UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Alley Cat]

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.

On the other hand, my posts are of such intellectual weight and value that they are worth double Ramjet's input.

Oh... twice zero is... uhmm? Let me think...

 

[Jocce]

That´s weird. So your belief system is based upon MY evidence?

Hi Tomi, welcome. Even if the question is not directed to me I'd like to point out that you got it backwards (imo). My lack of belief is based on your lack of evidence. Fair enough?

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

There's a whole world full of knowledge out there. You can find evidence if you try hard enough. Lots of people already have.

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.

Well, if you claim that some UFOs are of an alien origin it can't really come as a surprise that people would like to see evidence? Am I supposed to just take your word for it? In that case, I have a real unicorn horn for sale. Wanna buy it?

 

[Wolrab]

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

RUFOS are the pills the aliens slip you so you don't resist the anal probe. At least on their Gay Rodeo class blimps.

 

[Jocce]

Late reply but i've been busy with real life issues.

Before I answer that directly can you answer me this:
Why is the document titled The Naval Aeronautical Organisation (Fiscal year 1949)" published on 10 May 1947?

Ehh, trick question? Because it was published in may 1947?

And can you tell me why the "second revision" of that document (you know, the one YOU claim lists current assets as at June 1949),
titled "Naval Aeronautical Organisation Fiscal Year 1949", published in June 1948?

Because it's published in june 1948? You also put claims in my mouth that I never made. The document details the PLANNED organisation in june 1949, not a CURRENT organisation. That can't be done in advance obviously.

And can you tell me why the the "1950" document (you know, the one YOU claim is "irrelevant"),
titled "Naval Aeronautical Organisation Fiscal Year 1950", published in May 1949?

You like these trick questions? Let me take a wild guess. It is published in may 1949? Am I right?

Now to answer you unfounded assertion directly:

On page 25 of the "1949" document (YOUR preferred document) the following words appear:

SECTION V - THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE
1. Existing Air stations
The existing Naval Air Stations Listed below..."​

(the document goes on to list 18 existing air stations,

Yes, that is correct.

(then has a part 2 "Additional Activities")

I figured you'd just gloss over this. It says:
It is anticipated that four additional Naval Air Reserve activities, in varying sizes, will be established...etc.

I haven't found out what bacame of those ...yet

Then on page 26 the following (part 3) appears:

SECTION V - THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE
3. Aircraft Assignment (Stations)
Assignment of Aircraft by types to Reserve Air Stations is indicated below:"​

(the document goes on to list exactly as is stated above )

I must be noted that under the "AIRSHIPS" column, ONLY Lakehurst has a number of airships listed (6 of them) - now I want you to read the following words very carefully
NO other air station has ANY airships listed. But given this document was produced in June 1948 - it actually has NO RELEVANCE to how many airships were at any of the bases in June 1949.

Theree things. First, it most certainly has relevance because this is PLANNED organisation at june 30 1949. Not current as under heading 1. above. Second, it's what the navy is planning to assign for the naval reserve. Could it be that the naval reserve have their own assets too? I don't know...yet. Third, the navy is planning to have their own airships on the west coast but we've been over this. And 4...Goodyear has blimps.

For an assessment of THAT capability (current airship count at bases may 1949) we must turn to the "1950" document - produced in May 1949 - (well ...it is CLOSE to the June 1949 date we are interested in...)
This time under the SAME section and in the same list (p.25) we find under the "ZP" column (changed from "airships" for space reasons I suppose), ONLY 2 airships at Lakehurst (and note carefully) NONE at ANY other station.

Again, this is not CURRENT, this is PLANNED. The only listing of CURRENT things is under heading "1. Existing Air stations". Ok?

There is no doubt that there is a non zero chance that a blimp could have been flying in the area in june 1949.

 

[tomi71]

Well... there is a lot of stuff going around UFOs. FBI.... CIA etc. So at least these issues have at some time taken seriously. I can´t present you best cases or evidense since they are only internet sites and I think that Rramjet has done so in his good ability.

I only think that this issue is not so easily dismissed and hand-waved-off. I have experienced some strange phenomena myself and that´s why I want to keep an open mind.

Maybe that´s the best thing to say: keep an open mind. Many of you probably has and has an interest in the subject of UFOs and I understand also that many of you has been interested in paranormal and have become disappointed by many hoaxers etc.

But hey. Universe is Big. Who knows what we will find/encounter some time. Maybe we have already or not.

So far the debate is on, but there is no reason to kill the opponent even if he is wrong.


I hope it´s educational for all of us. I think that Rramjet is doing a great debate on the subject being right or wrong. Who knows in the end what´s the truth.

I think it´s proven that some things exist even before they are proven.

This is a fun thread and I appreciate stray cat´s great photoshop images even though I sometimes feel that humour is a too strong a weapon.

Let´s keep it going! (and sorry for my engrish)

 

[Sledge]

Well... there is a lot of stuff going around UFOs. FBI.... CIA etc. So at least these issues have at some time taken seriously. I can´t present you best cases or evidense since they are only internet sites and I think that Rramjet has done so in his good ability.

No he hasn't. He has yet to produce a case that proves aliens are responsible for any UFO sightings.

I only think that this issue is not so easily dismissed and hand-waved-off. I have experienced some strange phenomena myself and that´s why I want to keep an open mind.

Please show me a case in this thread that has been "hand-waved-off."

Maybe that´s the best thing to say: keep an open mind. Many of you probably has and has an interest in the subject of UFOs and I understand also that many of you has been interested in paranormal and have become disappointed by many hoaxers etc.

More than any of that, we've looked at the evidence and found the only conclusion it is possible to come to without deluding oneself is "sometimes people see something in the sky and don't know what it is."

But hey. Universe is Big. Who knows what we will find/encounter some time. Maybe we have already or not.

So far the debate is on, but there is no reason to kill the opponent even if he is wrong.

He is wrong. We're well past the point where that is open to debate.

I hope it´s educational for all of us. I think that Rramjet is doing a great debate on the subject being right or wrong. Who knows in the end what´s the truth.

Please support your assertion that Rramjet is "doing a great debate." He posts the same tired drivel incessantly, and refuses to acknowledge any other possible explanation for it. This is not great debating, this is a war of attrition where Rramjet hopes to wear everyone else down to the point they stop posting and he can claim victory by default.

I think it´s proven that some things exist even before they are proven.

Example?

This is a fun thread and I appreciate stray cat´s great photoshop images even though I sometimes feel that humour is a too strong a weapon.

Let´s keep it going! (and sorry for my engrish)

This is an awful thread. The OP is a liar hoping to win a debate by boring the other side into silence. The redeeming features have been the humour and information brought by other people.

 

[tomi71]

Sledge, I see your attitude which is a very negative againts this and I wonder why you feel it so bad.

You asked me if there is any evidence of things existing before they are proven to be. Are you serious!?

I shouldn´t even answer to you since you are like a barking dog that is not looking for a bone but a red meat but if you silently think for a minute maybe you´ll figure it out.

There are zillions of things that existed before someone proofed them!

Electricity, gravity, bacteria etc.

Come on. Open up a bit. It won´t bite ya!

 

[Akhenaten]

Well... there is a lot of stuff going around UFOs. FBI.... CIA etc.

. . . X-Files, War of the Worlds, Star Trek . . .

So at least these issues have at some time taken seriously.

So were dragons and sea serpents. Guess what.

I can´t present you best cases or evidense since they are only internet sites and I think that Rramjet has done so in his good ability.

That's what we refer to as 'compounding your mistakes'.

I only think that this issue is not so easily dismissed and hand-waved-off.

You can think what you like, but wouldn't you rather go where the evidence leads? We do.

I have experienced some strange phenomena myself and that´s why I want to keep an open mind.

Nothing wrong with that. Most of us here are the same.

Maybe that´s the best thing to say: keep an open mind.

open ≠ empty

Many of you probably has and has an interest in the subject of UFOs and I understand also that many of you has been interested in paranormal and have become disappointed by many hoaxers etc.

For my own part, I couldn't give a rat's about UFOs, and rather than be disappointed with hoaxers, I'm happy to have them continually reaffirm my suspicions.

But hey. Universe is Big. Who knows what we will find/encounter some time. Maybe we have already or not.

I'm absolutely certain we've encountered what we know we've found.

So far the debate is on, but there is no reason to kill the opponent even if he is wrong.

I'm happy to point out that nobody has suggested that we do.

What would the Gay Rodeo be without clowns, after all?

I hope it´s educational for all of us.

Oh, it is, but just because you can take a horse to school, you can't make him learn anything. Or something.

I think that Rramjet is doing a great debate on the subject being right or wrong.

Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy, however, consensus isn't.

What do you gauge to be the consensus here.

Why do you think it is what it is?

Who knows in the end what´s the truth.

The Shadow knows. He followed the evidence.

I think it´s proven that some things exist even before they are proven.

You what?

This is a fun thread and I appreciate stray cat´s great photoshop images even though I sometimes feel that humour is a too strong a weapon.

The losers generally tend to say that about the winners. It's called 'sour grapes'

Enjoy.

Let´s keep it going!

Let's kill it with a stick!

(and sorry for my engrish)

Take the opportunity to improve it, there's little else to be gained in this morass.

 

[Sledge]

Sledge, I see your attitude which is a very negative againts this and I wonder why you feel it so bad.

I can only assume you haven't read this thread. We are upto 169 pages of Rramjet posting the same tosh over and over. We are no further forwards than we were on page 1. Anyone who disagrees with Rramjet is casually insulted with the term "UFO debunker," which displays such a poor understanding of the English language I can't help but think he must be an alien himself.

You asked me if there is any evidence of things existing before they are proven to be. Are you serious!?

I shouldn´t even answer to you since you are like a barking dog that is not looking for a bone but a red meat but if you silently think for a minute maybe you´ll figure it out.

There are zillions of things that existed before someone proofed them!

Electricity, gravity, bacteria etc.

Excellent. Now what is the relevance of that to this thread?

Come on. Open up a bit. It won´t bite ya!

Open up to what? Please go back and respond to the points in my previous post. To make things easy for you, here they are again:
1) Please show me a case in this thread that has been "hand-waved-off."
2) Please support your assertion that Rramjet is "doing a great debate."

I look forward to your responses.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Tomi, you agree with the below then?

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?

 

[tomi71]

There is no point writing to you, because you seem to be so full of yourself that even though I show yourself, for example, that some things existed before they were proven, you simply hand wave everything off. I can´t debate these issues with my english too but never think you have won. This is not a competition after all.

 

[Sledge]

There is no point writing to you, because you seem to be so full of yourself that even though I show yourself, for example, that some things existed before they were proven, you simply hand wave everything off. I can´t debate these issues with my english too but never think you have won. This is not a competition after all.

Is anyone else thinking "sockpuppet"?

 

[Toke]

Quacks like one.

 

[Akhenaten]

Walks like one.

 

[carlitos]

There is no point writing to you, because you seem to be so full of yourself that even though I show yourself, for example, that some things existed before they were proven, you simply hand wave everything off. I can´t debate these issues with my english too but never think you have won. This is not a competition after all.

Maybe you missed the very first post. The original topic.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence
I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

Having read this thread, do you find any evidence for aliens? Me neither. That's how I know that Rramjet is not making a great debate. He said he would be providing evidence for aliens. None so far.

 

[tsig]

I remember in the 80´s in a normal life debates everybody would laugh even for saying UFO and it certainly was not an acceptable answer back at that time.

Nowadays the term UFO only sometimes brings up the laughter. Things seem to be changing but it takes a lot of effort (and ridicule) before it happens.

I appreciate Rramjet´s efforts in this minefiled of inquisitionary opinions and ivory tower perspective where it seems to be totally acceptable to some people behave like bully children.

Certainly there should be consensus at least in the nature and way of speaking about controversial subjects. No personal attacks and humour-as-a-weapon should be allowed.

This certainly is a Don Quijote kind of an attack vs. windmills debate and I am surprised how strong Rramjet is even though he must feel lonely here.

Even though he is a one man battling against tens of hundreds of opponents I feel he is not losing at all.

I am proud of his efforts. It takes a lot of courage and inner strength to try to debate these kinds of issues in a forum full of aggressive besserwissers who seem to have solved every mystery this planet has to carry.

...and I probably just made my self a subject of an acceptable dirt and insult myself here since it seems to be the habit of the "wise folks".

You are aware that Don Quixote was insane?

 

[tsig]

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.

How do I not know thee

Let me not count the ways

 

[tsig]

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

You can only do that when the tachyon stream is at zero or we'll blow the whole Universe. (Blimps and all)

 

[tsig]

Well... there is a lot of stuff going around UFOs. FBI.... CIA etc. So at least these issues have at some time taken seriously. I can´t present you best cases or evidense since they are only internet sites and I think that Rramjet has done so in his good ability.

I only think that this issue is not so easily dismissed and hand-waved-off. I have experienced some strange phenomena myself and that´s why I want to keep an open mind.

Maybe that´s the best thing to say: keep an open mind. Many of you probably has and has an interest in the subject of UFOs and I understand also that many of you has been interested in paranormal and have become disappointed by many hoaxers etc.

But hey. Universe is Big. Who knows what we will find/encounter some time. Maybe we have already or not.

So far the debate is on, but there is no reason to kill the opponent even if he is wrong.


I hope it´s educational for all of us. I think that Rramjet is doing a great debate on the subject being right or wrong. Who knows in the end what´s the truth.

I think it´s proven that some things exist even before they are proven.

This is a fun thread and I appreciate stray cat´s great photoshop images even though I sometimes feel that humour is a too strong a weapon.

Let´s keep it going! (and sorry for my engrish)

Never.Before Newton proved gravity everybody used different weights and it never rained. Check the Bible on that one.

 

[tsig]

Oh, it is, but just because you can take a horse to school, you can't make him learn anything. Or something.

It was a sheep:

"It followed her to school one day
school one day, school one day,
It followed her to school one day,
which was against the rules.
It made the children laugh and play,
laugh and play, laugh and play,
it made the children laugh and play
to see a lamb at school."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Had_a_Little_Lamb

Probably escaped from a Gay Rodeo.