• 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.
Oh, really?

So, your claim is that I am lying about the U2 specs and mission, right?

So, back it. Show me evidence it was not an unarmed subsonic high-flying reccon plane. Show me evidence they were used as interceptors.
 
Correa Neto said:
Oh, really?

So, your claim is that I am lying about the U2 specs and mission, right?

So, back it. Show me evidence it was not an unarmed subsonic high-flying reccon plane. Show me evidence they were used as interceptors.
Click to expand...

Recon is the key word here.
And your in the service, they knew it was not a missle so why scrmble fighters, it sat in the air motionless for about an hour.
Like I said there are probably photos.
 
edge said:
Recon is the key word here.
And your in the service, they knew it was not a missle so why scrmble fighters, it sat in the air motionless for about an hour.
Like I said there are probably photos.
Click to expand...

Yes, recon is the key here. Interception is not. The U2 did take photos, so you've got that going for you.
 
edge said:
In yellow:Which you are.
It seems to me that it was available quickly.
Click to expand...

Edge, the U2 took hours to prep for flight, it was not used as an interceptor having no armaments so its not suitable for the role. Its performance is also not equal to the task, its top speed is only 500mph. It has an initial climb rate of 15000ft/min to around 25000ft and even slower after that
apart from anything else it wasn't operated by the air force, but the C.I.A and you may have heard that the C.I.A are not allowed on operational missions inside the U.S.
so you'll also need to show the act of congress which was passed to allow a U2 to be used by the air force as an interceptor on this occaison
;)
 
Last edited:
From the U2's makers:

U-2S Reconnaissance Aircraft
Length. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 ft / 19.2 m
Height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.7 ft / 5.09 m
Wingspan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 ft / 31.39 m
Maximum weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,000 lb / 18,144 kg
Cruise speed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475 mph / 764 km/hr
Payload. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,000 lb / 2,268 kg
Ceiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Above 70,000 ft / 21,336 m
Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greater than 6,000 mi / 9,600 km

It was built with a goal- soar high above Soviet Union's ground-to-air missiles while taking pictures of millitary stuff in the ground. It was basically a high-altitude (powered) glider with cameras pointed towards the ground.

If you want to check an intruder in your airspace, you'll want a fighter jet in QRA (Quick Response Alert). You'll want a fast plane, bristling with weapons which will be heading towards the intruder within minutes, not a frail, slow unarmed plane which will take hours to just get on the air.

Linkies on U2:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/u2/index.html
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/aeronautics/mediacenter/mediakits/u2/A09-27702A001U-2.zip
Additional linkies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
http://www.strategic-air-command.com/aircraft/reconnaissance/u2_spyplane.htm

Wikipedia can give you some hints on what interceptors fighters should be like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_aircraft

Again, someone must learn better how to build UFO tall tales.
 
edge said:
Recon is the key word here.
And your in the service, they knew it was not a missle so why scrmble fighters, it sat in the air motionless for about an hour.
Like I said there are probably photos.
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed the beginning of the story here and I just don't have the time to go back and find where you started this.

1. Do you have documentation to support this story or is this just one of those stories that somebody told years after the event?

2. The U-2 at very high altitudes could only operate in a very tight window. Too slow and it fell out of the sky and too fast, it was stressed and would break up. It was called the coffin corner.

3. The U-2 cameras were designed to shoot photos of the earth and not of targets in the sky. The cameras pointed downward and could not point in another direction. The RECON had to do with photographing ground targets and not aerial ones.

4. The U-2 was no intereceptor and sending it to investigate a UFO is just stupid. It was slow and would take an appreciable amount of time to get to a target at altitude. An interceptor would be what was required. The USAF had plenty of high altitude interceptors that would have gotten to this UFO and had the gun cameras to record it.

5. You don't send fighters to intercept missiles. Waste of time because missiles move far too quickly for a fighter to intercept them (unless you are talking about the old German Buzz Bombs - V-1). The only way to intercept a missile is to use another missile.
 
Last edited:
edge said:
It starts out being alien to us the moment the government sends a U2 to investigate what is picked up on their radar and that it was not a threat.
Click to expand...

Yet there is no actual evidence that ever happened.

One guy, claiming to recognise a U2 from NINE MILES AWAY, is not proof of any of the following:
1) There was a U2
2) It was investigatiing a UFO
3) The UFO was an alien.


