• 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.
ufology said:
Excuse me ... you're right ... I could be wrong ... are there any USAF Chiefs of Staff in the forum? How about just a General? A USAF pilot?

j.r.
Click to expand...


Yes, as a matter of fact. If you'd bothered to read the thread you'd be aware that one of them was posting in it until frustration with Rramjet's denial of the bleedin' obvious convinced him that there were far better ways to spend one's online time.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Nobody's opinion trumps the null hypothesis. Why would you think it did?
Click to expand...


Well that's your opinion ... and I thought you might be more careful with those absolutes, like using the word "nobody" because you see, the truth trumps everything, and some people's opinions could be true, and so far as I'm concerned Twining wouldn't have said what he did if it wasn't true, and all your "null hypotheses" aren't going to change that.

j.r.
 
ufology said:
Well that's your opinion ...
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. You haven't learned anything, have you?

and I thought you might be more careful with those absolutes, like using the word "nobody" because you see, the truth trumps everything, and some people's opinions could be true, and so far as I'm concerned Twining wouldn't have said what he did if it wasn't true, and all your "null hypotheses" aren't going to change that.

j.r.
Click to expand...

You want his opinion to be true. That's your credulous filters leading you astray. If what he said was "true", he wouldn't have stated that it was "opinion".

Nobody's opinion trumps the null hypothesis. Do you still not understand?

Also, if you could highlight in the Twining memo (the real one, not your edited version) where he said that there were confirmed ET spaceships, that would be super.
 
This is a more proper thread to be discussing things like the Twining memo ( The USAF General and Cheif of Staff ), who held the opinion that some UFOs are real structured craft.

Here's another one. Air Marshal Sir George Jones KBE, CB, DFC (18 October 1896 – 24 August 1992) was a senior commander in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Jones was also interested in unidentified flying objects, having first encountered unexplained aerial phenomena at Warrnambool, Victoria, in 1930. He reported witnessing another UFO in October 1957.

So there are two senior Air Force commanders for the record here.
 
ufology said:
Well that's your opinion ... and I thought you might be more careful with those absolutes, like using the word "nobody" because you see, the truth trumps everything, and some people's opinions could be true, and so far as I'm concerned Twining wouldn't have said what he did if it wasn't true, and all your "null hypotheses" aren't going to change that.

j.r.
Click to expand...


My opinion is that the above post is petulant gibberish, and that's a fact.
 
ufology said:
This is a more proper thread to be discussing things like the Twining memo ( The USAF General and Cheif of Staff ), who held the opinion that some UFOs are real structured craft.

Here's another one. Air Marshal Sir George Jones KBE, CB, DFC (18 October 1896 – 24 August 1992) was a senior commander in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Jones was also interested in unidentified flying objects, having first encountered unexplained aerial phenomena at Warrnambool, Victoria, in 1930. He reported witnessing another UFO in October 1957.

So there are two senior Air Force commanders for the record here.
Click to expand...

And? Why is this not in the UFO Lack of Evidence thread?
 
ufology said:
This is a more proper thread to be discussing things like the Twining memo ( The USAF General and Cheif of Staff ), who held the opinion that some UFOs are real structured craft.

Here's another one. Air Marshal Sir George Jones KBE, CB, DFC (18 October 1896 – 24 August 1992) was a senior commander in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Jones was also interested in unidentified flying objects, having first encountered unexplained aerial phenomena at Warrnambool, Victoria, in 1930. He reported witnessing another UFO in October 1957.

So there are two senior Air Force commanders for the record here.
Click to expand...

This is strange, such autorities on stuff flying have failed to produce any evidence, and still you attempt to come up with something?
 
EHocking said:
Or a "Lessons in Appealing to Authority" thread?
Click to expand...


This is just the "Knowers vs Believers" thread. So we're all entitled to our opinions here. That's why I took it out of the research and evidence thread. And in this case appealing to authority actually has weight. These are people who don't fabricate stories.

j.r.
 
ufology said:

Nice to see all the attention on the Twining Memo. As General and Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, I think his opinion pretty much trumps everyone else's here regarding the reality of UFOs as structured craft.

j.r.
Click to expand...

Well, you have your facts wrong again because Twining was not chief of staff when he wrote the memo. Secondly, Twining was offering an opinion based on reports. It was not a statement of fact as you seem to be thinking here. That is all it was and it was based on a lot of sketchy information. AMC wrote the memo because it was felt this needed further research and they suspected the source was soviet using German designs (i.e. like the Horton flying wing). If you actually read all the project SIGN documentation, you would see that this is exactly where they headed and this ended with the 1948 Top Secret Air study 203 which you can find at:

http://www.iufog.org/project1947/fig/1948air.htm

It is important to note that this TOP SECRET study states the following after evaluating all the information:

The origin of the devices is not ascertainable. There are two reasonable possibilities:

1. The objects are domestic devices, and if so, their identification or origin can be established by a survey of the launchings of airborne devices. Domestic flying wing type aircraft observed in various aspects of flight might be responsible for some of the reported flying objects, particularly those described as disks and rough cigar shapes. (See Appendices "C" and "D".) Among those which have been operational in recent years are the XF5U-1 ("Flying Flapjack") developed by Chance-Vaught, the Northrup B-35, and the turbo-jet powered Northrup YB-49. The present existence of any privately developed flying-wing type aircraft has not been determined but one such aircraft, the Arup tailless monoplane, was operational at South Bend, Indiana, prior to 1935.
2. Objects are foreign, and if so, it would seem most logical to consider that they are from a Soviet source.information on a number The Soviets possess of German flying-wing type aircraft such as the Gotha P60A, Junkers EF 130 long-range, high-speed jet bomber and the Horten 229 twin-jet fighter, which particularly resembles some of the description of unidentified flying objects (See Appendix "D"). As early as 1924 Tscheranowsky developed a "Parabola" aircraft, an all wing design, which was the outcome of considerable Soviet experimentation with gliders of the same general form. Soviet aircraft based on such designs might have speeds approaching trans-sonic speeds attributed to some flying objects or greater over-all performance assuming the successful development of some unusual propulsion device such as atomic energy engine.

I see no mention of alien spaceships here. They were assuming these were craft and the lack of any mention of an ET source in this TOP SECRET document indicates they were clueless as what to do.

This belief that they were craft of some kind waned as it became apparent that many of the sightings were simply misidentified objects. Therefore, there was a shift in the approach by the time the final report for SIGN was written it was not even clear if any real craft (other than those misperceived) were even seen:

No definite evidence is yet available to confirm or disprove the actual existence of unidentified flying objects as new and unknown types of aircraft.
http://www.nicap.org/docs/SignRptFeb1949.pdf

The bottom line here is you are taking Gen. Twinings words out of context and trying to fit it into your own belief system.
 
ufology said:
This is just the "Knowers vs Believers" thread. So we're all entitled to our opinions here. That's why I took it out of the research and evidence thread. And in this case appealing to authority actually has weight. These are people who don't fabricate stories.

j.r.
Click to expand...

Stawman
 
ufology said:
Well that's your opinion ... and I thought you might be more careful with those absolutes, like using the word "nobody" because you see, the truth trumps everything, and some people's opinions could be true, and so far as I'm concerned Twining wouldn't have said what he did if it wasn't true, and all your "null hypotheses" aren't going to change that.
Click to expand...

Take the rose colored glasses off and read what he is actually stating here. You are taking his statements completely out of context. It is cherry picking.
 
ufology said:
This is just the "Knowers vs Believers" thread. So we're all entitled to our opinions here. That's why I took it out of the research and evidence thread. And in this case appealing to authority actually has weight. These are people who don't fabricate stories.

j.r.
Click to expand...



Isis wept, can you at least attempt to get the thread title right? It's, like, at the top of the page.

This is getting really embarrassing.
 
If there is a discrepancy between reality and ufology's memory, it must be that reality is in error. He has assured us that his memory is infallible.
 
Toke said:
This is strange, such autorities on stuff flying have failed to produce any evidence, and still you attempt to come up with something?
Click to expand...


Ufologists have different, evidence-free methods for arriving at their conclusions.

Just like homeopaths, astrologers and other pseudoscientists.


I've missed you, buddy. Hope all is well.
 
ufology said:
Well that's your opinion ... and I thought you might be more careful with those absolutes, like using the word "nobody" because you see, the truth trumps everything, and some people's opinions could be true, and so far as I'm concerned Twining wouldn't have said what he did if it wasn't true, and all your "null hypotheses" aren't going to change that.
Click to expand...


What definition of "truth" are we using here?

You seem to be confused about the difference between opinions and proven facts.

Relying on personal authority over objective evidence is a defining factor of pseudoscience.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom