UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

I tolerate this mockery because it's got great style ... nice work Stray. I consider this a compliment of the highest order!
j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes it's true that I believe alien craft have visted the Earth

And it's because you start from that position that you end up drawing totally unsupportable conclusions.

Why do you believe in aliens? You can't claim it's where the evidence led you.

 

[ufology]

Has ufology got me on ignore?

Nope ... you're not on ignore. I'm just the only one here who's trying to give you guys something to gnaw on, so I start lagging behind when I take time out ... I'll back up and have a look at that post soon.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

And it's because you start from that position that you end up drawing totally unsupportable conclusions.

Why do you believe in aliens? You can't claim it's where the evidence led you.

The above is a misrepresentation ... I don't start off with any preconceived opinion when I'm evaluating individual reports. I start off with no preconceived opinion about the report, and I see what the information suggests as possibilities.

j.r.

 

[23_Tauri]

I tolerate this mockery because it's got great style ... nice work Stray. I consider this a compliment condiment of the highest order!
j.r.

ftfy

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes it's true that I believe alien craft have visted the Earth.

And it's because you start from that position that you end up drawing totally unsupportable conclusions.

Why do you believe in aliens? You can't claim it's where the evidence led you.

The above is a misrepresentation ... I don't start off with any preconceived opinion when I'm evaluating individual reports. I start off with no preconceived opinion about the report, and I see what the information suggests as possibilities.

j.r.

You just can't see it at all, can you?

And you forgot to answer the question:

Why do you believe in aliens?

 

[AdMan]

ftfy

 

[23_Tauri]

Nope ... you're not on ignore. I'm just the only one here who's trying to give you guys something to gnaw on, so I start lagging behind when I take time out ... I'll back up and have a look at that post soon.

j.r.

Ok.

Us skeptics, we are so demanding!

 

[RoboTimbo]

I don't start off with any preconceived opinion

j.r.

The above is a misrepresentation ...

 

[Correa Neto]

UFOlogists don't start their "UFO case investigations" with any preconceived opinions...

Other than it could have been an alien craft and they must seek evidence to back this idea.

 

[John Albert]

UFOlogists don't start their "UFO case investigations" with any preconceived opinions...

Other than it could have been an alien craft and they must seek evidence to back this idea.

Yes. This is evident in the standard UFOlogist approach that all mundane explanations must be expediently disproven or "ruled out."

 

[ufology]

Curious. How does one go about searching for evidence of alien visitation? Has UFOlogy become a quest for remnants a la archeology? Or do you mean we skeptics should all go out sky watching? I wager many of the posters here are or have been ardent night sky watchers at some point in their lives. I know of at least one. As for evidence, as RoboTimbo says, for the last umpteen pages it's been the skeptical folk who have bothered to look for evidence. Gooses, for example. Or firefly mating behaviour.

So skeptics are people who have never experienced the extraordinary. Mate, I've sunk enough ayahuasca to floor an ox, so don't going lecturing me about extraordinary experiences.

As it happens, I think you'll find that many skeptics are former woo-woos who once upon time interpreted their extraordinary experiences in paranormal terms, not people who have never seen anything out of the ordinary.

Isn't it mentally more lazy to say it's god/aliens/dark spirits/crystal energy/chi/telepathy and just be satisfied with that explanation?

Q. How does one go about searching for evidence of alien visitation?
A. Did I not say that sitting back chanting "show me the evidence" was the easy job? Or are you asking because you think I'm wrong? If I'm wrong then you tell me how to easily get the evidence. Here is one effort that I mentioned before: http://www.hessdalen.org/index_e.shtml

On the topic of DMT ( an active ingredient in ayahuasca ). You know that there is no scientific evidence that the pineal glad in humans actually produces any. As for the extraordinary experiences of hallucinogens ... Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're something you know to be true ... right?

As for believers turned skeptic. What makes you think I'm not skeptical? Just because I've seen one and enjoy studying the phenomenon doesn't mean I suddenly believe every light in the sky is an alien craft. If a skeptical non believer were to have the same or better kind of experience as I did, then the they would be deluding themselves to believe it wasn't something alien, and if they accepted the reality of what they saw, they'd be stuck in the same boat I'm in. I'm not going to deny the reality of what I know to be true just to be accepted in some social network. Lastly there are people who have been non-believers and turned believers as well. With UFOs this is understandable. It's not the same thing as other paranormal claims ( spoon bending or psychic whatever ) ... not the same at all ... not even remotely close.

j.r.

 

[Puddle Duck]

Just to clarify, I was in the USN on submarines and not a AF pilot. I believe that was Puddleduck, who offerred expertise as an F-4 pilot (although I thought he was a UK pilot and not US) in regards to the Iran UFO chase. It was an honest mistake on 23 Tauri's part. I just don't want people to get the wrong impression.

I was a USAF F-4 pilot. You probably got thrown by the fact that I was stationed at RAF Bentwaters in E. Suffolk from '70-'74, so I got around Europe a bit and had some familiarity with that area of the world. I am not a UFO expert by any means, although like any jock, I've had a few UFO ( but not "UFO" and definitely no "alien") sightings.

 

[TjW]

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Reliable-Source-Ad.jpg[/qimg]

Privately, I don't care for it much. I find it hard to swallow, and it keeps coming up again and again, even after it's been disposed of.

 

[Puddle Duck]

For Ufology:
Hessdalen is a decent example of a first approximation, so start with what they were doing and improve on it.

Would you do me a favor. When you have been talking about what various pilots have seen and done, please refer to the appropriate incident. It gets confusing when I think you are talking about USAF and you are talking about Mexican AF, and vice versa. I'm only dropping in weekly now, and have to reacquaint myself with the various topics that are interleaved on the thread.

PD

 

[ufology]

For Ufology:
Hessdalen is a decent example of a first approximation, so start with what they were doing and improve on it.

Would you do me a favor. When you have been talking about what various pilots have seen and done, please refer to the appropriate incident. It gets confusing when I think you are talking about USAF and you are talking about Mexican AF, and vice versa. I'm only dropping in weekly now, and have to reacquaint myself with the various topics that are interleaved on the thread.

PD

Often I simply use the words "Air Force" to denote military pilots in general, because they are the best of the best. They all go through rigorous training and testing before they are allowed to fly military aircraft, moreso than civilian pilots, because military pilots, especially fighter pilots are required to be able to identify many kinds of high performance foreign military aircraft, undergo additional physical examinations and testing to be able to react with split second timing and reflexes in high stress situations. Plus they are accountable to a chain of command that follows strict rules. Consequently they are less likely to make observational errors or concoct fabrications. Regardless of what Air Force they are with, they are some of the best witnesses possible.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

Ufology: You are still not really understanding that the quite unique situations that military pilots find themselves in produce some unique perception issues of their own.
And you simply can not train someone's perception to be infallible.
This doesn't mean that pilots are any worse (or any better) with fallibility issues and they do of course have many skills that are invaluable, but those skills don't eliminate all the possible perception issues, they may reduce some but most certainly introduce others.

 

[Akhenaten]

Often I simply use the words "Air Force" to denote military pilots in general . . .

<sycophancy snip>

Yes, and it's confusing so you've been asked to stop. A simple acknowledgement and an undertaking to do so would have served far better than the obsequious nonsense/attempt to elevate the status of your favourite anecdotes.

Anyway, now that you find yourself thrust untimely back into the appropriate thread you might more easily be able to clear up all the loose ends you left here.

Here's a good starting point:

One of these is not like the other…

You forgot to mention that some of the real events are actually "real and not visionary or fictitious, that there were objects in the shape of a disc, metallic in appearance, and as big as man-made aircraft. They were characterized by extreme rates of climb [and] maneuverability, general lack of noise, absence of trail, occasional formation flying, and evasive behavior when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, suggesting a controlled craft." - General Nathan Twining Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force

[missing text restored and highlighted below with underlined emphasis mine, extraneous text struck out]

You forgot to mention that some of the real events are actually "It is the opinion that: The phenomenon is something "real and not visionary or fictitious, that there were are objects probably approximating in the shape of a disc, metallic in appearance, and as big of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft. They were characterized by The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb [and] , maneuverability (particularly in roll) , general lack of noise, absence of trail, occasional formation flying, and motion which must be considered evasive behavior when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, suggesting a lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled craft either manually, automatically or remotely." - General Nathan Twining Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force

Ah yes, the infamous Twining memo that retail UFOlogists like Stanton Friedman and Timothy Good deliberately misquote in order to sell their snake oil to the unsuspecting “true believers”…

Where exactly did you get that “quote” from ufology? Citation please.