Seriously, you keep expecting us to believe these cobbled together ideas are the truth, and proven, with out actually validating any form of evidence?
 
TjW said:
Yes, that's one of the things that makes Ufology pseudoscience. In science, understanding the process -- such as having a falsifiable null hypothesis -- is essential. Jargon can be a useful shortcut sometimes, but it's not essential.
Click to expand...



The above statement is entirely in error. Every field of study has its own nomenclature and it is essential to understand it in order to properly comprehend it. For example the word "erosion" in geology has a very specific meaning, the word "star" in astronomy has a very specific meaning, the word "articulate" has a very specific meaning in physiology. Entire dictionaries are created just for these specialized disciplines. That in no way makes them pseudoscience.

The statement by TjW ( above ) is so under considered that it is obviously nothing more than an offhanded crack ... along with the one about ufology being a pseudoscience, which it's not. That issue has already been discussed to death and the skeptics lost the debate a long time ago on it. All they are left with is the usual hand waving, mockery and proclaimations ... here it comes now ...
 
ufology said:
The above statement is entirely in error. Every field of study has its own nomenclature and it is essential to understand it in order to properly comprehend it. For example the word "erosion" in geology has a very specific meaning, the word "star" in astronomy has a very specific meaning, the word "articulate" has a very specific meaning in physiology. Entire dictionaries are created just for these specialized disciplines. That in no way makes them pseudoscience.
Click to expand...
Claiming that UFOlogy is a discipline is another reason that it is a pseudoscience.

The statement by TjW ( above ) is so under considered that it is obviously nothing more than an offhanded crack ... along with the one about ufology being a pseudoscience, which it's not. That issue has already been discussed to death and the skeptics lost the debate a long time ago on it. All they are left with is the usual hand waving, mockery and proclaimations ... here it comes now ...
Click to expand...
Yes, UFOlogy is definitely a pseudoscience. You prove it with every post you make.

Now back on topic. Has this thread taught you anything about a null hypothesis and why UFOlogy is a pseudoscience because it subscribes to the pseudoscientific and unfalsifiable null hypothesis that "Some UFOs are alien in origin"?
 
ufology said:
The above statement is entirely in error. Every field of study has its own nomenclature and it is essential to understand it in order to properly comprehend it. For example the word "erosion" in geology has a very specific meaning, the word "star" in astronomy has a very specific meaning, the word "articulate" has a very specific meaning in physiology. Entire dictionaries are created just for these specialized disciplines. That in no way makes them pseudoscience.
Click to expand...
ufology, you argued ad nauseam on the Is Ufology a Pseudoscience? thread that UFOlogy couldn't be a pseudoscience because it didn't purport to be a science in the first place. Now, you're trying to lump it in the same boat as scientific disciplines such as astronomy, physiology and geology. So, is UFOlogy a science now?

And whilst I'm on my high horse, here's a multiple choice question:

Which of these four areas of study is the odd one out?
A) Geology
B) Astronomy
C) Physiology
D) Ufology

The answer is D. You know why? Because all the others study actual, material data in the observable universe, such as stars and rocks and human cells, that are verifiable by others. These things can be observed and studied repeatedly under the same conditions. UFOlogy doesn't have that. Therefore you cannot compare it to real scientific disciplines in this way.

ufology said:
The statement by TjW ( above ) is so under considered that it is obviously nothing more than an offhanded crack ... along with the one about ufology being a pseudoscience, which it's not. That issue has already been discussed to death and the skeptics lost the debate a long time ago on it. All they are left with is the usual hand waving, mockery and proclaimations ... here it comes now ...
Click to expand...
Lost the debate? :confused: Pray, how did the skeptics lose the debate? And if it's not a science, or a pseudoscience, then what is it?
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
The above statement is entirely in error. Every field of study has its own nomenclature and it is essential to understand it in order to properly comprehend it. For example the word "erosion" in geology has a very specific meaning, the word "star" in astronomy has a very specific meaning, the word "articulate" has a very specific meaning in physiology. Entire dictionaries are created just for these specialized disciplines. That in no way makes them pseudoscience.

