49 being nearby Rogue River back then? Blimps and aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature (whatever that means) are not the sole candidates...

Just sayin again...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

anyone know the odds of a flying wing such as the YB-49 being nearby Rogue River back then?

If there were aliens in the vicinity, then it might well have been sent in to nuke them.

 

[wollery]

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.

Which ones have good data? if you know of any we'll be glad to discuss them. It would make a refreshing change.

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.

It's still unidentified. How can you ever know that you've discounted all possible mundane explanations?

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.

Ah, so we have unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and REALLY unidentified flying objects (RUFOs).

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.

Really? If I saw that I'd take a guess at aliens. Just a wild, uninformed guess.

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

Yes.

Unidentified objects can be unidentified in many ways.

Umm, no. Unidentified means, very simply, unidentified. As in, not identified.

An object is either identified, or it isn't. There aren't degrees of identifiedness. It's an either/or proposition. A binary state.

 

[Sledge]

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.

Make your mind up.

Can't be bothered with the rest of the post. It seems to be the same sort of tosh I've come to expect from Rramjet.

 

[Correa Neto]

If there were aliens in the vicinity, then it might well have been sent in to nuke them.

Only if the aliens use manta ray-shaped craft hovering in tripods of greenish light, fire heat rays and forget about microbes.

 

[Sledge]

Don't forget about the skeleton beam. It neutralizes mesons somehow. They're the atomic glue holding matter together. Cut across their lines of magnetic force and any object will simply cease to exist!

 

[Correa Neto]

Well, that's beyond the borders of what we call nature for sure...

Who said physics is dead?

 

[Stray Cat]

Don't forget about the skeleton beam. It neutralizes mesons somehow. They're the atomic glue holding matter together. Cut across their lines of magnetic force and any object will simply cease to exist!

Will it turn crows white too?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Let's see the UFO debunkers "debunk" this case then....

It has all the earmarks of a UFO.

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.

No. This is a Rramjet trick of shifting the burden of proof. It's pretty much been his SOP for the whole thread, if you've read it. Rramjet takes the position that UFO=alien is the null hypothesis and demands that others present mundane explanations so that he doesn't have to provide any evidence for his position.

He has made an extraordinary claim that some UFOs are alien in origin. He's tried to weasel out of outright saying it and couched it in terms of "I'm only speculating" because he doesn't have the courage to take a stand that he knows is untenable. It's an extraordinary claim and has to have extraordinary evidence to make a case for it. He knows he doesn't have it. We have virtually unlimited evidence for mundane explanations. He has virtually none for aliens.

What do you bring to the table?

ETA: And welcome to the forum!

 

[TjW]

So what colour where they in 1949? Not that it really matters. It's just interesting to see you post black and white photos as "proof" of colourful logos.

Ah. This is easily explained. According to my sources (and if you can't trust the father of Spaceman Spiff, who can you trust?), the reason is that the world was black and white back then. Those are actually color photos of a black-and-white universe.

 

[carlitos]

Rramjet, your "logic" is so bad that I can't even respond, and indeed I said that I wouldn't. I just want to leave you with one thought.

IF they had ALL estimated the SAME distance, then we might suspect collusion, but because research tells us that such distance estimates ARE prone to error, and we DO note disparities, then this adds credence to the hypothesis that the witnesses did NOT collude and thus adds again to the veracity of the account.

Take a look at this thread here. It's 100 pages longer than your thread here, and covers the same ground. The writer of that thread asserts that since the 4 Gospels vary in their account, that makes them more likely to be true. He's wrong, and so are you.

 

[tomi71]

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

That´s weird. So your belief system is based upon MY evidence? You know I don´t have any evidence that the Man went to the moon, or bacteria or evolution or any other thing.

So who cares if I have evidence or not. It´s not upon a one man to prove anything especially in this kind of subject which is really too difficult.

 

[carlitos]

tomi71, try this on for size, from the Carl Sagan^WP wikipedia entry.

Sagan is also widely regarded as a freethinker or skeptic; one of his most famous quotations, in Cosmos, was, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."[40] This was based on a nearly identical statement by fellow founder of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal founder Marcello Truzzi, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."[41] This idea originated with Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827), a French mathematician and astronomer who said, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."[42] Sagan nominated three areas within paranormal research that he considered to have sufficient experimental support, albeit dubious, to warrant serious study. These related to thoughts barely affecting random number generators (psychokinesis); projection of images from one person to another (telepathy); and young children sometimes reporting verifiable details of previous lives (reincarnation research). He was at pains to point out that he was not convinced by the validity of these contentions, merely that they might be true.[43]

 

[Garrette]

That´s weird.

It only seems so because you read into it what is not there.

So your belief system

First mistake: It isn't a belief system.

is based upon MY evidence?

Second mistake. My lack of belief is based upon everyone's lack of convincing evidence.

You know I don´t have any evidence that the Man went to the moon, or bacteria or evolution or any other thing.

And yet such evidence is available to you should you choose to do the research.

So who cares if I have evidence or not.

Probably very few people. I care only insofar as two things are true:
1) You present claims without such evidence
2) It amuses me to engage you

It´s not upon a one man to prove anything especially in this kind of subject which is really too difficult.

What is interesting is that even squadrons of men over more than a half century have been unable to provide it. That's the point.

 

[Nonpareil]

If this thread gains many more posts, it will pass critical digital mass, implode and become a singularity, destroying the JREF forums.

It must be destroyed.

 

[Stray Cat]

If this thread gains many more posts, it will pass critical digital mass, implode and become a singularity, destroying the JREF forums.

It must be destroyed.

I think the threshold for that happening maybe higher than you calculate.
Maybe you aren't taking into account that Rramjet's posts have no substance so they don't count to the overall mass.

 

[Sledge]

We have to take off and nuke the thread from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Can't we do it from our blimp? D'oh! I gave it away!

 

[Nonpareil]

Can't we do it from our blimp?

We may be able to do it if we reverse the polarity of the flux capacitors.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Tomi please show us the evidence of a good UFO case.
And tell us how you ruled out witness errors and all possible mundane explanations.