UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Cuddles]

Yet more posts have been removed to AAH. Final warning. Any further posts that require action will result in suspension or banning.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[AdMan]

Hi there,

I've been studying the Ufo/Alien case for over thirty years now. I came across this thread which is uhh.. interesting to say the least. Upon noticing the inevitable questions and discussions here may I post my thoughts/conclusions on this subject?

<snip>

Rods and orbs? Seriously?

These have been debunked ages ago. They are just photographic effects created in the camera from perfectly normal, natural phenomena, not "skyfishes".

 

[Spektator]

(snip)
I really would like to know what other "UFOlogists" like ufology think of this space criters space opera. Is is just fantasy? Is is pseudoscience? (snip)

I'm no UFOlogist, nor do I play one on TV, but I suspect it all goes back to a fantasy story by Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Horror of the Heights," which posits great carnivorous high-altitude air jellyfish, invisible from the ground level, as deadly denizens of the atmosphere near space.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hi there,

I've been studying the Ufo/Alien case for over thirty years now. I came across this thread which is uhh.. interesting to say the least. Upon noticing the inevitable questions and discussions here may I post my thoughts/conclusions on this subject?

1. I would be greatly disappointed if UFO's turn out to be real aliens visiting our planet

That's not much of an emotion to express at the greatest discovery in history, if it were to ever occur.

2. There is a vast, yet unseen 'scala' of 'things' that fly around at high to very high speeds which make them almost impossible to notice, let alone to photograph

That must be why we don't know about them.

3. In the upper atmosphere, aking to space live amoeba-like lifeforms which can be detected in the infrared spectrum

Amoeba are pretty small. What magnification do you have your FLIR set to?

4. Space is not the lifeless continuum we have been told. In the immediate area around Earth, say 20.000 - 200.000 km, life can be seen like fish, plankton, protozoa.

They must swim in the water that exists between 20,000 and 200,000 km high?

Ad1:
Is the last 50-60 years gazillions of ufo's have been spotted, noticed, photographed and filmed. Close encounters of every kind you can think of. Visitors of Mars, Venus, Jupiter, grays from Zeta Reticuli, you name it. Spacecraft like dishes, saucers, cubes, spheres, cigars, blimps, triangles, piramids. Blinking red, green, orange, blue. Shapeshifting, becoming invisible, translucent. Small, big, enormous.

Does it give you pause at all to realize that they come in every variety that has been imagined?

The problem is that until now, not a single piece of really convincing evidence in form of clear and unmistaking pictures or footage has been shot. Why is that? Why do these visitors come up with often ridiculous 'messages' for mankind. In code, morse, steno, binary code. Why do they vanish after giving these messages, or after exposing themselves, leaving the witness in a state of confusion. This witness often questions himself... He can't tell the story becauae nobody would believe him/her. A blue cube with translucent people? Hahaha, how much did you drink?

Do you have a single piece of really convincing evidence, not in the form of clear or unmistaking picures or footage? That's what this thread has been sadly lacking in.

I am certain that the majority of these wittnesses tell the truth. What is the matter here? In my opinion, and that of certain UFO investigators, these UFO's do not come out of space. They are no visitors from other planets. They do not have messages for mankind. It is an intelligence that comes form our own planet. It has unlimited powers and it plays a nasty game. It is deliberate 'strange' in its exposures, taking a different disguise everytime. You can trace it, but you will never find the answer. The more we investigate, the more questions will arise. It is like something that keeps itself in the dark, just outside the range of your flashlight.

Can you give an example of a UFO that has been proven to be non-mundane?

Ad2:
With digital cameras sensitive to the infrared and with high shutterspeeds we can see much more than with conventional cameras. The sky is filled with fast flying things that are very difficult to classify. Sometimes they are invisible, that is, only visible to the infrared. What are they? I have tried to classify these things. On my website http:www.luchtvissen.nl you wille find many pictures of these 'skyfishes' as we call them. I think that they are some kind of animal but with other capabilities. Under chapter 'Etheria' you will find a classification of these things. Yes, we think Wilhelm Reich was right.

They've already been classified: rods and orbs. We call them "bugs" and "dust".

Ad3:
Many leaked Nasa footage show these big dishes (thether experiment) that show somehow intelligence. They are no alien ships. They are no spacecrafts. It is a kind of biological species, akin to amoeba or bacteria, perhaps with the same intelligence. In the fifties, these critters have been photographed by Trevor James Constable. They show up in infrared and can be aeen in the aforementioned Nasa videos.

"Bugs" and "dust" are not similar to amoeba or bacteria.

Ad4:
Many astronauts noticed strange 'fireflies' that swarm in space. Things that flash, show some intelligence like fish show curiosity for the diver. These things can be seen in many Nasa videos. They 'swim' through space, sometimes even very slowly and sometimes they can be noticed comng out of a stage of translucency. They do not come from other planets. They do not come from outer space.

What is the source of your information?

We have to alter our cosmic view. Life is something that does not only exist on plantes, but can exist in the black void.

My first point (1) is difficult. Difficult to understand, difficult to classify. I do not know what they are, but I'm certain that a very keen game is in play here.

Do you think it might be a mind game?

Points 2 - 4 can be easily proven by Nasa. Why do they act like imbeciles? We know, as we have seen in the vids, that there is something the matter out there. These things exist. Get over it and tell the public.

Sander

I'm sure they have the same question for people who believe silly things.

 

[TjW]

I'm no UFOlogist, nor do I play one on TV, but I suspect it all goes back to a fantasy story by Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Horror of the Heights," which posits great carnivorous high-altitude air jellyfish, invisible from the ground level, as deadly denizens of the atmosphere near space.

There's also an early story by Robert Heinlein, Goldfish Bowl, that posits intelligent life in the upper atmosphere.

Hmmm... Maybe HAARP is a defensive weapon, and not a tool of world domination after all. This could easily explain the world not yet being dominated.

 

[Resume]

We were talking about memory so I stuck with that one point. But I can just as easily show his misrepresentation on other points as well, for example the way he frames the issue of UFOs in a manner that is entirely out of context with the official definition that I posted earlier and was simply hand waved by another poster.

j.r.

What's the proper context?

Asked again.

 

[ufology]

Most of the "UFO" stories posted in this thread aren't about "objects" at all though, so maybe you shouldn't be lecturing me about definitions, eh? Oh, and "of alien origin?" 11,000 posts and still no evidence of that.

Note that I didn't say extraterrestrial origin. They are alien to our civilization ... as in no known manmade or natural phenomena has been able to adequately explain all of them, particularly early era cases like the first one in Ruppelt's book that is always written off by the skeptics as some sort of fabrication. It is still possible that these alien craft are from some undisclosed terrestrial base. But nobody has been able to find it.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Note that I didn't say extraterrestrial origin. They are alien to our civilization ...

Evidence? There hasn't been any in this thread. That's why the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

has never been falsified. Only pseudoscientists subscribe to the pseudoscientific one of "Some UFO sightings are of alien origin". Wouldn't you agree?

as in no known manmade or natural phenomena has been able to adequately explain all of them

That's because they're unknown, as in UFO.

particularly early era cases like the first one in Ruppelt's book that is always written off by the skeptics as some sort of fabrication. It is still possible that these alien craft are from some undisclosed terrestrial base. But nobody has been able to find it.

j.r.

Evidence? I mean real evidence, not unfalsifiable stories?

 

[ufology]

Evidence? There hasn't been any in this thread. That's why the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"
​

has never been falsified. Only pseudoscientists subscribe to the pseudoscientific one of "Some UFO sightings are of alien origin". Wouldn't you agree?


That's because they're unknown, as in UFO.


Evidence? I mean real evidence, not unfalsifiable stories?

The thing you're missing Robo is that they aren't simply unidentified in the common context of the word. "Unidentified" in the context of UFOs has a very specific meaning, as has been discussed in previous posts that reference the official USAF definition AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958, and other Air Force discussions of the subject that show we are dealing with craft that have appeared to be metallic and posess performance characteristics beyond any known manmade or natural phenomena. Things like birds, aircraft, balloons, and hoaxes, misperceptions, and sightings without enough information to make a judgement call are ruled out. All we are left with is an "unidentified" craft ... which within this context is by its very nature alien to our civilization.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Evidence?

The thing you're missing Robo is that they aren't simply unidentified in the common context of the word. "Unidentified" in the context of UFOs has a very specific meaning, as has been discussed in previous posts that reference the official USAF definition AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958, and other Air Force discussions of the subject that show we are dealing with craft that have appeared to be metallic and posess performance characteristics beyond any known manmade or natural phenomena. Things like birds, aircraft, balloons, and hoaxes, misperceptions, and sightings without enough information to make a judgement call are ruled out. All we are left with is an "unidentified" craft ... which within this context is by its very nature alien to our civilization.

j.r.

"No" would have been quicker to type. The thing you're missing, ufology, is evidence, so the easily falsifiable null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

has never been falsified.

 

[John Albert]

But RoboTimbo, you don't understand!

The word "unidentified" means something unique in the study of UFOlogy, a definition totally different from what it means in any other context or any dictionary of the English language.

That redefinition comes from an official USAF document, so for that reason alone it somehow constitutes sufficient evidence in itself that UFOs are metallic craft that exhibit performance characteristics and whatnot so they're not of human manufacture, and that therefore negates the need for any other evidence to falsify the null hypothesis.

Or something like that.

How about it, ufology? Is that a pretty close approximation of your argument?

 

[ufology]

"No" would have been quicker to type. The thing you're missing, ufology, is evidence, so the easily falsifiable null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"
​

has never been falsified.

We've already been through this. There's plenty of evidence, just not the kind you'll accept.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

But RoboTimbo, you don't understand!

The word "unidentified" means something unique in the study of UFOlogy, a definition totally different from what it means in any other context or in any dictionary of the English language.

That redefinition comes from some official USAF document, so it somehow constitutes sufficient evidence in itself that UFOs are metallic craft not of human manufacture, and therefore negates the need for any other evidence to falsify the null hypothesis.

Or something like that.

How about it, ufology? Is that a pretty close approximation of your argument?

I'm ok with his redefinition. Now we just need actual evidence of UFOs that meet that definition.

Why do the pseudosciences spend so much time redefining words?

 

[ufology]

But RoboTimbo, you don't understand!

The word "unidentified" means something unique in the study of UFOlogy, a definition totally different from what it means in any other context or in any dictionary of the English language.

That redefinition comes from an official USAF document, so for that reason alone it somehow constitutes sufficient evidence in itself that UFOs are metallic craft not of human manufacture, and therefore negates the need for any other evidence to falsify the null hypothesis.

Or something like that.

How about it, ufology? Is that a pretty close approximation of your argument?

In the term UFO, the word "unidentified" has not been redefined by the USAF, but placed into a specific context. To say that it has been redefined, or to fail to use it within the proper context is to misrepresent the term.

 

[RoboTimbo]

We've already been through this. There's plenty of evidence, just not the kind you'll accept.

j.r.

We have already been through this. There is no evidence other than the kind believers accept. What evidence have you (or anyone) presented that unambiguously says aliens?

 

[ufology]

I'm ok with his redefinition. Now we just need actual evidence of UFOs that meet that definition. Why do the pseudosciences spend so much time redefining words?

I don't know why pseudosciences spend so much time redefining words ... maybe ask them. As for "actual evidence" there is plenty of it, just none that from past experience here, you'll accept.

 

[AdMan]

But RoboTimbo, you don't understand!

The word "unidentified" means something unique in the study of UFOlogy, a definition totally different from what it means in any other context or any dictionary of the English language.

That redefinition comes from an official USAF document, so for that reason alone it somehow constitutes sufficient evidence in itself that UFOs are metallic craft that exhibit performance characteristics and whatnot so they're not of human manufacture, and that therefore negates the need for any other evidence to falsify the null hypothesis.

Or something like that.

How about it, ufology? Is that a pretty close approximation of your argument?

It's interesting how key parts of ufology's arguments depend on the ways he chooses to redefine various terms.

 

[ufology]

It's interesting how key parts of ufology's arguments depend on the ways he chooses to redefine various terms.

Aren't all key parts of any argument based on the definitions one accepts as being relevant? Furthermore, the assertion that I redefined the term UFO as set out in AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958 would mean I would had to have done it before I was born. The same for other documents that outline what UFOs were during the first official investigations.

It should also be noted that although the USAF didn't use the specific phrase, "null hypothesis" ( that I'm aware of ), it did use a process similar in that investigators ruled out as many mundane objects as possible before arriving at their conclusion for any particular case.

 

[Audible Click]

Hi there,

I've been studying the Ufo/Alien case for over thirty years now. I came across this thread which is uhh.. interesting to say the least. Upon noticing the inevitable questions and discussions here may I post my thoughts/conclusions on this subject?

1. I would be greatly disappointed if UFO's turn out to be real aliens visiting our planet

2. There is a vast, yet unseen 'scala' of 'things' that fly around at high to very high speeds which make them almost impossible to notice, let alone to photograph

3. In the upper atmosphere, aking to space live amoeba-like lifeforms which can be detected in the infrared spectrum

4. Space is not the lifeless continuum we have been told. In the immediate area around Earth, say 20.000 - 200.000 km, life can be seen like fish, plankton, protozoa.

Ad1:
Is the last 50-60 years gazillions of ufo's have been spotted, noticed, photographed and filmed. Close encounters of every kind you can think of. Visitors of Mars, Venus, Jupiter, grays from Zeta Reticuli, you name it. Spacecraft like dishes, saucers, cubes, spheres, cigars, blimps, triangles, piramids. Blinking red, green, orange, blue. Shapeshifting, becoming invisible, translucent. Small, big, enormous.

The problem is that until now, not a single piece of really convincing evidence in form of clear and unmistaking pictures or footage has been shot. Why is that? Why do these visitors come up with often ridiculous 'messages' for mankind. In code, morse, steno, binary code. Why do they vanish after giving these messages, or after exposing themselves, leaving the witness in a state of confusion. This witness often questions himself... He can't tell the story becauae nobody would believe him/her. A blue cube with translucent people? Hahaha, how much did you drink?

I am certain that the majority of these wittnesses tell the truth. What is the matter here? In my opinion, and that of certain UFO investigators, these UFO's do not come out of space. They are no visitors from other planets. They do not have messages for mankind. It is an intelligence that comes form our own planet. It has unlimited powers and it plays a nasty game. It is deliberate 'strange' in its exposures, taking a different disguise everytime. You can trace it, but you will never find the answer. The more we investigate, the more questions will arise. It is like something that keeps itself in the dark, just outside the range of your flashlight.

Ad2:
With digital cameras sensitive to the infrared and with high shutterspeeds we can see much more than with conventional cameras. The sky is filled with fast flying things that are very difficult to classify. Sometimes they are invisible, that is, only visible to the infrared. What are they? I have tried to classify these things. On my website http:www.luchtvissen.nl you wille find many pictures of these 'skyfishes' as we call them. I think that they are some kind of animal but with other capabilities. Under chapter 'Etheria' you will find a classification of these things. Yes, we think Wilhelm Reich was right.

Ad3:
Many leaked Nasa footage show these big dishes (thether experiment) that show somehow intelligence. They are no alien ships. They are no spacecrafts. It is a kind of biological species, akin to amoeba or bacteria, perhaps with the same intelligence. In the fifties, these critters have been photographed by Trevor James Constable. They show up in infrared and can be aeen in the aforementioned Nasa videos.

Ad4:
Many astronauts noticed strange 'fireflies' that swarm in space. Things that flash, show some intelligence like fish show curiosity for the diver. These things can be seen in many Nasa videos. They 'swim' through space, sometimes even very slowly and sometimes they can be noticed comng out of a stage of translucency. They do not come from other planets. They do not come from outer space.

We have to alter our cosmic view. Life is something that does not only exist on plantes, but can exist in the black void.

My first point (1) is difficult. Difficult to understand, difficult to classify. I do not know what they are, but I'm certain that a very keen game is in play here.

Points 2 - 4 can be easily proven by Nasa. Why do they act like imbeciles? We know, as we have seen in the vids, that there is something the matter out there. These things exist. Get over it and tell the public.

Sander

Ufology, do you have an opinion on Snadert's beliefs? I'm genuinely curious how you view this "offshoot" of mainstream UFO (the alien type) thinking.

 

[Akhenaten]

Note that I didn't say extraterrestrial origin. They are alien to our civilization ... as in no known manmade or natural phenomena has been able to adequately explain all of them, particularly early era cases like the first one in Ruppelt's book that is always written off by the skeptics as some sort of fabrication.

Maybe that's why we refer to them as 'unidentified'.

It is still possible that these alien craft are from some undisclosed terrestrial base. But nobody has been able to find it.

Nobody has been able to find the terrestrial base of the TMNT either. For exactly the same reason they can't find your flying saucer bases.