The statement by TjW ( above ) is so under considered that it is obviously nothing more than an offhanded crack ... along with the one about ufology being a pseudoscience, which it's not. That issue has already been discussed to death and the skeptics lost the debate a long time ago on it. All they are left with is the usual hand waving, mockery and proclaimations ... here it comes now ...
Click to expand...

No. Jargon is a shortcut. The concept behind the jargon is what is essential. It's a lot simpler to say "I stalled the wing" than it is to say: "I increased the angle of attack of the wing to the point where flow separation occurred."

That use of the word 'stall' is certainly different than its use in an automotive or equestrian context. It's jargon.

But the word 'stall' isn't essential. What's essential to understanding is the aerodynamic fact that if you increase the angle of attack of a wing, eventually there will come a point where the airflow over that wing separates from the surface of the wing.

It doesn't really matter what you call a stall -- mushing, separation, high alpha + regime. It's still the same thing, and still needs to be studied the same way, using a valid null hypothesis.

It doesn't really matter what you call a flying saucer -- UFO, alien craft, Fred. It's still the same thing, and still needs to be studied the same way, using a valid null hypothesis.

The Ufology argument seems to be "If I define this jargon word in a clever-enough way, people will have to admit that I'm right in my belief that flying saucers exist."
Justifying a pre-existing belief is pseudoscience. Science tries to show that its pre-existing belief isn't true. That's why science requires a falsifiable null hypothesis.
 
ufology said:
The above statement is entirely in error. Every field of study has its own nomenclature and it is essential to understand it in order to properly comprehend it. For example the word "erosion" in geology has a very specific meaning, the word "star" in astronomy has a very specific meaning, the word "articulate" has a very specific meaning in physiology. Entire dictionaries are created just for these specialized disciplines. That in no way makes them pseudoscience.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you would be so kind as to give one single example of a word which, when used in any of the areas of; geology, astronomy or physiology, means the opposite of what it means in general usage?
 
Because similarly, in the world of crop circles, crop circle enthusiasts have taken the words "genuine" and "fake" and turned their meaning upside down.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
The above statement is entirely in error. Every field of study has its own nomenclature and it is essential to understand it in order to properly comprehend it. For example the word "erosion" in geology has a very specific meaning, the word "star" in astronomy has a very specific meaning, the word "articulate" has a very specific meaning in physiology. Entire dictionaries are created just for these specialized disciplines. That in no way makes them pseudoscience.

The statement by TjW ( above ) is so under considered that it is obviously nothing more than an offhanded crack ... along with the one about ufology being a pseudoscience, which it's not. That issue has already been discussed to death and the skeptics lost the debate a long time ago on it. All they are left with is the usual hand waving, mockery and proclaimations ... here it comes now ...
Click to expand...

Ok, you missed the point of the statement. Claiming you are using a different vocabulary doesn't excuse bad practice. It does not let you make special pleadings that anything unkown has to be considered alien, that the null hypothosis is not required, that conclusions can be jumped to and claimed to be valid based on a lack of evidence.

UFOlogy is by it's nature a pseudoscience. It dresses itself up as "a serious field of study", but it is not. People can study it from a serious field, and serious work has been done in the fields of psychology, metreology, astronomy, physics, chemistry and more looking at UFOs. But were they done by UFOlogists? No. They were done by chemists, biologists, psychologists, etc.

That is the same as saying "Psychic Studies", or "Paranormalists" are serious disciplines. They are self important titles claimed with out qualification to suggest a field of study is respected and disciplined.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Ok, you missed the point of the statement. Claiming you are using a different vocabulary doesn't excuse bad practice. It does not let you make special pleadings that anything unkown has to be considered alien, that the null hypothosis is not required, that conclusions can be jumped to and claimed to be valid based on a lack of evidence.

UFOlogy is by it's nature a pseudoscience. It dresses itself up as "a serious field of study", but it is not. People can study it from a serious field, and serious work has been done in the fields of psychology, metreology, astronomy, physics, chemistry and more looking at UFOs. But were they done by UFOlogists? No. They were done by chemists, biologists, psychologists, etc.

That is the same as saying "Psychic Studies", or "Paranormalists" are serious disciplines. They are self important titles claimed with out qualification to suggest a field of study is respected and disciplined.
Click to expand...


Tomtomkent:

Your absolutely right ... except for the parts where you are wrong ... which is all of it.

Obviously you haven't read any of the reasoning I gave and have only been parroting nonsense. First of all, nobody has made any claim that anything unkown has to be considered alien.

As for the pseudoscience argument, The definition of pseudoscience requires the suspect practice to portray itself as a legitimate science but fail to meet accepted scientific standards. Then I made consistent statements backed by examples that ufology on the whole makes no claim to being a science unto itself and any science in ufology that is done should be done exactly as you have described, by real scientists under their areas of expertise. I also made the point that ufology is too wide a field to be classed as a science, incorporating history, mythology, art and culture. I also countered all the quotes accusing ufology of being a pseudoscience with examples, including pointing out that the Skeptic's Dictionary itself does not label ufology a pseudoscience. The fact of the matter is that ufology is neither a science nor a pseudoscience ... it is simply a topic of interest to many people.

So you've really got this all wrong and have been led to false beliefs by your pseudoskeptical friends. The question now is whether or not you are too far gone to accept the truth and are going to go into an immediate state of denial. Or are willing to be rational and logical.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Tomtomkent:

Your absolutely right ... except for the parts where you are wrong ... which is all of it.

Obviously you haven't read any of the reasoning I gave and have only been parroting nonsense. First of all, nobody has made any claim that anything unkown has to be considered alien.
Click to expand...
Oh?
edge said:
UFOs means alien to us
Click to expand...
Along with your pseudoscientific and incorrect assertion that UFO means alien.
As for the pseudoscience argument, The definition of pseudoscience requires the suspect practice to portray itself as a legitimate science but fail to meet accepted scientific standards.
Click to expand...
Which you just did. Therefore UFOlogy is a pseudoscience practiced by pseudoscientists such as ufology.

Then I made consistent statements backed by examples that ufology on the whole makes no claim to being a science unto itself and any science in ufology that is done should be done exactly as you have described, by real scientists under their areas of expertise.
Click to expand...
And you were shown to be incorrect. You are too emotionally invested in the subject to be objective. You are a pseudoscientist.

I also made the point that ufology is too wide a field to be classed as a science, incorporating history, mythology, art and culture. I also countered all the quotes accusing ufology of being a pseudoscience with examples, including pointing out that the Skeptic's Dictionary itself does not label ufology a pseudoscience.
Click to expand...
And that argument was pretty much just a goofy thing to say. UFOlogy is a pseudoscience.

The fact of the matter is that ufology is neither a science nor a pseudoscience ... it is simply a topic of interest to many people.
Click to expand...
Oh no, it is definitely a pseudoscience. You should look at MUFON's website.

So you've really got this all wrong and have been led to false beliefs by your pseudoskeptical friends. The question now is whether or not you are too far gone to accept the truth and are going to go into an immediate state of denial. Or are willing to be rational and logical.
Click to expand...
Now that you've been shown to be totally incorrect, you owe Tomtomkent an apology.

Now, back to the topic. You've fallen strangely silent on the matter of a valid and scientific null hypothesis. Did you suddenly realize that you've had the wrong end of the stick this whole time and are now too embarrassed to discuss it any longer?
 
We geologists do assign "new" meanings to words. "Bookshelf", for example and "flower" are used for a specific type of structure ("bookshelf structure" and "flower structure"). Usually people grab names from Latin or Greek. Note however the use of "structure" after the word in question.

Geology, however, is a science; it has a scientific jargon. UFOlogy, on the other hand, is a pseudoscience and has a pseudoscientific jargon where, for example, "UFO" means extraterrestrial (or from another universe, from another time, from inside the Earth, etc.) craft and "grey" a sentient extraterrestrial (or from another universe, from another time, from inside the Earth, etc.) being, an UFO's crew member.

UFOlogy is not merely the study of unidentified objects in the sky, its the "study" of a specific type of unidentified flying objects, those claimed to be non-mundane (extraterrestrial, another universe, from another time, from inside the Earth, etc.). That's why UFOlogists will always tend to assign such meanings to "UFO"; they believe they already know what UFOs are. UFOs must not be mundane to be the subject of UFOlogic studies.

Geologists, using scientific methodology, will check a number of things before saying a rock is a granite and start studying it, for example. UFOlogists will mostly need just their pseudoscientific ways and their "gut feelings" to declare something is an alien craft and start building their wild space operas with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom