UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

You post a link to a youtube video composed by a jumble of imagery pieces with little if any references and information which would allow anything roughly similar to a decent evaluation and complain about being asked by skeptics for more data. Do you actually expect people whom actually exercise critical thinking to accept this sort of material “as is”? The funny thing is that once these details are provided, the “U” in UFO either disappears or the evidence becomes much less compelling… Another funny thing is that skeptics are the ones who must do the proper research. Rramjet just posts links and says “identify that”… That’s not what I would expect from someone with scientific formation, but that’s what I expect from a pseudoscience adept.

Actually that would be links to NASA site videos, Google videos and Youtube videos. I have posted various videos showing “debris” moving in inexplicable trajectories. Until anyone can come up with an explanation for those trajectories, they will remain UFOs. It’s that simple.

Rramjet, are you aware of what "manipulate" actually means when it comes down to images? Are you aware of what’s OK or not for scientific purposes?

Just as you (and other UFO debunkers) demand I show proof that any UFO image I present has not been manipulated (Photoshopped, etc), I demand the same of any image that you might present. It’s that simple.

Can you prove I adulterated the images?

Can you prove that the Skylab 3 images were “adulterated”?

Of course the answer is no in both cases. And that is why I consider this type of argument “silly”. It gets us absolutely nowhere and distracts from the main game – which is to explain the trajectories of the debris shown in the videos I have posted.

No. What's actually happening here is a display of several examples of UFOlogy's pseudoscientific methods. What's happening here is you once again having to resort to a conspiracy theory in a futile attempt to hide the flaws in your arguments. What's happening here is yet another ad hom attack from your part.

All these unfounded assertions merely prove that you have not understood my repeated statements to the effect that merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

Instead of dragging these red herrings across the path, perhaps you would like to enter into the substance of the debate and examine the data (the evidence) contained in the videos and explain how such “debris” trajectories can be possible? I am getting the impression that is something you are positively trying to avoid.

FYI: The latest video postings can be found in this post:

(…)

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, you are still trying to shift the burden of proof. What is your evidence that any bits of debris are alien in origin?

Ah, the definition you're using is UFAO then. In that case, you still have the burden of proof to show it is alien. If you can't, it will remain a UFO by the mundane and prosaic definition of UFO.

 

[tomi71]

Rramjet, you are still trying to shift the burden of proof. What is your evidence that any bits of debris are alien in origin?

So you are asking if the debris is alien. I think that that is a strange question to answer.

If it is then it´s not alien. If it´s not then it´s just debris. Or maybe you are specifically asking for an alien debris even though you don´t even try to say what it means.

What´s the burden of proof. It´s stastics that there are UFO phenomenon that are at the category of very good and yet they can´t be given a mundane explanation.

Thus they are alien in the sense Rramjet has said they are.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So you are asking if the debris is alien. I think that that is a strange question to answer.

If it is then it´s not alien. If it´s not then it´s just debris. Or maybe you are specifically asking for an alien debris even though you don´t even try to say what it means.

What´s the burden of proof. It´s stastics that there are UFO phenomenon that are at the category of very good and yet they can´t be given a mundane explanation.

Thus they are alien in the sense Rramjet has said they are.

That's because Rramjet has redefined alien to mean anything he can't explain. Which ones do you believe are definitely not mundane?

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, you are still trying to shift the burden of proof. What is your evidence that any bits of debris are alien in origin?

But you are merely attempting to shift the focus from the videos to argue semantics in the hope that will distract us from the purpose of the exercise here.

I simply seek evidence of what the bits of debri in the videos I have posted (here: #7639, p.191) actually are. Surely someone has an explanation as to why the “debri” moves in (for example) curved trajectories? Some of those videos have been around for many years and yet to this day no explanation has been forthcoming. Why is that? Surely NASA at least should have a handle on it by now?

Until anyone can answer the question of those trajectories in mundane terms the “debri” will remain unexplained and thus open to hypothetical explanations – including alien (in the sense that RoboT uses it to mean the ET hypothesis).

I have been at pains to explain that I do not necessarily believe the ET hypothesis to be “the” explanatory hypothesis on the grounds that we have (in many cases) only circumstantial evidence to support that hypothetical explanation.

I believe that the explanation is not as simple as merely equating UFOs with the ET hypothesis. It seems to me that there are probably many different phenomena that are being tied in under the UFO banner. Yes there are credible observations of (what seems top be) nuts-and-bolts craft with associated beings (eg; Father Gill, Lonnie Zamora, etc), thus ostensibly ET, but there are also the NASA videos of “debri” (see below). It seems to me that to assign a single source to all UFO phenomena (such as the ET hypothesis) is stretching credibility somewhat – the phenomena just seems too disparate.

On the one extreme we have the “denial machine” (as represented by the members of JREF - such as RoboT - posting to this thread) and on the other the “true believers” who see ET everywhere. I believe the truth will lie somewhere in between. Part of the explanation may very well turn out to be ET, but I don’t believe that explanation will cover all the observed phenomena that we currently label “UFO”.

Something beyond (outside) our concepts of the natural and/or technological world is occurring (thus conceptually “alien” in the sense of foreign or non-mundane) and we should be seeking rational explanation rather than polarising around one of the two extremes mentioned above.

I am curious RoboT. What do you make of the “debri” in the videos I have posted?

STS-74 Atlantis (Launch 12 Nov 1995)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-74.html)
Incident: Debri behaving unusually
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related)

STS-75 Columbia (Launch 22 Feb 1996)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-75.html)
Incident: The Tether Incident
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2DVeil21gc)

STS-80 Columbia (Launch 19 Nov 1996)
(http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-80.html)
Incident: UFOs in formation
1. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2450169839526113062&hl=en#)
2. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJyuQVIFdKo)

 

[tomi71]

That's because Rramjet has redefined alien to mean anything he can't explain. Which ones do you believe are definitely not mundane?

The ones that are:

1. of good quality (observation, witness reliability etc.)
2. Have radar confirmation
3. multiple witnesses
4. seems to act intelligently (this one is of course hard to valuate)
5. seems to defy man-made flying behaviour (90 or even 180 degree turns very fast etc. "impossible" maneuvres

I still think that in upper atmosphere there can be phenomenon´s we don´t know yet that could look like flying "electric" spheres etc. (northern lights) and intelligent flying behaviour could be explained similarly (like moon following me could be interpreted as a intelligently following object). However even the hardest of sceptics must agree that there are phenomenons that are yet to find a mundane explanation.

I also think that ET-hypothesis could co-exist with another hypothesis (cultural hyphothesis like media influence etc.)

I want to keep the door open to any directions until these kind of cases are fully resolved.

 

[RoboTimbo]

But you are merely attempting to shift the focus from the videos to argue semantics in the hope that will distract us from the purpose of the exercise here.

No, you are incorrect. Pointing out that you are attempting to shift the burden of proof (for the nth time) isn't in any way a semantic argument. What would ever make you think it is?

I simply seek evidence of what the bits of debri in the videos I have posted (here: #7639, p.191) actually are. Surely someone has an explanation as to why the “debri” moves in (for example) curved trajectories? Some of those videos have been around for many years and yet to this day no explanation has been forthcoming. Why is that? Surely NASA at least should have a handle on it by now?

Has there been new information presented that would allow NASA to definitively identify every bit of debris in space? To a UFO creduloid's satisfaction?

Until anyone can answer the question of those trajectories in mundane terms the “debri” will remain unexplained and thus open to hypothetical explanations – including alien (in the sense that RoboT uses it to mean the ET hypothesis).

Until anyone can present new information, they remain simply unidentified, thus the term "UFO" in the sense that it is Unidentified, appears to be Flying, and appears to be a tangible Object. Did you have some new information?

I have been at pains to explain that I do not necessarily believe the ET hypothesis to be “the” explanatory hypothesis on the grounds that we have (in many cases) only circumstantial evidence to support that hypothetical explanation.

But you also admit that it can be circumstantial evidence for fairies or goddidit?

I believe that the explanation is not as simple as merely equating UFOs with the ET hypothesis. It seems to me that there are probably many different phenomena that are being tied in under the UFO banner. Yes there are credible observations of (what seems top be) nuts-and-bolts craft with associated beings (eg; Father Gill, Lonnie Zamora, etc), thus ostensibly ET, but there are also the NASA videos of “debri” (see below). It seems to me that to assign a single source to all UFO phenomena (such as the ET hypothesis) is stretching credibility somewhat – the phenomena just seems too disparate.

I can agree that various UFOs present disparate characteristics.

