UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

Are you saying it was impossible for any objects to be 150,000 ft above the surface of the earth in 1950?

Wow, I've totally misread that all the time. Well then, there are plenty of objects that fly fast at that height during 1950.

 

[Jocce]

being a group of small round objects flying at 15,000ft in 1950.

Where did you get the information about shape (round)?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Wow, I've totally misread that all the time. Well then, there are plenty of objects that fly fast at that height during 1950.

My first reaction was that that would strongly depend on where you'd look, but then I read it was at Holloman AFB, which happens to be exactly next to one of the very few places in the world where objects did that in 1950.

I guess I'll have to look into it now...

 

[Jocce]

On the subject of UFO and Alien evidence, around 2002 or 2003 a picture was posted on Art Bells Coast2coastam website of an Alien in a glass casket. The claim was that after the man who picked up the debris from the Roswell UFO crash died, his son found the picture in his belongings and submitted it to them.
The man standing behind the casket was suppose to be his father. It was said by a number of media, that on his fathers death bed he admitted that it was a Flying Saucer he retrieved and there were 2 dead Aliens and 1 Alive. If I remember right, Art bell was taken to court for some of the content on his website. I wonder if he was forced to remove the picture and claim from his website.
I just recently found the picture back on the internet but this time with no writeup. It's hard to believe this picture could be faked, especially if you could see the original one which was twice as big and much clearer.

'

That's a lot of claiming, hearsay, believing and maybe remembering. Got any evidence too?

 

[aChosen1]

No I don't have any direct evidence but I do believe my memory serves me correct. The picture is listed there under "all Alien Images" and I believe it was # 28.
Did you go see the Image and if so, do you think it's fake. I'm certainly not saying it is real, but it sure looks like it would be hard to create. I'll do some searching tonight and see what else I can dig up on this. I'm new here and figured somebody would already be aware of this claim.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Maybe the UFOs are unknown since they do not have an explanation (mundane explanation).

Maybe UFOs are UFOs because we don't know what they are?

I think it´s easy to understand and logical.

Not really it's just semantics

There are also UFO sightings that are not simply unknown. They are unknown in the sense that mundane explanations have been excluded.

Such as?

So there is a difference even with unknown and unknown.

One is unknown and the other is unknown?

When talking about UFOs the terminology should be very well chosen because of this kind of unknown vs. unknown situations.

It just confuses the situation then. the U in UFO still is unidentified, not 'the other kind of unknown that is more associated with Aliens'. You want so much

If I see a strangely moving starlike object it is unknown for me since I don´t know what it is and if I see a metallic spaceship with strange hieroglyphs flying over my head it is still unknown.

The strange starlike object would be unknown the metallic spaceship is known. You may not know what it is exactly but since you said it's a metallic spaceship then you know more about it then the strange star like object.

So unknown can mean two very different things.

I don't follow your logic.

 

[Rramjet]

Thank you, I'm glad you see that too. The reason why those are interesting is of course that we know for a fact that man made objects where flying at at least an altitude of 110 km at this time. Depending on the margin of error, these could be a possbility. That's why it is interesting to know.

You keep making the same point over and over. The reply will remain the same. Given that the analysts were mathematicians by vocation and given they were specifically also trained to gather and analyse data on rocket tests – an endeavour obviously requiring a high degree of accuracy in the reported outcomes – then it would be utterly implausible that they would not have factored measurement error into their calculations. When in summary they stated “15,0000 ft” and “30 feet in diameter” and travelling at “high speed” it is reasonable then to assume these “statistics” accounted for measurement error.

When you say “manmade” objects at that altitude then you mean V2 variants (for there was nothing else at the time) and these people were trained to observe and gather data on exactly these type of rockets and so (similarly with the point above) to imagine these people did not know when they were observing a rocket simply beggars belief.

You also seem to be forgetting the research project was initiated because people (including the military personnel involved in the rocket research) did not know what the objects (being observed repeatedly for over at least a year or more prior to the research) were.

I’ll rephrase then: “We don’t know the specific information
You claim that information was gained but you don't know what information. So you're guessing then? That's fine, just be honest about it.

“Certainly information "is gained" when a number of qualified observers simultaneously view unidentified objects from various locations. And more information is gained if some of these observers film these objects through cinetheodolite telescopes. There is useful information even if a "proper triangulation" is not accomplished. And there is even more information gained if a proper triangulation is accomplished...and one was accomplished, only Eltermann didn't mention it!” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)

“At the bottom of the report to Dr. Mirachi is a list of enclosures which shows that two reports (Data Red Report #1 and Data Red Report #2) and three films (P-10 and P-8 of May 24 and P-10 of April 27) were sent to Mirarchi along with a map of the Holloman range showing, I presume, the locations of the cameras. There is a hand written note at the right of the list of films which says "Film on repository with AFCRL" and a few other undecipherable scribbles. Attempts (in the late 1970's) to locate these films failed. (Mirarchi died in the 1960's.)” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)

No, I was talking about the actual calculations. I have an idea about how it's done but I'm interested in seeing how this triangulation using partial data would affect the error margins on especially the altitude calculation.

Then you don’t know how a triangulation is calculated? Remember this was the specific sequence of exchanges:

Station P10 provided a direction and an elevation, station M7 also provided a direction. Using basic trigonometry one can then calculate the altitude and from the film one can then estimate the size. Oh…and on four objects no less!

I'm sure you wuld like to show me how because honestly, I don't know. I was trying to find it online but failed.

It's actually very easy. I'll whip up a few diagrams over the weekend if I have time.

(assuming that you're talking about triangulation)

I think Jocce was actually talking about my reference to a triangulation being achieved on “four” separate objects – meaning of course (though I did not state it at the time) four successful triangulations were achieved!

No, I was talking about the actual calculations. I have an idea about how it's done but I'm interested in seeing how this triangulation using partial data would affect the error margins on especially the altitude calculation.

Unfortunately we only have the summary report to go on, but again you raise the same old issue, to which my reply will remain the same:

Given that the analysts were mathematicians by vocation and given they were specifically also trained to gather and analyse data on rocket tests – an endeavour obviously requiring a high degree of accuracy in the reported outcomes – then it would be utterly implausible that they would not have factored measurement error into their calculations. When in summary they stated “15,0000 ft” and “30 feet in diameter” and travelling at “high speed” it is reasonable then to assume these “statistics” accounted for measurement error.

Wow, I've totally misread that all the time. Well then, there are plenty of objects that fly fast at that height during 1950.

Name them.

Where did you get the information about shape (round)?

“Diameter” applies to circular objects. The analysts did not include “cylindrical” (or “rocket shaped”) or any other shape descriptor – just “diameter”. If the objects were anything other than “round” then they would have reported as much.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, you continue to miss the point of why it's important that we don't know what the errors were in the White Sands case.

So let me furnish you with an example or two to help.

In my work I regularly assess and report errors for the data I analyse and publish. These errors are typically about 10%, but can be as much as 25%. These are rigorously calculated errors, and fairly normal for my field of research.

Until a few years ago the best estimate of the Hubble Constant was about 75+/-25 km/s/Mpc. That's an error of more than 33%!

The point is that just because an error is rigorously assessed by a professional that does not mean that it is necessarily a low error.

Without knowing how large the error was, we have no way to assess the accuracy of the reported values of altitude and size. Was the error 1%, 5%, 10% or 50%? We simply do not know.

Furthermore, you continue to misread or misinterpret my statement, "I doubt that they would not have performed an error analysis". Again, I say, it's a double negative. "I doubt that they would not have" means that I'm fairly sure that they did.

So let me repeat, as clearly as possible, and hopefully finally:

I am fairly certain that they would have performed an error analysis, but we do not have access to that error analysis, which means that we have no way to assess their results properly.

It is traditional (as you probably well know) when reporting in summary, to cite a single figure that is representative of the final result (accounting for measurement error). However, in cases where the measurement error is large enough so that a single reported statistic could be deemed misleading, then the error bounds are also provided (so as not to mislead). Where measurement error is within “acceptable” limits (say 5-10% at most) then the summary measurement is allowed to stand on its own as representative of the result. Besides, we know that measurement error was accounted for because the mathematicians included the word “approximately” alongside the cited statistic. If you know the scientific protocols (as you imply you do), then there is no problem. It is only if you don’t know the protocol convention among academically educated scientists that you begin to ask for information ignorant of it being already accounted for.

Thus we can be assured that the cited summary statistics are a resonably accurate reflection of what was observed. If they were not, then we would have been informed so (or it would not have been reported at all - like the other triangulations). That is the bottom line here wollery, like it ore not.

 

[Rramjet]

On the subject of UFO and Alien evidence, around 2002 or 2003 a picture was posted on Art Bells Coast2coastam website of an Alien in a glass casket. The claim was that after the man who picked up the debris from the Roswell UFO crash died, his son found the picture in his belongings and submitted it to them.
The man standing behind the casket was suppose to be his father. It was said by a number of media, that on his fathers death bed he admitted that it was a Flying Saucer he retrieved and there were 2 dead Aliens and 1 Alive. If I remember right, Art bell was taken to court for some of the content on his website. I wonder if he was forced to remove the picture and claim from his website.
I just recently found the picture back on the internet but this time with no writeup. It's hard to believe this picture could be faked, especially if you could see the original one which was twice as big and much clearer.

I haven't made enough posts here to post links yet, but you will find the picture at Top10ufo com.

Unfortunately aChosen1 it is very easy to fake just about any picture these days. I would be very wary of such pictures as you point to here (I could not find it - perhaps you could link to it - if you don't have the required number of posts yet - by typing out the url and replacing all the "." with "(dot)" - or some such ...).

The only way to get close to verifying a picture (and the story attached to it) is to track its provenance. If you cannot find a direct line back to the source for both picture and story, then (unfortunately for the genuine pictures) we can only assume it is fake (and even with a direct source we then need to assure ourselves the source did not fake it!).

 

[Rramjet]

My first reaction was that that would strongly depend on where you'd look, but then I read it was at Holloman AFB, which happens to be exactly next to one of the very few places in the world where objects did that in 1950.

I guess I'll have to look into it now...

Please do ...and perhaps you can also list for us all the objects that were flying around White Sands in late 1948 (for that is when the objects were first observed (Dec 1948)). I'll begin your list for you: V2 (and variants of), ...

 

[Jocce]

No I don't have any direct evidence but I do believe my memory serves me correct. The picture is listed there under "all Alien Images" and I believe it was # 28.
Did you go see the Image and if so, do you think it's fake. I'm certainly not saying it is real, but it sure looks like it would be hard to create. I'll do some searching tonight and see what else I can dig up on this. I'm new here and figured somebody would already be aware of this claim.

Nr 28 is a picture of when the alien is shaking hands with Adolf Hitler. Was that really the one you meant? Why don't you go to the site yourself, find the pic and tell us which one you're talking about?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Please do ...and perhaps you can also list for us all the objects that were flying around White Sands in late 1948 (for that is when the objects were first observed (Dec 1948)). I'll begin your list for you: V2 (and variants of), ...

Okay then. I read the wikipedia article, and some of the article you linked to, I'm quite comfortable in saying that I have no idea what the green fireballs were, and that I'm sure I won't be able to make more sense of the evidence than those who researched them at the time. However, I think that the connection to nuclear testing is one of the more promising leads.

The point: We don't know what they are and that's fine by me.

So, what do you make of the evidence?

 

[Rramjet]

Funny, coming from you, in this thread where people are constantly proposing mundane explanations for the observations you want explained so badly.

I should have stated that in many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation.

…and “want so badly”? You misread my interest. It is, as are many human interests, one of scientific curiosity in the face of a lack of a plausible explanations.

I mean, I hopped in at the MIR movie, because it is in my area of expertise (well, not since university, but still) and went through quite a bit of effort to demonstrate to you that these were not in fact inexplicable or strange, but ice particles.

You may have put in some effort, but clearly you did not demonstrate that at all. Where we left it you had a hypothesis that (whatever the object was) its trajectory was something that could have been caused (and affected) by the shuttle’s RCS. I then posted a series of charts from a movement analysis on the principle objects in the film to see if we could match the RCS firings to the observed trajectory changes of the object. It was obvious from the charts that the RCS was in intermittent (but practically continual) use - adjusting the “orbit” of the shuttle around MIR. At first glance I could not see any obvious relation between the movements of the principle objects (indicating RCS firings) and our POV as measured from the stars, MIR or the object that also corresponded to the observed trajectory (and velocity) changes in the object. That is where the subject was left.

