UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Seriously? You don’t find the incident interesting?

I find it interesting that whoever had the cell phone camera kept it trained on the boy chasing the ball, in fact zoomed in on him. Almost as if in anticipation of something happening. Like they'd set him up for a joke. Also interesting that the camera operator kept the camera trained on the boys reaction without reacting himself. As if he weren't frightened at all but wanted to be sure to record his amigo's frightened reaction.

Very interesting, indeed.

Oh sorry, did you say that you had some evidence to tie this video (cause) to some radiation readings in the same location months later (effect)? You know, to show that they were related.

 

[Jocce]

Really... I'd like to hear of these "100s" of other events where an "alien" has reached out to attempt to pull a person toward itself - and it has been caught on film... Blurry or not, it captures a rather extraordinary event.

Why do you think it is an alien? I can't even make out the shape, much less an arm or any grabbing.

You don't find that even a little bit interesting? And please tell me why you are posting in this thread at all if you're not interested?

Without any unambigous data, it's like every other blurry video provided as evidence of aliens. So no, I'm not really impressed.

So, do you have access to the data from the radiation measurments or not?

 

[Jocce]

I can't speak for the rest of this forum but in this thread, when I've used alien, I've meant it as not mundane, but not necessarily ET. You on the other hand, has repeatedly assumed I and others mean ET despite the fact that I've corrected you on that several times.

You keep making false claims and unfounded assertions as if the mere statement of them makes them true.

What are you talking about? As far as I can understand your comment here you either claim (yet again) that I mean ET when I say alien or that I haven't correected you on this several times. Both claims are false btw:

You're confused. I haven't talked about ETI's.

I have said nothing about ETI. Do you now claim to read my mind?

but you also know that I DO NOT mean ETI when I state “alien”. I mean by “alien” that UFOs are foreign to our concept of the natural and technological world.

Yes, I know what you mean.

How many times do I have to repeat it?

 

[Jocce]

No a priori bias... just an observation of the evidence. That is that the witnesses described and drew a circular object. You can only uphold "blimp" if you ignore that evidence - or have an a priori confirmation bias toward "blimp".

Ok, so if you show these drawings to someone who doesn't know anything about this case and asked them to describe what they see, they would say "It's a circular disc"?

I work from the evidence. You work from... (opinion, belief, a priori assumption...)?

I'm the one who accepts that there is not enough unambigous data available to reach a conclusion. You cherrypick among the few pieces that are avilable, whatever fits your a priori belief.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

No a priori bias... just an observation of the evidence. That is that the witnesses described and drew a circular object. You can only uphold "blimp" if you ignore that evidence - or have an a priori confirmation bias toward "blimp".

I work from the evidence. You work from... (opinion, belief, a priori assumption...)?

What evidence does a drawing have to make it to you so that you'll call the object a disc? Sounds more and more like you are working off a group of beliefs to make the evidence into what you want..

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, are you now claiming that the Rogue River UFO is definitely alien in origin by the very nature of it being unidentified? Can you post a link to a verified alien craft so we can compare the witness descriptions from Rogue River to that to see that the witnesses are describing an alien craft rather than a blimp?

You seem to have finally accepted your defeat at Campeche and acknowledge that witnesses (trained military observers confirmed by FLIR evidence) can be mistaken.

I have consistently and on many occasions stated that Rogue River is a UFO, plain and simple. I make absolutely no claims about it being an “alien craft” – in fact I have specifically denied this claim by the UFO debunkers on many occasions. Here was my latest post on the matter for example in direct reply to RoboTimbo’s last attempt to misrepresent my position:

Wilfully misconstruing what I have stated will get you nowhere. I have stated that by definition a UFO is “alien” – that is the characteristics of UFOs indicate something that is ‘foreign” to our concept of the known natural and technological world and if not mundane then “alien”.

Trapped by your own bait and switch technique.

I've asked you before and you've refused to answer: Are you defining UFOs as alien or are you not? You've had it both ways depending on your immediate need as you can clearly see in your quoted posts above.

Are UFOs alien or are they not? Is Rogue River then (by your definition) alien or is it not? Thanks in advance for sticking with one answer going forward from here.

 

[Correa Neto]

Regarding the "interesting" alleged Mexico abduction attempt video...

Two words- Jaime Maussan. That's all it takes to discredit it. Don't even attempt to labell this as an ad hom or poisoning the well. One just has to check the sort of material he presented before to see the reasons. Anyone with real scientific training would see that.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Regarding the "interesting" alleged Mexico abduction attempt video...

Two words- Jaime Maussan. That's all it takes to discredit it. Don't even attempt to labell this as an ad hom or poisoning the well. One just has to check the sort of material he presented before to see the reasons. Anyone with real scientific training would see that.

I like how Jaime Maussan said in the video, "This is the first time they haven't had a reason to laugh at me."

 

[Rramjet]

I find it interesting that whoever had the cell phone camera kept it trained on the boy chasing the ball, in fact zoomed in on him. Almost as if in anticipation of something happening. Like they'd set him up for a joke. Also interesting that the camera operator kept the camera trained on the boys reaction without reacting himself. As if he weren't frightened at all but wanted to be sure to record his amigo's frightened reaction.

Oh, so you are an expert in human behaviour then?

Oh sorry, did you say that you had some evidence to tie this video (cause) to some radiation readings in the same location months later (effect)? You know, to show that they were related.

Okay… then what explanation do you have for the radiation readings? That is, what access to a radiation source could anyone have that could create such a radiation “hotspot” in such a place? Or perhaps you are thinking that there is a natural source?

 

[Rramjet]

Why do you think it is an alien? I can't even make out the shape, much less an arm or any grabbing.

I never claimed alien! You simply have not watched the video. (http://ufo-tv.com/alien-abductions/...-an-alien-abduction-attempt-caught-on-video-6)

Without any unambigous data, it's like every other blurry video provided as evidence of aliens. So no, I'm not really impressed.

I love this. The direct question was whether you were at all interested in this case. You replied you were not interested (“Seriously? Interesting? “ and “not really” you stated). I replied asking why you were even posting if you were not interested. Now you reply you are “not impressed”. This is typical UFO debunker behaviour. When trying to pin them down, if the subject becomes difficult for them, they merely switch the subject!

Sure it’s a “blurry” video – but what it does show is quite extraordinary.

So, do you have access to the data from the radiation measurments or not?

In this video (part 2) (http://ufo-tv.com/alien-abductions/...-an-alien-abduction-attempt-caught-on-video-3) we have vision of the Geiger counter with the needle at its maximum limit and the researcher (Jorge Guerrero) describing and explaining the findings. We also have (at 4:50) the statement that “They made these tests in front of the media, in front of the researchers, in front of the people, so there was no doubt…”, then at 6:08 we have “Jorge Guerrero made a challenge on national TV to other scientists from Mexico, to come to the place and take their own measurements and compare the results”. Apparently this was done by three separate university teams from Merina who found the same results. If all these things were not verifiable after such a public exposure, then we can be certain that the media would have picked up on it (especially given that Maussan had caught them out in a fraud of their own - they would have jumped on anything about the case with alacrity if they could have shown any of the above to be in any way not verifiable).

 

[Rramjet]

Ok, so if you show these drawings to someone who doesn't know anything about this case and asked them to describe what they see, they would say "It's a circular disc"?

Given the experience in this thread, obviously not. However if it was pointed out to the observer (of the drawings) that the two drawings were a three-dimensional representation of a circular object, then they should have no problem in seeing them for what they are. Of course, given also the experience in this thread, it seems that even this is not enough. The drawings are after all quite sophisticated and I suppose that people who are naïve in graphic technique may still not get it. I have however provided detailed explanations of how the draftsman (Mr C) intended us to see his drawings. If you cannot get that by now, then I am sorry.

What evidence does a drawing have to make it to you so that you'll call the object a disc? Sounds more and more like you are working off a group of beliefs to make the evidence into what you want..

Let me try to explain what the drawings represent. You will have to pay careful attention here because the drawings are VERY sophisticated - and thus obviously drawn by Mr C, the draftsman – for no “novice” or “naive” person could have produced them.

Here I highly recommend that you have a picture of the drawing in front of you as you read this and the following explanations – I would also recommend you obtain a physical representation of the object – such as a saucer from a saucer and tea-cup set… I would suggest you obtain two and tape them together face to face, but failing that, one will suffice – (got all that in front of you? Right, we can proceed):

The upper drawing represents a circular object seen from below and at an offset angle.

Now hold your saucer (right way up) at arms length out in front of you – with both hands. Adjust the angle of the saucer so that it matches what is seen in the upper drawing. Now imagine the edge of your saucer is a bit thicker and there is a small fin poking above the left side. See…it matches!

The witnesses described a circular object and the draftsman who created the drawing represented that circular object on a 2-dimensional surface as seen from a particular perspective – that is, from below and at an offset angle.

Now the second (lower) drawing. This is a MUCH more sophisticated rendering of the circular object.

Invert your saucer and place your left index finger over the upturned base (to represent the fin). Raise the saucer with your right hand to eye level (with your left index finger still in place). Adjust the angle (by rotating the saucer – left side toward you) so that the upper left surface of the saucer appears as a small sliver behind your index finger. You should now be able to see a large portion of the upper right surface in front of your index finger and a small sliver of upper left surface just behind it (just as represented in the drawing!). Now, NOTE the direction your index finger is now pointing – for THAT is the direction of travel as represented in the drawing (and that is why the directional arrow in the diagram seems to be pointing slightly down – it is meant to represent the object travelling into the page away from the observer)

Okay… now (if you have not used two saucers taped together) imagine that second saucer underneath facing the first and imagine the edge a little thicker. See…? It represents the drawing pretty closely doesn’t it?

NOW can you see how your “blimp shape” is a complete misinterpretation of what the drawings actually represent? If you do not, then you have simply failed to conduct the experiment as outlined.

I'm the one who accepts that there is not enough unambigous data available to reach a conclusion. You cherrypick among the few pieces that are avilable, whatever fits your a priori belief.

Again, your mere statement of unfounded assertion does not make the assertion(s) true.

 

[Rramjet]

Trapped by your own bait and switch technique.

I've asked you before and you've refused to answer: Are you defining UFOs as alien or are you not? You've had it both ways depending on your immediate need as you can clearly see in your quoted posts above.

Are UFOs alien or are they not? Is Rogue River then (by your definition) alien or is it not? Thanks in advance for sticking with one answer going forward from here.

You (and others) know full well I have answered this question from you many times. If you mean by “alien” ET, then no, I am not defining UFOs as alien. If you mean that UFOs are ‘alien” because they are foreign to our concept of natural or technological reality, then yes UFOs are alien.

The Rogue River UFO is alien to our concept of reality because we cannot ascribe a mundane explanation to it (indeed it defys mundane solution based on its observed characteristics – simply it does not accord with any mundane solution we can imagine).

It is quite apparent however that my definitional use of alien (as “foreign” to our concept of reality) is confusing the UFO debunkers. They seem to want to stick with the explanation “alien as ET” (or at the very least not want to accept the distinction I make). The whole point of my placing “alien” in quotation marks in the first place was to avoid the “alien as ET” conclusion. Unfortunately it seems that cannot be done in this forum - so therefore will try and avoid the use of “alien” in my statements from here on.

 

[Rramjet]

Regarding the "interesting" alleged Mexico abduction attempt video...

Two words- Jaime Maussan. That's all it takes to discredit it. Don't even attempt to labell this as an ad hom or poisoning the well. One just has to check the sort of material he presented before to see the reasons. Anyone with real scientific training would see that.

Ah… “The boy who cried wolf” scenario. But you forget, the boy was right at least once!

 

[Rramjet]

I like how Jaime Maussan said in the video, "This is the first time they haven't had a reason to laugh at me."

Your statement here is completely and utterly false. Nowhere (in either part 1 or 2 of the video presentation) did Maussan state what you claim. Maussan did state:

“…then I presented this case first in Merida, then in Mexico city in the national television… after I presented, the case was taken to the front page of the second largest paper in Mexico, Milenio, and they said “They made fun of Maussan”. These kids declare that “all this was a joke” (it was revealed that the media never even spoke to the kids) “It means that the media made up this story to discredit this incredible video (that) everybody in Mexico is talking about, you know, they dedicated editorials to this video, saying (laughing) “Jaime Maussan deserves it. They made fun of him. He deserves it. Finally somebody did it! We’ve been waiting for this for so long. Finally somebody got him” (you know) “by the throat.” And then I said to the paper “No, they made fun of you, not me, you … Talk to the witnesses” And they had to talk to the witnesses and the witnesses say “It’s true, everything you wrote is a lie.” And they have to say it in the newspaper. For the first time then, they have to take it, instead of making fun of me, they were making fun of them!” (ie; Milenio) (http://ufo-tv.com/alien-abductions/...-an-alien-abduction-attempt-caught-on-video-6) (2:21 to 4:12)​

 

[RoboTimbo]

Oh, so you are an expert in human behaviour then?

