UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

...especially when they don't consider the topography of the Cape Otway area and consider that geese fly to the mainland to graze on pasture - and the Cape Otway area is mountainous and rainforested. That's why the red area on the map does not extend further down the coast ...Love to see a Goose try to graze pasture on a mountain in a rainforest... LOL.

Cape Otway​

 

[Marduk]

Yes I can. I find it plausible that you never experienced such an event. There is nothing to support it. It is just your word and nothing else, and there is evidence that you do tend to "exaggerate" claims. That makes it plausible that you would make something up.

I second that, from my time observing Ramjet I have seen him lie numerous times about the evidence in other cases, I've seen him call others dishonest in an attempt to cover his own lies and I've seen him fabricate evidence

You wouldn't buy a used roller skate from this man, so buying into his personal ufo story is not even an option.

 

[Rramjet]

tIts a cape, rramjet, do you know what a cape is, it isn't a town, its a stretch of coastline.

Tell me Marduk: Do you see any red areas on the cape marking goose territory? Any red area at all would do. Even the tiniest shading of red. No? Hmmm…

 

[GeeMack]

Tell me Marduk: Do you see any red areas on the cape marking goose territory? Any red area at all would do. Even the tiniest shading of red. No? Hmmm…

Your opinion on the issue of geese being or not being a plausible mundane explanation for the story you made up isn't qualified. You don't understand bird behavior or how to interpret a range map. You can keep trying, but you've failed with this argument. You've failed it so completely that the consensus seems to be the entire incident is a work of fiction.

 

[Marduk]

Tell me Marduk: Do you see any red areas on the cape marking goose territory? Any red area at all would do. Even the tiniest shading of red. …No? Hmmm

yes, now heres the smallest possible range for these geese, this is the minimum amount of area that they would cover to get from one nesting site to another

oh look at that, right in the centre, cape otway, so you're suggesting that the geese use a secret tunnel to get around ?

are you forgetting that everyone reading this can see that you've lied about it, that you know nothing about geese, that your attempts to pretend there are no geese in cape otway are delusional ?…No? Hmmm

 

[RoboTimbo]

Tell me Marduk: Do you see any red areas on the cape marking goose territory? Any red area at all would do. Even the tiniest shading of red. No? Hmmm…

Have you been able to think of any plausible non-mundane explanations yet, Rramjet?

I think I can speak for everyone else that we would be willing to accept any that are plausible.

 

[John Albert]

A month? I have given you the precise date and time! It does not surprise me that you missed it… oh well, better luck next time. And as for “broad region"? Then that gives you more scope (more latitude) to get your satellite hypothesis up doesn’t it? I mean it works to your advantage, not the against it.

Not really, it requires more work because of the number of satellites and the math involved in calculating orbital irregularities over the intervening years. Did you not read what Astrophotographer said?

I personally wouldn't even bother, because as this thread has proven time and again, you will always argue against any mundane explanation.

If you propose an explanation that fulfils those criteria, I will accept it. Can you do so?

↑​

That's a blatant lie.​

Over the last 250-odd pages, you can be seen to vehemently reject every last mundane hypothesis offered, resorting to the flimsiest of logic and countless arguments from ignorance and incredulity. It's a rigged game you're running, so I have no desire to play.

Setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of what is "plausible" is an arrogant, dishonest, pseudoscientific means to assume a pretend authority for your own personal feelings about UFOs.

 

[Marduk]

Amazing, every person but one in this thread has publically called Ramjet a liar. Yet he still thinks he can get away with it
tut tut, I'm going to write to Bruce Macabee about this and ask him if he's ever come across any other liars in ufology on this scale

 

[Rramjet]

You people just don't seem to get it. What about the evidence?

The objects in my sighting were travelling at a great height directly south to north. Where to the north of Cape Otway are the goose habitats?

The objects in my sighting were indistinguishable in character from stars or satellites. What possible light source at midnight could make geese (or any bird) shine in such a manner?

Alternatively, if the satellite hypothesis is to be taken as plausible, then there will be a record of those satellites. None have been produced by the resident expert on the topic - and rest assured - if he could have - he would have.

Besides, how does "geese" or “satellite” even begin to plausibly explain four objects, indistinguishable in character from stars or satellites, travelling directly south to north, at a great height, all following precisely the same trajectory, with the leading two oscillating about a midpoint between them?

That's what needs to be explained. The precise topography of the area is neither here nor there. Nor for that matter does the precise location particularly matter. Nor even the precise date. You can choose practically anywhere and any date and the sighting would remain difficult to explain in mundane terms.

...and of course this semantic game you are all playing called "Lets see if we can trip Rramjet up on some minute detail - and if he does not use the precisely same language or wording in different posts on the same topic - we will all call him a liar. Hip Hip Hooray for us!" does absolutely nothing to further the debate or to rationally clarify knowledge. But of course that is the purpose of the game isn't it - to distract from ever have to directly address the evidence? And on the rare off chance that the evidence is ever mentioned - it is designed also to obfuscate that evidence isn't it? LOL.

 

[Akhenaten]

You people just don't seem to get it. What about the evidence?

<snip>

There isn't any.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You people just don't seem to get it. What about the evidence?

The objects in my sighting were travelling at a great height directly south to north. Where to the north of Cape Otway are the goose habitats?

The objects in my sighting were indistinguishable in character from stars or satellites. What possible light source at midnight could make geese (or any bird) shine in such a manner?

Alternatively, if the satellite hypothesis is to be taken as plausible, then there will be a record of those satellites. None have been produced by the resident expert on the topic - and rest assured - if he could have - he would have.

Besides, how does "geese" or “satellite” even begin to plausibly explain four objects, indistinguishable in character from stars or satellites, travelling directly south to north, at a great height, all following precisely the same trajectory, with the leading two oscillating about a midpoint between them?

That's what needs to be explained. The precise topography of the area is neither here nor there. Nor for that matter does the precise location particularly matter. Nor even the precise date. You can choose practically anywhere and any date and the sighting would remain difficult to explain in mundane terms.

...and of course this semantic game you are all playing called "Lets see if we can trip Rramjet up on some minute detail - and if he does not use the precisely same language or wording in different posts on the same topic - we will all call him a liar. Hip Hip Hooray for us!" does absolutely nothing to further the debate or to rationally clarify knowledge. But of course that is the purpose of the game isn't it - to distract from ever have to directly address the evidence? And on the rare off chance that the evidence is ever mentioned - it is designed also to obfuscate that evidence isn't it? LOL.

But can you think of any plausible non-mundane explanations?

 

[Marduk]

You people just don't seem to get it. What about the evidence?

how much faith are we supposed to place in evidence delivered by someone we all agree lies about the evidence and who has been shown to publically lie about the evidence several times.

you just dont get it, you are dishonest, no one believes anything you say
its that simple

 

[tsig]

He will say it's insignificant anyway because geese don't have lights and they don't oscillate. Thus substituting the verifiable for the anecdotal.

Geese do have lights:


http://www.theholidaylightstore.com...rations/Lighted_Goose_with_Gift_Box_p823.html


Can I get in the UFO club now?

 

[tsig]

With our increasingly better technology in radar and don't forget FLIR, more and better telescopes, and higher resolution video, we should be detecting a lot more PseudoAliens now than we did then. With our much better armament we should easily be able to drop a few of them out of the sky where we couldn't before.

What has been the percentage increase in PseudoAliens shot down and captured? Round up to the nearest percentage point, if you like.

UFO's stay just one step ahead of current technology.

 

[Akhenaten]

Besides, how does "geese" or “satellite” even begin to plausibly explain four objects, indistinguishable in character from stars or satellites, travelling directly south to north, at a great height, all following precisely the same trajectory, with the leading two oscillating about a midpoint between them?

How did you eliminate a flight of RAAF aircraft on a night navex, perhaps heading for RAAF Williams at Laverton, 147 km to the northwest?

I imagine you're also aware that the RAAF's Central Flying School (home of the Roulettes) is located a mere 270 km away at East Sale, and that the lights you describe sound almost exactly like four aircraft in echelon with just their formation lights on. How did you eliminate the Roulettes?

 

[GeeMack]

You people just don't seem to get it. What about the evidence?

There isn't any.

The objects in my sighting were travelling at a great height directly south to north. Where to the north of Cape Otway are the goose habitats?

First, you aren't qualified to offer a valid argument regarding the plausibility or implausibility of birds as an explanation for your tale.

Second, it was an alleged sighting. The most plausible mundane explanation at this point, one which has much supportive evidence, is that the whole thing was made up.

The objects in my sighting were indistinguishable in character from stars or satellites.

Then they could have been stars or satellites. But no, really, stars and satellites are distinguishable in character from each other, and not because of your own made up nonsense about stars twinkling and satellites not. That and your comment above shows that you are not qualified to venture a valid opinion on the issue of either.

What possible light source at midnight could make geese (or any bird) shine in such a manner?

Actually since you've shown clearly that several of your arguments so far have been intentional fabrications, we don't need to consider any other explanation as plausible in order to dismiss your tale. It may be wholly rejected on the grounds that it can't be accepted as true.

[* Unsupported assertions and prattling snipped. *]

...and of course this semantic game you are all playing called "Lets see if we can trip Rramjet up on some minute detail - and if he does not use the precisely same language or wording in different posts on the same topic - we will all call him a liar.

No subterfuge or game playing necessary. Pointing out the lies is actually how it's done.

Hip Hip Hooray for us!" does absolutely nothing to further the debate or to rationally clarify knowledge. But of course that is the purpose of the game isn't it - to distract from ever have to directly address the evidence?

There is no evidence that the incident ever occurred.

And on the rare off chance that the evidence is ever mentioned - it is designed also to obfuscate that evidence isn't it? LOL.

There is no evidence that the incident ever occurred and much evidence to support the notion that it didn't.

 

[corbin]

So what do you think it was?

It is possible to know that an object is non-mundane, yet not be able to positively identify it.

 

[Marduk]

It is possible to know that an object is not mundane, yet not be able to positively identify it.

no it isn't think about what you just said, you can't identify something, yet claiming it is not mundane is identifying it as something not mundane
oxymoron

 

[GeeMack]

It is possible to know that an object is not mundane, yet not be able to positively identify it.

It is not possible to know something doesn't have a mundane explanation unless it is objectively shown to have a non-mundane explanation.

 

[ufology]

With our increasingly better technology in radar and don't forget FLIR, more and better telescopes, and higher resolution video, we should be detecting a lot more PseudoAliens now than we did then. With our much better armament we should easily be able to drop a few of them out of the sky where we couldn't before.

What has been the percentage increase in PseudoAliens shot down and captured? Round up to the nearest percentage point, if you like.

The above makes the assumption that these objects aren't being picked up more often. For all we know they are being picked up more often, but civillian radar has transponder and anti-clutter technology that filters out returns traditionally associated with UFOs. Military radar doesn't do that, but civilians don't have access to the data. We only rely on alledged inside leaks. For example the source in Howard Blum's Out There revealed that Space Command has picked up UFOs approaching Earth from space.

The other assumption it makes is that UFOs can't adapt to being detected by our technology. There have been reports of craft that seem to be radar invisible and others that seem to have some sort of visual cloaking technology.

j.r.