I will grant you that your “ice crystal” hypothesis is more plausible than wollery’s “satellite” hypotheisis, but I do not concede that you have “demonstrated” its veracity. We came into it with observed anomalous trajectory changes in one of the objects in the film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related object appears @ 6:17 bottom right). The RCS system firings acting on an ice crystal might seem plausible, but it remains difficult to match that to the actual trajectory observed (and the fact that no other objects were similarly affected).

The fact that you make every possible effort to refute any mundane explanations makes it appear as if you are trying see if the observations could be consistent with something non-mundane, whereas what you should be doing, is coming up with more mundane explanations.

The fact that me being a sceptic who is questioning the validity of a “mundane” explanation disturbs you - or causes you to assign particular motivations to me – says more about your own biases surrounding the topic than it does my motivations. No questions should be barred from sceptical inquiry – yet you write as if some kinds of inquiry should be off limits.

Besides, what other mundane explanations are there? We only have small pieces of “debri” (such as ice crystals) close to the shuttle so that the trajectory can be affected by the shuttle’s RCS, or a larger object further away (such as a satellite) that then must have independent motivational power. What else is there?

And the thing to keep in mind there is that non-mundane explanations are by definition hugely unlikely, so that one can come up with pretty unlikely mundane explanations without having to discount those on grounds of their improbability. For vague, ambiguous, or rare observations, there is necessarily a huge number of possible mundane explanations that are more likely than explanations relying on things yet unknown to science.

The thing is you don’t know the likelihood of “non-mundane” explanations. For example what was the likelihood of the heliocentric model of the solar system being the correct mundane explanation before it became the accepted wisdom? Because it was the correct explanation meant (of course) that it had a 100% probability of being correct, just no-one knew it at the time. Your argument here (if we accepted it a having any weight at all) would mean that the geocentric model had a higher likelihood of being correct that the heliocentric model – and that is patently nonsense.

To ascertain the probability of particular explanations being correct, we must know the comparative likelihood of those competing explanations. One side of the equation is missing when it comes to UFOs. We just don’t know the probability of (for example) the ETH (or any other “non-mundane” explanation) being the correct hypothesis. If aliens in spaceships do exist, then the ETH becomes a more likely plausible hypothesis… though we still cannot say how likely…

Besides, you simply forget that the characteristics of many UFOs simply rule out most (if not all) plausible mundane explanations. An inertia defying turn? There goes your mundane explanations right there. “Impossible” accelerations? There goes your mundane explanations right there. Small “saucer” shaped objects manoeuvring with no sound? There goes your mundane explanations right there. Etc. and so on. The White Sands objects for example. Year:1948-1950. Repeated observations at 150,000 feet of 30 ft diameter objects travelling at very high speed. What plausible mundane explanations can you provide?

I am not saying the ETH is the explanation. I am however saying that many UFOs (or characteristics thereof) simply defy mundane explanation. That’s the bottom line.

 

[Rramjet]

Okay then. I read the wikipedia article, and some of the article you linked to, I'm quite comfortable in saying that I have no idea what the green fireballs were, and that I'm sure I won't be able to make more sense of the evidence than those who researched them at the time.

I appreciate you actually taking the time to do a little research, for which I am gratified and pleasantly surprised. However, you only read “some of the article”? Oh well, that’s okay then… Wikipedia obviously being the best information source….[citation needed][verification needed].

However, I think that the connection to nuclear testing is one of the more promising leads.

A “connection to nuclear testing”? Funny they have not appeared though in connection with (the many) subsequent nuclear tests… Perhaps ET was initially interested in what we were doing, found out, then lost interest? (I mean, as long as we are running on pure speculation… why not…)

The point: We don't know what they are and that's fine by me.

So, what do you make of the evidence?

I have no idea what they were. All I know is that there seems to be no plausible mundane explanation (and according to Wikipedia I am in good company). From there it is pure speculation: Some unknown natural phenomenon or ET? It’s all one from that point.

Oh… you forgot to mention what “objects did that in 1950” (in reference to Jocce’s ” there are plenty of objects that fly fast at that height during 1950”) - remembering of course they were first noticed officially in 1948.

 

[aChosen1]

Unfortunately aChosen1 it is very easy to fake just about any picture these days. I would be very wary of such pictures as you point to here (I could not find it - perhaps you could link to it - if you don't have the required number of posts yet - by typing out the url and replacing all the "." with "(dot)" - or some such ...).

The only way to get close to verifying a picture (and the story attached to it) is to track its provenance. If you cannot find a direct line back to the source for both picture and story, then (unfortunately for the genuine pictures) we can only assume it is fake (and even with a direct source we then need to assure ourselves the source did not fake it!).

http://www.top10ufo.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=2&pos=1

 

[RoboTimbo]

I should have stated that in many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanations that Rramjet can think of.

I had to fix the above for you.

…and “want so badly”? You misread my interest. It is, as are many human interests, one of scientific curiosity in the face of a lack of a plausible explanations.

How plausible is it that oil well fires can surround a military plane?

You may have put in some effort, but clearly you did not demonstrate that at all. Where we left it you had a hypothesis that (whatever the object was) its trajectory was something that could have been caused (and affected) by the shuttle’s RCS. I then posted a series of charts from a movement analysis on the principle objects in the film to see if we could match the RCS firings to the observed trajectory changes of the object. It was obvious from the charts that the RCS was in intermittent (but practically continual) use - adjusting the “orbit” of the shuttle around MIR. At first glance I could not see any obvious relation between the movements of the principle objects (indicating RCS firings) and our POV as measured from the stars, MIR or the object that also corresponded to the observed trajectory (and velocity) changes in the object. That is where the subject was left.

I will grant you that your “ice crystal” hypothesis is more plausible than wollery’s “satellite” hypotheisis, but I do not concede that you have “demonstrated” its veracity. We came into it with observed anomalous trajectory changes in one of the objects in the film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related object appears @ 6:17 bottom right). The RCS system firings acting on an ice crystal might seem plausible, but it remains difficult to match that to the actual trajectory observed (and the fact that no other objects were similarly affected).

...and therefore Rramjet's aliens will remain his default answer.

The fact that me being a sceptic who is questioning the validity of a “mundane” explanation disturbs you - or causes you to assign particular motivations to me – says more about your own biases surrounding the topic than it does my motivations. No questions should be barred from sceptical inquiry – yet you write as if some kinds of inquiry should be off limits.

Ah yes, the "I'm skeptical of skeptics" kind of skeptic.

Besides, what other mundane explanations are there? We only have small pieces of “debri” (such as ice crystals) close to the shuttle so that the trajectory can be affected by the shuttle’s RCS, or a larger object further away (such as a satellite) that then must have independent motivational power. What else is there?

Naughty naughty. No sneaky switching the burden of proof again!

The thing is you don’t know the likelihood of “non-mundane” explanations. For example what was the likelihood of the heliocentric model of the solar system being the correct mundane explanation before it became the accepted wisdom? Because it was the correct explanation meant (of course) that it had a 100% probability of being correct, just no-one knew it at the time. Your argument here (if we accepted it a having any weight at all) would mean that the geocentric model had a higher likelihood of being correct that the heliocentric model – and that is patently nonsense.

They had extraordinary evidence to back up the heliocentric model. What do you have?

To ascertain the probability of particular explanations being correct, we must know the comparative likelihood of those competing explanations. One side of the equation is missing when it comes to UFOs. We just don’t know the probability of (for example) the ETH (or any other “non-mundane” explanation) being the correct hypothesis. If aliens in spaceships do exist, then the ETH becomes a more likely plausible hypothesis… though we still cannot say how likely…

Then someone must establish that aliens in spaceships exist first. I keep hoping that will happen but so far, nothing. Unless you have some evidence that it's aliens in spaceships?

Besides, you simply forget that the characteristics of many UFOs simply rule out most (if not all) plausible mundane explanations. An inertia defying turn? There goes your mundane explanations right there. “Impossible” accelerations? There goes your mundane explanations right there. Small “saucer” shaped objects manoeuvring with no sound? There goes your mundane explanations right there. Etc. and so on. The White Sands objects for example. Year:1948-1950. Repeated observations at 150,000 feet of 30 ft diameter objects travelling at very high speed. What plausible mundane explanations can you provide?

Naughty naughty, no sneaky switching the burden of proof! What particular thing do you have evidence for it being? You're the one with the extraordinary claim, after all.

I am not saying the ETH is the explanation. I am however saying that many UFOs (or characteristics thereof) simply defy mundane explanation. That’s the bottom line.

So you're admitting you made a mistake earlier when you exclaimed that you don't claim the objects themselves defy mundane explanation? Do the objects themselves defy mundane explanation or not? If the objects themselves do not, then why are you saying they are evidence of aliens and UFAOs? If they do, then you must know what particular thing they are. This is a fatal flaw to your argument.

Here's another fatal flaw to it. You can't eliminate all mundane explanations. It has been proven to you that you can't despite your false assertion that you have a "process" to eliminate them. Your process turned out to be you list seven things that it apparently isn't.

You've not overcome either of those fatal flaws. You still have the burden of proof that you haven't met to show that aliens and UFAOs exist.

An alien raygun or alien spaceship or alien body would be some extraordinary evidence that would help prove your extraordinary claim.

 

[tomi71]

Why would you believe that "alien raygun" or "alien spaceship" or "alien body" would be real and not manufactured and hoaxed. You certainly should be more sceptical since they very well could be done for example in hollywood movie studios or some hidden factory somewhere or you name it.

Actually I wonder what kind of evidence would be enough to prove aliens. Certainly even aliens walking in a market square could be a result of a skillful makeup etc.

You can´t never prove they are here, can you. No. There is always the door to another conclusions if you choose to select that way. Nothing is more easy than being like an automatic sceptic robot that doesn´t believe anything, not evidence not a phenomena. Nothing. It´s easy. You can always dismiss any evidence as you see fit. You can always dismiss photographs, eyewitness statements etc etc.

And I am sure that even if a UFO as a space craft landed on White Houses lawn you would say that there is no proof. All pictures taken are hoaxed. All who are telling about it are part of the same hoax or conspiracy. Even the aliens coming out of the ship are probably masked midgets.

Oh, I am beginning to understand why the evidence certainly needs to be extraordinary. Even though such thing does not exist at all!

 

[Rramjet]

I had to fix the above for you.

Well no, the statement should read:

In many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation.

If you disagree with the veracity of the statement then perhaps we could discuss a case where it might be applicable? Perhaps one we have not discussed in this thread? How about:

The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)

How plausible is it that oil well fires can surround a military plane?

Obviously it is very plausible, otherwise it could not have happened. Perhaps though you have simply not understood the perceptual and emotional factors involved in the occurrence? May I suggest you read the following?

The Campeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)

I have of course explained the occurrence to you previously (on a number of occasions) but on those occasions I was probably remiss in not directly linking you to the information about the case to accompany that explanation. I can see now that without direct access to the case information my explanation of the occurrence might not be as accessible as it could be.

The explanation is that having been alerted by radar to the presence of (at least one) UFO, the crew were then in a high state of alert and positively looking for external explanations. When they saw the (alleged) lights from the oil well fires, they thought they had found the explanation. A number of perceptual factors then played a role.

After you have read the case information from the above link, I will be happy to explain, clarify or otherwise expand upon that explanation if you wish.

...and therefore Rramjet's aliens will remain his default answer.

I can only assume you have not been following this thread very closely, nor have you read the OP. Can I suggest you at least read the OP? There you will find that I explicitly deny that, based on the evidence, we can positively conclude that the ETH is the correct explanation. I have also reiterated that position a number of times over the course of this thread. While to many the ETH might seem compelling, the simple fact is, based on the evidence, we actually cannot conclude positively in this regard.

Ah yes, the "I'm skeptical of skeptics" kind of skeptic.

Ummm no …just an ordinary sceptic. As such no question should be off limits. If someone states that a particular UFO has a particular mundane explanation, then I am entitled to question the veracity of that explanation.

Naughty naughty. No sneaky switching the burden of proof again!

Oh, then perhaps we can discuss the American West flight to see if the statement In many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation has any veracity as applied to a particular case (I list this case even though there are probably better examples – but some of those have already been discussed and why rehash old ground when we have new cases to maintain our interest?).

They had extraordinary evidence to back up the heliocentric model. What do you have?

Just the mundane (everyday) observational evidence of the retrograde motion of Mars (which the heliocentric model explains very neatly). Perhaps though you can list this “extraordinary evidence” you believe “they” (I presume you mean Copernicus) were (was) in possession of?

Then someone must establish that aliens in spaceships exist first. I keep hoping that will happen but so far, nothing. Unless you have some evidence that it's aliens in spaceships?

Oh, there is plenty of evidence of beings associated with UFOs. For example :

The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html)

Just to name two cases. However, the leap to them being alien… (as in the ETH), while seemingly compelling, is perhaps not warranted based purely on the evidence. Sorry to disappoint.

Naughty naughty, no sneaky switching the burden of proof! What particular thing do you have evidence for it being? You're the one with the extraordinary claim, after all.

“In many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation” is an extraordinary claim? Based on the evidence I think not. Perhaps though, in the course of our discussion of the American West case (see link above), that might become more apparent. Of course to anyone who has not researched much UFO case information, the claim might seem extraordinary, but to anyone who has understood the information contained in a variety of cases, based on that evidence, the claim becomes entirely mundane.

So you're admitting you made a mistake earlier when you exclaimed that you don't claim the objects themselves defy mundane explanation?

Well, yes. I have stated that already. As we don’t know what the objects (or phenomena) themselves are, then it can only be the descriptive characteristics that defy mundane explanation. I merely assumed that was implied when stating that UFOs defy mundane explanation – that was a mistake on my behalf, obviously.

Do the objects themselves defy mundane explanation or not? If the objects themselves do not, then why are you saying they are evidence of aliens and UFAOs?

As you apparently have not read my many denials over the course of this thread (and indeed in my OP) that, based on the evidence, we can conclude positively concerning the ETH, I will forgive your comments made here in obvious misunderstanding of my often stated position in this regard.

If they do, then you must know what particular thing they are. This is a fatal flaw to your argument.

Ummm… a UFO is a UFO … how can something be unidentified and yet (according to you) I am supposed to know “what particular thing they are”?

You've not overcome either of those fatal flaws. You still have the burden of proof that you haven't met to show that aliens and UFAOs exist.

To reiterate. I can show that UFOs exist. I can show that often there are associated beings (and indeed intelligent control). I can show that UFOs physically affect the environment and can be detected by radar and photographs. I can even show that the characteristics of UFOs defy mundane explanation. What I cannot show is that the ETH is the correct explanation. Sorry to disappoint.

An alien raygun or alien spaceship or alien body would be some extraordinary evidence that would help prove your extraordinary claim.

I think aChosen1 is linking to an alien body (http://www.top10ufo.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=2&pos=1). However, I have not researched this case and cannot vouch for the veracity of the photo. Perhaps either you or he might do some follow up to see what veracity (if any) might be in that case?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why would you believe that "alien raygun" or "alien spaceship" or "alien body" would be real and not manufactured and hoaxed. You certainly should be more sceptical since they very well could be done for example in hollywood movie studios or some hidden factory somewhere or you name it.

Here's a test for you. What is different about an alien raygun or alien spaceship or alien body compared to anecdotes and photographs? If you successfully answer that we can carry the conversation further.

 

[Rramjet]

Here's a test for you. What is different about an alien raygun or alien spaceship or alien body compared to anecdotes and photographs? If you successfully answer that we can carry the conversation further.

Obviously for you to be convinced that UFOs are of extraterrestrial manufacture (or nature), then you would need to be presented with ordinary physical evidence (such as a "alien raygun" or an "alien spaceship") to believe it.

However, it is not being claimed in this thread (by me at least) that the explanation for UFOs is the ETH. You are implying we have only a dichotomous choice in explanation - mundane or alien. This is a mistaken conception. Based on the evidence we simply do not know what UFOs are (or what phenomena they might represent).

With that in mind, we should be able to therefore discuss the evidence surrounding UFOs (eyewitness anecdotal, expert testimony, radar, film and photograph and physical trace) without the baggage of you automatically assuming that there is only a dichotomous choice in the matter (mundane or alien).

I would however ask you to seriously consider what our choices are when it comes to cases such as Father Gill or Lonnie Zamora (see links in my previous post), where the characteristics of the UFOs defy mundane explanation and at the same time, beings are associated.