So you're a behavioral scientist then? Can I see some evidence to back up your claim to being a scientist?

Okay… then what explanation do you have for the radiation readings? That is, what access to a radiation source could anyone have that could create such a radiation “hotspot” in such a place? Or perhaps you are thinking that there is a natural source?

I have none. You're the one making the claims. Are you claiming the source of radiation is someone hiding behind a pole and reaching out to a boy?

Kindly remember you have been called out before for attempting to switch the burden of proof.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I never claimed alien!

Are you claiming it's a UFO then? Aliens and UFOs are the subjects of this thread. And blimps and oil well fires.

 

[Jocce]

I love this. The direct question was whether you were at all interested in this case. You replied you were not interested (“Seriously? Interesting? “ and “not really” you stated). I replied asking why you were even posting if you were not interested. Now you reply you are “not impressed”. This is typical UFO debunker behaviour. When trying to pin them down, if the subject becomes difficult for them, they merely switch the subject!

I interpreted your first post as you thought the video was interesting in the way of "this seems to be good evidence of aliens". I told you that I disagree with that because there is no unambiguous data to look at. In that sense "not interesting" and "I'm not impressed" conveys the same meaning. Now, we can either keep arguing about semantics or you can present some data about this case for evaluation.

In reply to my asking about data about alleged radiation readings you wrote:

we have vision of the Geiger counter with the needle at its maximum limit and the researcher (Jorge Guerrero) describing and explaining the findings. We also have (at 4:50) the statement that “They made these tests in front of the media, in front of the researchers, in front of the people, so there was no doubt…”, then at 6:08 we have “Jorge Guerrero made a challenge on national TV to other scientists from Mexico, to come to the place and take their own measurements and compare the results”. Apparently this was done by three separate university teams from Merina who found the same results. If all these things were not verifiable after such a public exposure, then we can be certain that the media would have picked up on it (especially given that Maussan had caught them out in a fraud of their own - they would have jumped on anything about the case with alacrity if they could have shown any of the above to be in any way not verifiable).

Ok, I interpret this as; you don't have any data but choose to believe whatever they say in the video. It's ok with me if your standard of evidence is not higher than that but you won't convince me.

 

[Jocce]

Okay… then what explanation do you have for the radiation readings? That is, what access to a radiation source could anyone have that could create such a radiation “hotspot” in such a place? Or perhaps you are thinking that there is a natural source?

How high was the radiation? Why do you think it was a "hotspot"? How big was the "hotspot"? What's the ambient radiation at the site?

 

[Jocce]

Okay… then what explanation do you have for the radiation readings?

I had a look again and as the scientist says, there was a distortion in the space and time in the place. A dilational vortex that open and close. Sounds credible to me...

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

I never claimed alien! You simply have not watched the video. (http://ufo-tv.com/alien-abductions/...-an-alien-abduction-attempt-caught-on-video-6)

I agree; you just air quote the word alien to make it appear like you aren't really talking about "aliens" but the question comes up, why does not watching a video have to do with you talking about "aliens"?

Here is an interesting story that shows (what has been termed as) an “attempted alien abduction”. Two boys playing with a soccer ball, one goes to fetch the ball and an “alien” reaches out from behind a post and attempts to pull the boy inward. The boy jumps backward and runs yelling back toward the camera. The camera refocusses on the post where the “alien” pokes its head out for a couple of seconds then disappears.

Some time later, while at a conference in the area, Jaime Maussan hears of an “alien” video doing the rounds on local cell phones and decides to investigate. He tracks down the boys involved, gets their story and returns to the site with an investigator with a Geiger counter who discovers extremely high (but strangely localised) residual radiation. Maussen goes public with the story.

Milenio newspaper then claimed to have interviewed the boys and obtained statements from them to the effect that it was all a hoax. Unfortunately for the newspaper, it turned out that it was the reporters who had “hoaxed” the newspaper! – they had not interviewed the boys at all! - and a retraction was published.

Jaime Maussan’s & Santiago Garza’s Analysis Of An Alien Abduction Attempt

Also seriously using Jose Jaime Maussan's work as evidence? Why not just go for it and use Billy Meier's(sp) photos as evidence. Because like you said, "there's no bad evidence" is there?