Here’s the original text…

The Twining Memo
http://www.roswellfiles.com/FOIA/twining.htm

2. It is the opinion that:

a. The phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious.
b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft.
c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.
d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and motion which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.
e. The apparent common description is as follows:-

(1) Metallic or light reflecting surface.
(2) Absence of trail, except in a few instances where the object apparently was operating under high performance conditions.
(3) Circular or elliptical in shape, flat on bottom and domed on top.
(4) Several reports of well kept formation flights varying from three to nine objects.
(5) Normally no associated sound, except in three instances a substantial rumbling roar was noted.
(6) Level flight speeds normally above 300 knots are estimated.​

Here’s how it currently appears on Wikipedia…

Unidentified flying object (§3.1.1 After 1947 sightings)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object#After_1947_sightings

[note placement of quotation marks]

A further review by the intelligence and technical divisions of the Air Materiel Command at Wright Field reached the same conclusion, that "the phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious," that there were objects in the shape of a disc, metallic in appearance, and as big as man-made aircraft. They were characterized by "extreme rates of climb [and] maneuverability," general lack of noise, absence of trail, occasional formation flying, and "evasive" behavior "when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar," suggesting a controlled craft. It was thus recommended in late September 1947 that an official Air Force investigation be set up to investigate the phenomenon. It was also recommended that other government agencies should assist in the investigation.[44]

As is stands right now it appears you’re the one who edited it before you posted it here in order to deceive others and I'm inclined to report this.

AD

 

[ufology]

Ufology: You are still not really understanding that the quite unique situations that military pilots find themselves in produce some unique perception issues of their own.
And you simply can not train someone's perception to be infallible.
This doesn't mean that pilots are any worse (or any better) with fallibility issues and they do of course have many skills that are invaluable, but those skills don't eliminate all the possible perception issues, they may reduce some but most certainly introduce others.

I wish you people would knock off the slights about me not being able to understand what you are talking about. When I posted a case where perceptual issues could not have reasonably explained the incident, it was simply dismissed as unreliable, even when it came from the head of Project Blue Book.

The other thing I just found out that causes me to take pause is that over 80 posts just got moved from Knowers/Believers vs. Skeptics, without any explanation to this thread. Most of them were about my personal experience, so now they are out of context. I had written them all from the perspective of knowing ( as in knowledge from firsthand experience ). Now they are apparently stuck here in the evidence thread someplace and it probably looks to newcomers like I'm trying to present my personal experience as evidence here, which isn't appropriate and means whoever did it has misrepresented my entire discussion in one fell swoop. Consequently, don't be surprised if you don't see me around much.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

I wish you people would knock off the slights about me not being able to understand what you are talking about.

But your responses clearly show that you are not understanding as you keep making the same claims even after it's been pointed out to you exactly why those claims are not valid.

When I posted a case where perceptual issues could not have reasonably explained the incident, it was simply dismissed as unreliable, even when it came from the head of Project Blue Book.

Indeed perceptual issues could not reasonably explain the incident as reported by Rupplet.
Because Ruppelt didn't even see the incident. So what has to be considered is that Ruppelt was shown a report many years earlier and all we ever got was his memory of looking at a report about an anonymous pilots odd experience. So how do you prove that;
1). The pilot's perception was infallible
2). The report he gave was accurate
3). Ruppelt's memory was infallible
4). Ruppelt's third hand account of something he saw years earier was accurate

The other thing I just found out that causes me to take pause is that over 80 posts just got moved from Knowers/Believers vs. Skeptics, without any explanation to this thread. Most of them were about my personal experience, so now they are out of context. I had written them all from the perspective of knowing ( as in knowledge from firsthand experience ). Now they are apparently stuck here in the evidence thread someplace and it probably looks to newcomers like I'm trying to present my personal experience as evidence here, which isn't appropriate and means whoever did it has misrepresented my entire discussion in one fell swoop. Consequently, don't be surprised if you don't see me around much.

The Mods have a hard enough time trying to keep the forum in some sort of order. If you feel that posts have been incorrectly moved, you can use the 'forum management' sub forum to publicly raise a question or maybe PM the moderator who moved the post to explain why you think the posts should be moved back.
The mods aren't dictators, they are fallible human beings., however criticising their actions 'in thread' without raising the issue in a more official capacity is not good form.