UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Marduk]

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.

I see you've now given up any pretense at being scientific and have reverted to type, you're basically claiming that Radar isn't sufficient to pick up rain, hail, snow and the like, this is true, thats because it can interfere with returns from aircraft
but you didn't mention doppler radar which is used alongside normal radar and is specifically designed to pick up the clutter that other radar isn't
so you've taken a fact and changed it to suit your purpose, then deliberately withheld other facts which show your claim to be a lie by omission

Lying by omission

One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Also known as a continuing misrepresentation. An example is when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service.

and again, UFOs are not alien spaceships, they are by definition, UNIDENTIFIED

can we send out for some ufologists who are honest please, this is getting tedious

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. More fun than actual research and evidence, I suppose, but completely useless for anything other than some questionable entertainment.

The other assumption it makes is that UFOs can't adapt to being detected by our technology.

It beggars belief that you're willing to posit Romulan cloaking devices to defeat human detection systems at the same time as accusing other people of making assumptions.

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.

There have been reports of flying Volkswagens and luminous geese too. Can you guess what it is that puts them all into the same category?


Did you say "a complete lack of evidence"?

 

[Jocce]

You are erroneously conflating the UNKNOWN category with the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category. It was pointed out that to do so represented a completely disingenuous, misleading and false interpretation of those categories. It is perfectly clear that such a conflation is not legitimate. The two categories are mutually exclusive and independent of each other. That is:

””INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION - This identification category was assigned to a report when, upon final consideration, there was some essential item of information missing, or there was enough doubt about what data were available to disallow identification as a common object or some natural phenomenon. It is emphasized that this category of identification was not used as a convenient way to dispose of what might be called "poor unknowns", but as a category for reports that, perhaps, could have been one of several known objects or natural phenomena. No reports identified as INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION contain authenticated facts or impressions concerning the sighting that would prevent its being identified as a known object or phenomenon”(p.12)​

”UNKNOWN - This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.” (p.12) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)​

Both categories contain unidentified "objects". The assignment of a particular sighting to one or the other is quite arbitrary. If sufficient information was available, the sighting would be identified as either something mundane or something "alien". No matter if the report was bad or good, equal proportions of unidentified objects were found.

 

[Jocce]

Ah... I see. So in the UFO debunker world, evidence has a "use by" date? After which it becomes "not evidence"?

Strawman. The older the report gets, the harder it gets to find facts that validate it.

 

[Jocce]

Five generations of living in the area and an intimate knowledge of the land and its wildlife.

Obviosuly zero knowledge about birds if the whole family believes that geese can't move between breeding grounds.

 

[Jocce]

Plausible: “having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plausible).

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

Planes, helicopters, lanterns....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u2iWe074Z0

Funny how you just avoid these suggestions.

 

[Jocce]

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…

If you knew anything about birds you wuld know that geese are quite capable of flying between breeding grounds. I have also several times suggested other bird families that fits the observation better than geese. You keep ignoring those though.

 

[ufology]

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

Hey there Ramjet, I've also been through the spanish inquisition here regarding my own sighting. It ultimately came down to being told I don't deserve anything but ridicule. Great way to earn the respect of those seeking answers eh?

Personally I find your sighting rather interesting. You say the objects looked like satellites but the leading two "oscilated around a central point". The constant lighting almost rules out satellites. But if the lighting was just right, and the satellite was shaped just right, it is feasible that you may have seen some tethered satallites reflecting the sunlight followed by two other objects from the same launch. You can read a bit about space tether missions here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tether_missions

I've seen high flying aircraft at night that look like slow moving satellites, but the objects you saw would have to be cruising pretty fast to cover the distance in the time you report. These days however, I suppose that kind of speed is possible. But it would still be unusual.

I've also seen plenty of birds flying at night. They just don't light up like satellites or stars. If you were already familiar with satellites, then the difference between them and birds is more than obvious.

I couldn't say with the same certainty as my own sighting that you saw anything alien, but let me ask you if there was anything specific that makes you think they weren't of Earthly origin?

j.r.

 

[ufology]

... you've taken a fact and changed it to suit your purpose, then deliberately withheld other facts which show your claim to be a lie by omission

It would only be a lie of ommission if I knew what you were talking about. To presume that I knew what you are talking about beforehand and judge me prior to discussing the topic further is prejudicial. In fact I've never run across a reference to a separate radar display for non-transponder and clutter based returns being a standard part of every civilian air traffic control system. Perhaps you could provide a link that explains this further so that I can verify your assertions about this situation.

j.r.

 

[Access Denied]

In August 1948, Sign investigators wrote a top-secret intelligence estimate to that effect. The Air Force Chief of Staff Hoyt Vandenberg ordered it destroyed.

The existence of this suppressed report was revealed by several insiders who had read it, such as astronomer and USAF consultant J. Allen Hynek and Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt, the first head of the USAF's Project Blue Book.

Why are you still repeating Ruppelt’s fairy tale?

Again, here’s the actual so-called TOP SECRET “Estimate of the Situation”…

AIR INTELLIGENCE REPORT 100-203-79

 

[Marduk]

It would only be a lie of ommission if I knew what you were talking about. To presume that I knew what you are talking about beforehand and judge me prior to discussing the topic further is prejudicial. In fact I've never run across a reference to a separate radar display for non-transponder and clutter based returns being a standard part of every civilian air traffic control system. Perhaps you could provide a link that explains this further so that I can verify your assertions about this situation.

j.r.

right, so you're now saying that you barely know anything about how different types of radar work, when just a minute ago you were giving your unexpert opinion on the differences between military and civilian radar

pull the other one, its got bells on,

you're quite capable of googling "doppler radar" on your own aren't you, or is that beyond your abilities as well

 

[John Albert]

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.

Obviously, you have no clue as to what you're talking about with this radar nonsense.

"Anti-clutter" technology merely enables the radar system to differentiate separate discrete objects grouped together in a region of airspace that would otherwise display as a single large contact on an older system without anti-clutter capability. The anti-clutter tech accomplishes this by registering differences in airspeed and direction of travel, and painting the discrete aircraft separately. This tech was originally developed specifically for the military, and is of course standard equipment to this day. I don't know where you ever got the idea that the military doesn't have radar with anti-clutter technology, but it's ridiculous. I'm guessing you heard it from some pseudoscientific ufologist, possibly on the Internet.

How anti-clutter tech could possibly obfuscate the detection of actual physical UFOs (and not false positives caused by failures of the less-accurate older technology) makes absolutely no sense.

Transponders are a technology used to identify known civilian aircraft, obtain information such as altitude, and link the aircraft to radar contacts. There is no function of transponder tech that would "filter out" radar returns from any physical objects in the sky. If an object is picked up on radar that doesn't have a "squawk code" associated with it, it doesn't disappear off the radar; it just won't be tagged with any identification.

We only rely on alledged inside leaks.

In other words, total bull ****.

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.

There you go again with that pseudoscience stuff we were talking about. Talking out of your ass with the sci-fi gobbledygook that bears absolutely no resemblance to reality.

 

[Access Denied]

For example the source in Howard Blum's Out There revealed that Space Command has picked up UFOs approaching Earth from space.

I could tell you who his sooper secret source was but then I’d have to kill you…

[that is of course assuming when the fantasy world you’ve been living in comes crashing down all around you as a result of that “disclosure” doesn’t do the job for me]

 

[ufology]

right, so you're now saying that you barely know anything about how different types of radar work, when just a minute ago you were giving your unexpert opinion on the differences between military and civilian radar

pull the other one, its got bells on,

you're quite capable of googling doppler radar on your own aren't you, or is that beyond your abilities as well

Address the argument not the arguer. I did google doppler radar and several other pages in an attempt to figure out what you are talking about. Doppler radar is simply a type of radar system. So what?

My original statement is still perfectly accurate: Modern civilian radar uses transponder and ant-clutter techology that eliminates returns historically associated with UFOs. The transponder is part of the secondary radar system used in conjunction with the primary radar system and anti-clutter technology. Perhaps the primary rardar's anti-clutter technology can be switched off, but I doubt that's part of their routine. Maybe that's what you were trying to refer to?

j.r.

 

[ufology]

I could tell you who his sooper secret source was but then I’d have to kill you…

[that is of course assuming when the fantasy world you’ve been living in comes crashing down all around you as a result of that “disclosure” doesn’t do the job for me]

Exactly what "fantasy world" are you talking about? You seem to be claiming that you have some vision into the inner workings of my mind and Howard Blum's that gives you some special knowledge? Are you claiming some special psychic power? Maybe you should take the million dollar challenge.

j.r.

 

[corbin]

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

Think of an event that has no mundane explanation. Anything - as long as it doesn't have a mundane explanation. Suppose you are sitting in your computer chair as you are now. Suddenly, you become air borne as if floating and materialize through your wall and continue floating down the street.

We know this event has no mundane explanation, yet has no non-mundane explanation yet either.

This is not to say that a non-mundane explanation will not later be forthcoming. Many discoveries were mysteries before being understood.

You seem to be making the absurd claim that something cannot for at least a period of time be a mystery.

 

[John Albert]

My original statement is still perfectly accurate: Modern civilian radar uses transponder and ant-clutter techology that eliminates returns historically associated with UFOs.

Maybe... (and I'm just going out on a limb here) the newer radar systems "eliminate returns historically associated with UFOs" because they're more accurate and eliminate false positives caused by atmospheric conditions and the like?

Nah, of course not. It must mean the aliens have developed cloaking technology.

And newsflash: The military had anti-scatter tech long before the civilian airports and air traffic controllers had it. Pretty much all radar uses it nowadays, in one form or another.

The transponder is a secondary radar system used in conjunction with the primary radar system and anti-clutter technology.

Wrong. A transponder is not radar. It's a type of automated transceiver, something totally different.

Why do you try to come off like you know this stuff when it's so obvoius you don't have the slightest clue?

 

[Marduk]

Address the argument not the arguer. I did google doppler radar and several other pages in an attempt to figure out what you are talking about. Doppler radar is simply a type of radar system. So what?

i was adressing your arguments, that is why I referenced them,
try to learn the rules before you post, might save you some trouble later

My original statement is still perfectly accurate: Modern civilian radar uses transponder and ant-clutter techology that eliminates returns historically associated with UFOs. The transponder is a secondary radar system used in conjunction with the primary radar system and anti-clutter technology. Perhaps the primary rardar's anti-clutter technology can be switched off, but I doubt that's part of their routine. Maybe that's what you were trying to refer to?

j.r.

your original statement is ludicrously innacurate
transponders are not a radar system they are telecommunication instruments
doppler radar can pick up differences in air pressure to enable it to spot microbursts and is so sensitive that it can pick up raindrops

how comes you don't know any of this yet claim to be scientific in your approach, seems to be an object lesson in fallacious reasoning in here for you somewhere about pretending to know something when youre just clueless about it. I withdraw my earlier claim that you were lying by omission though, clearly that was beyond your ability

 

[John Albert]

Think of an event that has no mundane explanation. Anything - as long as it doesn't have a mundane explanation. Suppose you are sitting in your computer chair as you are now. Suddenly, you become air borne as if floating and materialize through your wall and continue floating down the street.

We know this event has no mundane explanation, yet has no non-mundane explanation yet either.

It's also a confabulation. It never happened; you just made it up. There's your explanation. We're talking about the reality of life on Earth here, not fantasyland.

 

[Marduk]

Think of an event that has no mundane explanation. Anything - as long as it doesn't have a mundane explanation. Suppose you are sitting in your computer chair as you are now. Suddenly, you become air borne as if floating and materialize through your wall and continue floating down the street.

We know this event has no mundane explanation, yet has no non-mundane explanation yet either.

This is not to say that a non-mundane explanation will not later be forthcoming. Many discoveries were mysteries before being understood.

straw man, inventing things that haven't happened to force home a point which otherwise is invalid