On the one extreme we have the “denial machine” (as represented by the members of JREF - such as RoboT - posting to this thread) and on the other the “true believers” who see ET everywhere.

- such as Rramjet -

I believe the truth will lie somewhere in between. Part of the explanation may very well turn out to be ET, but I don’t believe that explanation will cover all the observed phenomena that we currently label “UFO”.

The "somewhere in between" phrasing is problematic. Do you believe the Santa Claus phenomenon lies "somewhere in between" your parents buying presents for you to wake up to on December 25 and a jolly fat man in a red suit who lives at the North Pole and delivers them?

Something beyond (outside) our concepts of the natural and/or technological world is occurring (thus conceptually “alien” in the sense of foreign or non-mundane) and we should be seeking rational explanation rather than polarising around one of the two extremes mentioned above.

Polarising words like "denial machine", you mean? Describe your methodology for seeking rational explanations for things outside our concepts of the natural and/or technological world. If, by your definition, these things aren't of the natural world, how will you investigate them being limited by natural means?

I am curious RoboT. What do you make of the “debri” in the videos I have posted?

The word is debris. Nice subtle attempt at your original problem, Rramjet. You're shifting the burden of proof.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The ones that are:

1. of good quality (observation, witness reliability etc.)
2. Have radar confirmation
3. multiple witnesses
4. seems to act intelligently (this one is of course hard to valuate)
5. seems to defy man-made flying behaviour (90 or even 180 degree turns very fast etc. "impossible" maneuvres

I still think that in upper atmosphere there can be phenomenon´s we don´t know yet that could look like flying "electric" spheres etc. (northern lights) and intelligent flying behaviour could be explained similarly (like moon following me could be interpreted as a intelligently following object). However even the hardest of sceptics must agree that there are phenomenons that are yet to find a mundane explanation.

I also think that ET-hypothesis could co-exist with another hypothesis (cultural hyphothesis like media influence etc.)

I want to keep the door open to any directions until these kind of cases are fully resolved.

You may wish to go back and review the Campeche incident.

 

[tomi71]

You may wish to go back and review the Campeche incident.

There are other cases that have the characteristics I talked about. What´s your point?

 

[Rramjet]

No, you are incorrect. Pointing out that you are attempting to shift the burden of proof (for the nth time) isn't in any way a semantic argument. What would ever make you think it is?

Can you tell me how then, that me presenting some videos that after some preliminary discussion and analysis (in this thread) and some extensive research by myself, no-one (including myself, JREF members, or NASA) seems to be able to explain the trajectories of the observed “debri” - is shifting the burden of proof?

The videos merely show UFOs (until someone can satisfactorily explain the trajectories).

Besides, I seem to remember asking what you thought of the debri in videos – and as I attempted to explain previously – your “shifting the burden of proof” claims seem to me to be merely an attempt by you to distract from your inability to directly answer that question.

Has there been new information presented that would allow NASA to definitively identify every bit of debris in space? To a UFO creduloid's satisfaction?

I am not asking what the debri is… I am merely asking for an explanation of the trajectories of the debri. After all, if the debri is mundane, then the trajectories should be able to be explained by mundane physical processes. There are not many options here. For example, to begin, the choices are that the debri can only be self-propelled or not self-propelled. If not, then external forces must be applied and the question becomes what is the source of the external forces? Alternatively, if the debri is self-propelled, then where did such objects originate?

Until anyone can present new information, they remain simply unidentified, thus the term "UFO" in the sense that it is Unidentified, appears to be Flying, and appears to be a tangible Object. Did you have some new information?

I have explained before (in previous posts) that a process of elimination can be very revealing in such circumstances. For example, if it is merely “debri” (ie; some inert matter that has fallen or been ejected from the shuttle, satellites, etc), then how do such “debri” come by their trajectories?

But you also admit that it can be circumstantial evidence for fairies or goddidit?

If you want to believe that “fairies” of “goddidit” are the explanation(s) for ostensibly nuts-and-bolts craft with associated beings then you are welcome to make the case. Parsimony might suggest the ET hypothesis actually a more rational explanation for such UFOs because such an explanation might encompass also “fairies” and “goddidit” without having to unnecessarily multiply agencies. That being said, I don’t believe the ET hypothesis can explain all UFO sightings.

I can agree that various UFOs present disparate characteristics.

And that is precisely why I don’t believe the ET hypothesis stands up in many instances.

- such as Rramjet -

If you wish to throw my position in with the “true believers” then you are simply denying the evidence of my statements in this thread (now why does that not surprise me?). You on the other hand have exhibited plenty of evidence that you are part of the “denial machine” (for example, and aside from your denial of my own statements on the matter, not being able to directly provide an opinion on the trajectories of the debri under current discussion).

The "somewhere in between" phrasing is problematic. Do you believe the Santa Claus phenomenon lies "somewhere in between" your parents buying presents for you to wake up to on December 25 and a jolly fat man in a red suit who lives at the North Pole and delivers them?

Perhaps you missed my explanation then. I simply meant that the “denial machine” lies at one end of the spectrum while the “true believers” lie at the other and neither seem to have been able to come up with a satisfactory explanation regarding the UFO phenomenon. Santa Claus does of course have a satisfactory explanation.

Polarising words like "denial machine", you mean? Describe your methodology for seeking rational explanations for things outside our concepts of the natural and/or technological world. If, by your definition, these things aren't of the natural world, how will you investigate them being limited by natural means?

The key word is of course “concepts”. We observe, then conceptualise, hypothesise and speculate - and then test those thoughts against the observations to see if they match.

The word is debris. Nice subtle attempt at your original problem, Rramjet. You're shifting the burden of proof.

So you claim, but without explanation or proof of such a claim it remains an unfounded claim and thus entitled to be dismissed as such.

You replied to tomi71:

You may wish to go back and review the Campeche incident.

Yes, why don’t you do that… seems there may be a UFO there that kicked the whole thing off… then the pilots/crew got carried away and misidentified some oil well fires… (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/).

I seem to remember asking you about this before too … and again you failed to provide your opinion on the UFO in that case.

 

[RoboTimbo]

There are other cases that have the characteristics I talked about. What´s your point?

The Campeche incident has the characteristics you talked about. What is your point?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Can you tell me how then, that me presenting some videos that after some preliminary discussion and analysis (in this thread) and some extensive research by myself, no-one (including myself, JREF members, or NASA) seems to be able to explain the trajectories of the observed “debri” - is shifting the burden of proof?

The videos merely show UFOs (until someone can satisfactorily explain the trajectories).

Ah good, we agree that they are UFOs.

Besides, I seem to remember asking what you thought of the debri in videos – and as I attempted to explain previously – your “shifting the burden of proof” claims seem to me to be merely an attempt by you to distract from your inability to directly answer that question.

It looks like debris. I couldn't see any Debri people^WP in the video.

I am not asking what the debri is… I am merely asking for an explanation of the trajectories of the debri. After all, if the debri is mundane, then the trajectories should be able to be explained by mundane physical processes. There are not many options here. For example, to begin, the choices are that the debri can only be self-propelled or not self-propelled. If not, then external forces must be applied and the question becomes what is the source of the external forces? Alternatively, if the debri is self-propelled, then where did such objects originate?

If the object is unidentified, how do you expect its trajectory to be explained? Remind me what kind of scientist you are again?

I have explained before (in previous posts) that a process of elimination can be very revealing in such circumstances. For example, if it is merely “debri” (ie; some inert matter that has fallen or been ejected from the shuttle, satellites, etc), then how do such “debri” come by their trajectories?

If you would identify the objects for me, I'd better be able to explain its trajectory for you. Why are you redefining the Debri people^WP? Shouldn't you ask their permission?

If you want to believe that “fairies” of “goddidit” are the explanation(s) for ostensibly nuts-and-bolts craft with associated beings then you are welcome to make the case. Parsimony might suggest the ET hypothesis actually a more rational explanation for such UFOs because such an explanation might encompass also “fairies” and “goddidit” without having to unnecessarily multiply agencies. That being said, I don’t believe the ET hypothesis can explain all UFO sightings.

I don't believe fairies or goddidit. I pointed out that those hypotheses answer as well as your aliens. A point that I'm sure you understood but didn't want to appear to. If you want to believe that aliens did it, provide some evidence for aliens.

If you wish to throw my position in with the “true believers” then you are simply denying the evidence of my statements in this thread (now why does that not surprise me?). You on the other hand have exhibited plenty of evidence that you are part of the “denial machine” (for example, and aside from your denial of my own statements on the matter, not being able to directly provide an opinion on the trajectories of the debri under current discussion).

What is your theory concerning the trajectories?

Perhaps you missed my explanation then. I simply meant that the “denial machine” lies at one end of the spectrum while the “true believers” lie at the other and neither seem to have been able to come up with a satisfactory explanation regarding the UFO phenomenon. Santa Claus does of course have a satisfactory explanation.

And that's why your phrasing is problematic. Satisfactory explanations have been put forward. The true believers just put their fingers in their ears.

The key word is of course “concepts”. We observe, then conceptualise, hypothesise and speculate - and then test those thoughts against the observations to see if they match.

Fantastic. What is your hypothesis?

So you claim, but without explanation or proof of such a claim it remains an unfounded claim and thus entitled to be dismissed as such.

Alternatively, you could simply accept the burden of proof and provide evidence that the debris is aliens.

 

[Rramjet]

Ah good, we agree that they are UFOs.

Yes, so that brings us to describing the characteristics of the debris that might indicate whether possible mundane resolutions to the mystery might be forthcoming.

To all intents and purposes, most of the characteristics of the “debris” are not that much different to other NASA videos which do show known mundane sourced debris.

There is however one glaring difference. That is the trajectories of some of the video“debris”. That is what sets this “debris” apart from mundane debris. That is what seems to be inexplicable. That is what makes what is depicted in the videos mysterious. That is what you have utterly failed to address in all your replies on this matter.

For example you state:

It looks like debris. I couldn't see any Debri people^WP in the video.

It looks like debris – but it does not behave like debris. It is the behaviour of the debris that is problematic for the UFO debunkers.

And what have “Debri” people (a Sudanese ethnic minority) have to do with anything? This link from you merely indicates your unwillingness to engage with the subject in any meaningful way. It does however confirm you firmly in the “denial machine” camp where ridicule and nonsense are staple fodder.

If the object is unidentified, how do you expect its trajectory to be explained?

Perhaps you have given this trajectory problem very little thought then - because if you had you would realise there are a number of known factors at work here. For a start there is the vacuum of space – so the trajectories could not be caused by air currents. Second there is a potential motive force from the shuttle’s thrusters – but that force cannot account for curved and meandering trajectories. Are there any other potential motivating forces that could affect the “debris” trajectories?

Remind me what kind of scientist you are again?

Obviously one seeking explanations to problems that seem to defy mundane explanation. The problem cannot have NO answer. There MUST be an answer to the problem. You don’t seem to be helping toward a resolution. You just seemingly deny and ridicule. Where does that leave your standing in relation to the problem?

If you would identify the objects for me, I'd better be able to explain its trajectory for you.

If I could identify the objects, then of course I would identify them – but that is the problem here – the objects positively defy mundane explanation.

Why are you redefining the Debri people^WP? Shouldn't you ask their permission?

Again with the ridicule? How do you expect science and knowledge to progress in the face of this type of response?

I stated:
If you want to believe that “fairies” of “goddidit” are the explanation(s) for ostensibly nuts-and-bolts craft with associated beings then you are welcome to make the case. Parsimony might suggest the ET hypothesis actually a more rational explanation for such UFOs because such an explanation might encompass also “fairies” and “goddidit” without having to unnecessarily multiply agencies. That being said, I don’t believe the ET hypothesis can explain all UFO sightings.

I don't believe fairies or goddidit. I pointed out that those hypotheses answer as well as your aliens. A point that I'm sure you understood but didn't want to appear to. If you want to believe that aliens did it, provide some evidence for aliens.

If you don’t believe “fairies or goddidit” then what do you believe “didit”?

What is your theory concerning the trajectories?

I have no idea. That is why I am presenting the cases in this open forum. Perhaps someone does have an explanation.

And that's why your phrasing is problematic. Satisfactory explanations have been put forward. The true believers just put their fingers in their ears.

Oh? …then why don’t you put those explanations forward then. I have asked for those explanations many times now and I am still waiting… of course the obvious answer is that you don’t have any explanations either… but of course you cannot admit that because your faith would be severely challenged.

Fantastic. What is your hypothesis?

I have put forward a number of competing hypotheses but no mundane hypothesis seems to satisfactorily explain the observations. You on the other hand seem to be avoiding the issue altogether.

Alternatively, you could simply accept the burden of proof and provide evidence that the debris is aliens.

Perhaps you are not reading what I write to you. I have not proposed that the debris is aliens. However, the ET hypothesis is one hypothesis that does provide an answer. Can you think of any others?

Oh...and you seem to have completely missed commenting on the Campeche UFO. You keep bringing the case up - yet after you do - you fail to comment on what the case represents. Why is that? What is your purpose in bringing that case up when you will not discuss it in any meaningful way?

 

[tomi71]

The Campeche incident has the characteristics you talked about. What is your point?

My point is that there are a lot of other cases too. Let´s assume that Campeche incident is about oilfires, which is not a 100% sure though. Even then there are a lot of other cases - can´t remember their names buy maybe somebody here knows they were presented in UFO FILES tv-show and they happened in Alaska. There was a lot of interesting discussions between airtower and airplane.

 

[RoboTimbo]

And what have “Debri” people (a Sudanese ethnic minority) have to do with anything?

That's what I kept asking you. I pointed out the correct spelling of debris and you still used the incorrect spelling. I finally had to link you to the Wiki article on the Debri people to get you to start spelling debris correctly.

And then you turn around and as me what the Debri people have to do with it. Unbelievable.

You and Tomi talk among yourselves about the Campeche incident for a while. He doesn't seem to think it was oil well fires.

 

[RoboTimbo]

My point is that there are a lot of other cases too.

Yes, I know. That's why Rramjet kept this thread alive for so long. He was working on the assumption that many unrelated and uncompelling bits of bad evidence would somehow add up to aliens. Continuing to say, "Well, how about this one..." won't work.

You and Rramjet put together your one best case and we can discuss that.

 

[Jocce]

the trajectories of some of the video“debris”. That is what sets this “debris” apart from mundane debris. That is what seems to be inexplicable. That is what makes what is depicted in the videos mysterious.

It looks like debris – but it does not behave like debris.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so. You don't know the size of the debris, you don't know the distance to the debris, you don't know the relative trajectories of the debris, you pretty much don't know anything about anything that is seen in the video. And still you claim that it doesn't behave like debris should. Do you know something about the debris that I don't? Would you like to show some calculations to substantiate your claim?

 

[Rramjet]

My point is that there are a lot of other cases too. Let´s assume that Campeche incident is about oilfires, which is not a 100% sure though. Even then there are a lot of other cases - can´t remember their names buy maybe somebody here knows they were presented in UFO FILES tv-show and they happened in Alaska. There was a lot of interesting discussions between airtower and airplane.

In my opinion the “UFOs” represented in (for example) the FLIR from the Campeche incident probably were misidentified oil well fires, but that being said, there does seem to be a genuine UFO that kicked the whole thing off. See here for an extensive analysis (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/).

A good case from Alaska? Perhaps you are referring to this case?
JAL Flight 1628 UFO Encounter (17 Nov 1986)
(http://brumac.8k.com/JAL1628/JL1628.html)

 

[Rramjet]

That's what I kept asking you. I pointed out the correct spelling of debris and you still used the incorrect spelling. I finally had to link you to the Wiki article on the Debri people to get you to start spelling debris correctly.

And then you turn around and as me what the Debri people have to do with it. Unbelievable.

If you look back through my posts I think you will find I was spelling “debris” correctly long before your attempt at ridicule. What happened to the spelling in the post you reference I am not sure, but if you felt strongly enough about it, you could have simply pointed out the error without the ridicule. Besides – if we were going to get into a spelling (or grammatical) war… then might I suggest you are picking on the wrong target here.

…but of course the reason for that is once again a distraction from your inability to answer the question under direct examination here – that concerning the trajectories of the debris shown in the videos I have presented.

You and Tomi talk among yourselves about the Campeche incident for a while. He doesn't seem to think it was oil well fires.

But you are the one who persists in bringing the Campeche case to our attention… however when I point out that there likely was a UFO involved (unrelated to the probably misidentified oil well fires), as outlined in the analysis here (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/), you simply refuse to discuss the case any further. In my opinion that represents a denial of the evidence if I ever saw it.

 

[Rramjet]

Yes, I know. That's why Rramjet kept this thread alive for so long. He was working on the assumption that many unrelated and uncompelling bits of bad evidence would somehow add up to aliens. Continuing to say, "Well, how about this one..." won't work.

You are making many unfounded assumptions here. First that the cases are unrelated (they could have common basis – we just don’t know), that the cases I have been presenting are “uncompelling” (that is merely your opinion), that the evidence contained within those cases is somehow “bad” (there is no such thing as bad evidence – the evidence either supports a case or it does not – it is either evidence or it is not evidence), and finally that I have been attempting to mount a case that adds up to aliens (I am merely presenting cases that seemingly defy mundane explanation and proposing that those cases represent UFOs and that the “objects” represented are therefore “alien” in the sense of seemingly being outside our concept of the natural or technological world).

You however seem unable to, or incapable of, directly addressing any of the evidence in the cases I have been presenting - and that evidence surrounds (first) the trajectories of the debris in the videos I have latterly presented and (second) the evidence for a UFO in the Campeche incident. Don’t you have anything to say that directly addresses the evidence in those cases?

You and Rramjet put together your one best case and we can discuss that.

What constitutes a “best” case is a matter of subjective opinion. Your question is akin to asking someone to put forward their “best” case for gravity or evolution. One person might provide an example that (in their opinion) “proves” either, but (coming from a different perspective) another might argue that a better case could be made by showing it in a different way. An intractable argument might then ensue about the relative merits of either that make it a “best” case. Is it not far better to simply recognise that there are many lines of evidence that converge and support the ultimate conclusion (be it gravity, evolution or UFOs) and that no one line of evidence is intrinsically better than another that ends in the same conclusion?

I have been presenting a number of cases that I consider good cases - but as to which is “best” is a matter of personal opinion. These have included:

The Battle of Los Angeles (25 Feb 1942)
(http://brumac.8k.com/BATTLEOFLA/BOLA1.html)
The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
White Sands: Twinkle, Twinkle Little Craft (April-May 1950)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)
The Trent - McMinnville UFO (11 May 1950)
(http://brumac.8k.com/trent1.html)
Photo 1. (http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent1_Full_400dpi.jpg)
Photo 2. (http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent2_Full_400dpi.jpg)
The Trindade Island Photographs (16 Jan 1958)
(http://www.nicap.org/baraunadir.htm)
The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
Apollo 10 (Launch 18 May 1969)
(http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm - Magazine K)
Skylab 3 (Launch 28 Jul 1973)
(http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)
The Travis Walton Abduction (5 Nov 1975)
(http://www.travis-walton.com/index.shtml)
Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5kT2OE1i1Q&feature=related)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
The New Zealand (Kaikoura) UFO sightings (31 Dec 1978)
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc)
Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters UFO Incident (25–27 Dec 1980)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/RendleshamForest.htm)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgW3vEYA-Bg&feature=player_embedded)
Val Jonhson - Minnesota Vehicle Interference and Physical Traces Event (27 Aug. 1979)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)
The Cash/Landrum Incident (29 Dec 1980)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/CashLandrum1.html)
JAL Flight 1628 UFO Encounter (17 Nov 1986)
(http://brumac.8k.com/JAL1628/JL1628.html)
STS-48 Discovery (Launch 15 Sep 1991)
1. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1FR_1MKbGY&NR=1)
2. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z-lHVB6Yuo&feature=related)
STS-71 Atlantis (Launch 27 Jun 1995)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related)
Giant UFO over the Yukon Gold Fields/Indian River (1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22index.htm)
STS-75 Columbia (Launch 22 Feb 1996)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I)
STS-80 Columbia (Launch 19 Nov 1996)
1. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...6113062&hl=en#)
2. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJyuQVIFdKo)
The Campeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)
STS-115 Atlantis (Launch 9 Sep 2006)
1. (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/shuttle/sts-115/qtime/sts115_fd01_03.mov)
2. (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-115/html/s115e07201.html)
O’Hare – Chicago International Airport UFO Sighting (7 Nov 2006)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf)

And have also provided supporting research evidence such as:

The Battelle Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)
The Condon Report (1968)
(http://ncas.org/condon/)
Hoyt – History and rationale behind Condon exposed (20 Apr 2000)
(http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)
The Sturrock Panel Workshop (30 Sep – 3 Oct 1997)
(http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_08_1_sturrock.pdf) and (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_08_2_sturrock.pdf)

(to name but a very few…)
Do you have an opinion as to which constitutes a “best” case?