• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agatha said:
Every time you tell this story it has subtle differences and additions, and I really don't understand why you are drip-feeding the information like this. Are you aware that you tell the story slightly differently each time? How long ago did this occur, and at what time of year?

However, immediately afterwards you made little or no effort to find out what you had seen;
you didn't contact any astronomers (professional or amateur)
you didn't visit the site where you judged the thing to have landed (if indeed it did)
you were watching all night and made three sightings, EDIT it now seems four sightings, but didn't take any photographs
you wrote something down at some point but now can't recall where those notes are now
you haven't said what the discussion with these other witnesses was (at the time or later)
you still haven't explained how you judged size distance or speed other than it appeared to be behind the mountain at one point. I assume the distance from your vantage point to the mountain was known, but you still don't have enough information there to judge size, distance or speed with any degree of accuracy.

Is this the only sighting you have had where you've been unable (dare I say unwilling?) to rule out mundane, terrestrial explanations?
Click to expand...


Q. I really don't understand why you are drip-feeding the information like this.
A. The entire sighting wasn't appropriate for the individual questions posed in the past. Only the relevant parts were incuded for brevity. That's often how a discussion works, rather than having one person just go off on an extended story.

Q. Why no photos?
A. I didn't own a camera. I was at my girlfriend's ranch house and there were no other houses nearby. I had no expectation that I would see the thing either. It's not like I planned to see it.

Q. Distance and Speed
A.Yes that was answered in a previous post so you must have missed it. It was based on landmarks of discernable distance based on map measurements with a minimal margin of error for all practical purposes.

Comment: Little or no effort to determine what was seen.
Response: I've benn trying to figure it out ever since I saw it. After it had departed, there wasn't anything to study. I was disadvantaged at the time with respect to investigative equipment and access to the landing site itself. But trace evidence would not be of any use in identifying how the object could do what it did. Suppose there were some burnt barnches or some flattened grass? What would that prove ... besides nothing?

Comment: No astronomical opinion.
Response: I know enough about astronomy to rule anything astronomical out. When your car's out of gas you don't need a mechanic to tell you. It's just plainly obvious. You should be able to see that for yourself from the ongoing posts. And I've left the door open for you or anyone else to offer some kind of reasonable natural or manmade explanation.

j.r.
 
ufology said:
And I've left the door open for you or anyone else to offer some kind of reasonable natural or manmade explanation.
Click to expand...


That is, of course, another lie. The natural or man made explanations offered so far have been met with ignorance, so no, you're not leaving any door opened. Also interesting that you still believe the burden of proof for your ridiculous claim is up to other people. You're really trying to get some mileage out of that line of argumentation even though the cooperative helpful skeptics here have pointed out how dishonest it is and explained how your use of it is bound to fail.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
And I've left the door open for you or anyone else to offer some kind of reasonable natural or manmade explanation.
Click to expand...
It doesn't work like that and you know this. Burden of Proof

Is the account on your website a full detailed account not excluding any detail? Including your (let's not call it an) alien abduction?
Because at the moment, you still haven't told everything that's there and that door you've left open isn't for someone to guess at what it was you saw, but a door that allows you to add little details to your story to rule out any suggestions anyone may wish to make... We've seen it hundreds of times already from countless other people; they tell a story and then ask us to explain it. We give possibilities based upon the information they give and then they change the information in a way that rules out the possibilities until the final story they tell doesn't resemble the one they arrived with... Which is why it's important to remember the burden of proof and the null hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Stray Cat said:
It doesn't work like that and you know this. Burden of Proof
Click to expand...


Why has this discussion switched from trying to figure out what it was to me proving I saw it. I wasn't trying to prove I saw anything, I was asking for opinions on what kind of thing could do what the thing I saw did. I've provided the basics and answered every question in good faith. If you don't want to discuss it any more because you don't have any reasonable explanation, that's OK, I'm good with that. We can just leave the discussion open ended at this point. No harm done.

j.r.
 
ufology said:
Why has this discussion switched from trying to figure out what it was to me proving I saw it. I wasn't trying to prove I saw anything, I was asking for opinions on what kind of thing could do what the thing I saw did. I've provided the basics and answered every question in good faith. If you don't want to discuss it any more because you don't have any reasonable explanation, that's OK, I'm good with that. We can just leave the discussion open ended at this point. No harm done.

j.r.
Click to expand...

Hallucinations and optical illusions, if you aren't lying. Imaginary objects, if you are.

Anecdotes are as close to useless as you can get. Even if the story is "true" in the sense that the story-teller doesn't think he's lying, there's the possibility that it's "false" in that they didn't see anything at all and merely believe they did.
 
This is silly. Ufology, if you really want to discuss this supposed sighting, how about you tell the whole story all in one post (or link to another site where you have already done so), and then respond to questions/comments. Include, if you would, the time of year, approximate time of sunset and sunrise, times of sighting(s) and other pertinent information.

For some reason, the idea of you consulting astronomers after the sighting seems to put you on the defensive, as if the idea is somehow impugning your knowledge or character. I would have thought getting third party confirmation from someone else who had been observing the sky that night would have been one of the first things to consider following a sighting.

Since you didn't go to the supposed landing site, how do you know there was nothing to see?

You previously claimed to have seen the object three (or was it four) times, in the company of others. Not one of you had a camera or thought to try to get hold of one, although you say you spent the whole night observing this phenomenon?
 
ufology said:
Why has this discussion switched from trying to figure out what it was to me proving I saw it. I wasn't trying to prove I saw anything, I was asking for opinions on what kind of thing could do what the thing I saw did. I've provided the basics and answered every question in good faith. If you don't want to discuss it any more because you don't have any reasonable explanation, that's OK, I'm good with that. We can just leave the discussion open ended at this point. No harm done.

j.r.
Click to expand...
The first rule being "everybody lies", it's quite possible that you saw nothing. However, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that you did see something. You haven't given us anything like the whole story, and if you truly want opinions on what it could have been, you'll have to be a great deal more upfront about the circumstances. What you consider to be "the basics" isn't anything approaching what I would call the basics of the story.
 
ufology said:
Why has this discussion switched from trying to figure out what it was to me proving I saw it.
Click to expand...
Because that's what critical thinking is about. Before anyone starts to figure out how Santa's sleigh flies, we have to be sure someone actually saw it flying.

ufology said:
I wasn't trying to prove I saw anything, I was asking for opinions on what kind of thing could do what the thing I saw did.
Click to expand...
But you haven't told the full story yet. How could anyone really help to answer your puzzle.

It's like this:
What's the difference between a chicken?

See the big gap prevents you from reaching any sort of answer unless you just want people to make a stab in the dark (even darker than the countryside at night lol!)

ufology said:
I've provided the basics and answered every question in good faith.
Click to expand...
The basics will at best get you some basic guesses. That's not good faith, that's half assed pretense at wanting to find out, but fearing that even the possibility of bursting your alien bubble is too precious.

ufology said:
If you don't want to discuss it any more because you don't have any reasonable explanation, that's OK, I'm good with that. We can just leave the discussion open ended at this point. No harm done.
Click to expand...
I asked you some questions and gave you a reasonable rationale for asking, as usual you pick up and run with the part that doesn't actually move the discussion forwards.
 
ufology said:
The object rose up about two thirds the height of the mountains, stopped, got really bright, and instantly accelerated up the valley north between the mountains, as far as you could see, which is much farther than the above picture has for a field of view ... leaving a glowing trail of light in its wake.
Click to expand...

Please elaborate by what you mean by "glowing trail of light." What kind of object (natural or man-made) can leave a trail of light in the air? Do you mean it was a trail of smoke that was lit up by the sun or local lights? Did it last for just a few moments, like a shooting star? How long did this "glow" actually last? Did this "trail" fall toward earth like a physical object?

:cool:
 
ufology said:
I've provided the basics and answered every question in good faith.
Click to expand...


Good faith? No. That is demonstrably untrue. How about this one... Given your questionable credibility due to demonstrated dishonesty and obvious falsehoods in this and other threads, can you provide a reason we shouldn't accept the most recent version of your tales as just more lies? That's the seventh time I've asked nicely.
 
MG1962 said:
I have a couple of questions

What was your frame of reference for the height

What was your frame of reference for the speed

What was your frame of reference for the distance travelled

What factor allowed you a 25k straight view?
Click to expand...

I was interested in that also. I found this.

I find the maximum
line of sight between the rig and the person to be x + y = 21.3 miles.


For navigation lights 225 feet above the sea.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/66747.html


So he would have to be in very flat terrain with remarkably clear air to see anything at 25k.
 
To be fair, 25k is about 33 miles, so having a line of vision isn't impossible.
However, to be able to pinpoint a dot of light at that distance would be a feat I'd like to see anyone perform with any amount of accuracy. And for someone to see that point of light light up some trees at that distance is quite franky wishfull thinking
 
GregInAustin said:
Please elaborate by what you mean by "glowing trail of light." What kind of object (natural or man-made) can leave a trail of light in the air? Do you mean it was a trail of smoke that was lit up by the sun or local lights? Did it last for just a few moments, like a shooting star? How long did this "glow" actually last? Did this "trail" fall toward earth like a physical object?

:cool:
Click to expand...

A meteor can leave a glowing train of suspended particles for many minutes
 
Stray Cat said:
To be fair, 25k is about 33 miles, so having a line of vision isn't impossible.
However, to be able to pinpoint a dot of light at that distance would be a feat I'd like to see anyone perform with any amount of accuracy. And for someone to see that point of light light up some trees at that distance is quite franky wishfull thinking
Click to expand...


First: Your math is wrong: 25km = 15.5342798 miles. Furthermore, I'm being conservative in my estimate because you can actually see much farther than that. But my brain just starts to refuse to believe the numbers when I do the calculations for those distances ... even though I saw it with my own eyes.
Second: Remember we're talking about a brighly illuminated object. I live facing west in Calgary and have a clear line of sight to the mountains and I watch aircraft come in over them frequently ... their lights are visible for many miles.
Third: It was also much closer than 25Km when it first appeared, directly across the lake ( about 3 Km ). Here is a graphical representation that is very similar:


Orb-01a.png



Here's a map showing line of sight for the same elevation ... 30.7 miles. The object rose about 300 feet before accellerating, and it went north and gained altitude as it went, actually staying in view much further than 25Km. I just used 25Km as an arbitrary number to illustrate the point that nothing we know of can do that from a dead stop that fast.


SD1-01a.jpg



j.r.
 
Last edited:
MG1962 said:
Which is interesting because the song he said he was listening too at the time was not released till 1975
Click to expand...


You should pay more attention: I actually said, "I could even tell you the record that was playing while we were sitting there ... Led Zeppelin, Houses Of The Holy." It was released in 1973. You're thinking of the song Houses Of The Holy from physical Grafiti.

j.r..
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom