UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[23_Tauri]

No, you are incorrect. That you don't comprehend the analogy is merely due to your credulous bias so you see everything through your alien filters.

Goddamit RoboTimbo I think you've cracked it! The problem is that ufology is wearing Alien Goggles^TM!

 

[GeeMack]

Goddamit RoboTimbo I think you've cracked it! The problem is that ufology is wearing Alien Goggles^TM!

 

[RoboTimbo]

 

[edge]

I agree that when we speak of UFOs themselves we are making reference to alien craft, or as you say to a conveyances. Other designations such as UAP ( Unidentified Aerial Phenomena ) deal with more ambiguous phenomena. During the modern era in ufology scientists and investigators have been trying to figure out exactly how UFOs work and where they come from. Any real progress in those areas we are not privy to. Such evidence may or may not exist, and that leaves us only to speculate. Speculation is acceptable as a part of research in general, but it shouldn't be confused with proof or science, or the skeptics here will eat you for dinner. All we can reasonably say is that these are our opinions based on speculation. An exception for you would be whatever you directly observed based on your firsthand experience.

ASIDE: May I ask you specifically to list what points in your observation make you believe that what you saw was not a manmade or natural object or phenomenon?

Lastly, We can use logic to distill out alternate dimensions, time travel and deities. However we can't say with any certainty which of the remaining is accurate. Therefore I simply use the term alien, as in alien to human civilization. This may include terrestrial technology of undisclosed origin, possibly made by humans who are not part of or connected with any aspect of human civilization as we know it.

I agree with what you say.
To answer the question in yellow below.
The one sighting in Cali, the 2nd one, even the animals were scared .
In my mind that first sighting on that road I had before that one, while viewing it I went through every possible explanation and none of them fit.
Not only that but I was hearing it's propulsion system start up and it was electrical in nature.
Before that it was silent.
The personal that opened the door on top of the huge square object that came out of it, couldn't have been kids because of their size, but they were that size.

I witnessed a docking procedure of two different objects one a glowing reddish orb and one a massive square object that had approximately 4 to 5 thousand square feet.
Plus the fact they never touch each other with space between them.
They were locked together perfectly no variance or deviations in they’re flight together.
That right there told me something, because that never happens especially when you start from 0 to whatever speed.
The last glimpse I had it was moving very fast with in 4000 yards as it crused to my left and away from me, it must have hit 3oo mph before I could no longer observe it.
The square object reflected no light and was in a sense cloaked or slightly stealth like.

I was close enough to see that it wasn't a lighter than air vehicle and the reddish one moved around the valley like a helicopter and that was what I thought it might have been.
Till I seen it up close.
Also when I signaled them with a light they signaled back.
The square object had triangular lights on the front and backside of it, I could only tell which was the leading edge when it left docked together with each other at which point those went out, they were only on when it was hovering.

I have been trained to be an observer in the military spotting targets, planes, tanks, distance and size for accuracy in killing the enemy.
I was able to shoot with deadly accuracy or call in a hit.
I believe one time while in the service I had seen an object that may be ours or something they were testing, the reason is I seen the pilot but even that didn't compare to those two sightings, although it moved around silently too and hovered in one place silently.
Some of Nasa’s videos show these objects just all of a sudden poof into existence, I got to wonder about that.
I had one other instance in Florida where I seen an object with our military and that one was a disk and with multiple witnesses and we all picked it out of a book that the owner of the house we were at, it was his son that had it in his possession from the library.
There was a photo of a disk taken in Venezuela 20 to 30 years before.
Don’t know if it the same one but it was very similar.
With all that said it is interesting that the hair on the back of my neck was standing up when I witness those two events on that mountain road in California.
From what the locals told me about that area it would be a good place to get some footage.
Others that I have spoken to up there have their own stories to tell.
That area and Shasta are hot spots and very, very remote what better place for them to come and see, examine.
From what I have seen there, I believe them.

 

[23_Tauri]

I agree that when we speak of UFOs themselves we are making reference to alien craft, or as you say to a conveyances. Other designations such as UAP ( Unidentified Aerial Phenomena ) deal with more ambiguous phenomena. During the modern era in ufology scientists and investigators have been trying to figure out exactly how UFOs work and where they come from. Any real progress in those areas we are not privy to.

Whoah there dude! Did I miss something? Are you telling us now that not only are UFOs alien spaceships but that "ufology scientists and investigators" (whoever they are ) are taking them apart in secret hangers and trying to find out which bit's the carburettor?

Such evidence may or may not exist, and that leaves us only to speculate.

Is is National Speculate Day? Because if is it, I'm speculating on unicorns. It's the horn, see.

Speculation is acceptable as a part of research in general, but it shouldn't be confused with proof or science, or the skeptics here will eat you for dinner.

Yes, if your speculation is based upon something we know to exist. We can speculate on what happens at the event horizon of a black hole, for example, because physicists have worked out that it exists. But alien spaceships? That is like speculating on anything for which there is no evidence of their existence. Like unicorns.

 

[edge]

From the Farside site.
Anybody got a link?

 

[ufology]

You can't perceive distance of the light in the night sky, genius. 3 km could have been 30m or 3m.

Carlitos:

I could easily perceive the distance just by watching it. It wasn't always outlined only against the sky. As mentioned before:

• Before the object became visible, it lit up the sky in the background which rapidly grew brighter revealing the dark sillhouette of the mountain in the foreground. This indicates the object came up from behind the mountain. In other words, you could see the glow behind the mountian getting brighter before the object became fully visible.

• When the object became visible and moved over the top of the mountain it lit up the top of the mountain.

• When the object moved down the mountain in the big arcs, each time it neared the treetops, you could see the treetops outlined against the side of the mountain.

• When the object landed in the forest it slowly descended into the trees and you could see the outline of the treetops as it approached them.

• When the object went behind the tress, you could see the light filtering out from behind them as it went down behind them.

• Because the mountain and the trees the object landed behind were clearly on the other side of the lake, we know with absolute certainty that the object had to be at least on the other side of the lake.

• Furthermore, because the the trees the object went down behind were at a higher elevation than the highway on the other side of the lake, the object must have landed on the east side of the highway, which establishes the distance even more precisely.

Lastly, I take it that your "genius" comment was meant as sarcasm. Your comments could do with less of that. It only comes back to reflect badly on yourself and the forum.

 

[edge]

Whoah there dude! Did I miss something? Are you telling us now that not only are UFOs alien spaceships but that "ufology scientists and investigators" (whoever they are ) are taking them apart in secret hangers and trying to find out which bit's the carburettor?


Is is National Speculate Day? Because if is it, I'm speculating on unicorns. It's the horn, see.


Yes, if your speculation is based upon something we know to exist. We can speculate on what happens at the event horizon of a black hole, for example, because physicists have worked out that it exists. But alien spaceships? That is like speculating on anything for which there is no evidence of their existence. Like unicorns.

Have you ever seen one, in yellow?
Do you believe that the universe as the bible states is void of other sentiant beings?
Unicorns does it have to be a horse?

 

[Resume]

Carlitos:

I could easily perceive the distance just by watching it. It wasn't always outlined only against the sky. As mentioned before:

• Before the object became visible, it lit up the sky in the background which rapidly grew brighter revealing the dark sillhouette of the mountain in the foreground. This indicates the object came up from behind the mountain. In other words, you could see the glow behind the mountian getting brighter before the object became fully visible.

• When the object became visible and moved over the top of the mountain it lit up the top of the mountain.

• When the object moved down the mountain in the big arcs, each time it neared the treetops, you could see the treetops outlined against the side of the mountain.

• When the object landed in the forest it slowly descended into the trees and you could see the outline of the treetops as it approached them.

• When the object went behind the tress, you could see the light filtering out from behind them as it went down behind them.

• Because the mountain and the trees the object landed behind were clearly on the other side of the lake, we know with absolute certainty that the object had to be at least on the other side of the lake.

• Furthermore, because the the trees the object went down behind were at a higher elevation than the highway on the other side of the lake, the object must have landed on the east side of the highway, which establishes the distance even more precisely.

Lastly, I take it that your "genius" comment was meant as sarcasm. Your comments could do with less of that. It only comes back to reflect badly on yourself and the forum.

The reason you didn't immediately go investigate is . . ?

 

[Akhenaten]

Because the mountain and the trees the object landed behind were clearly on the other side of the lake, we know with absolute certainty that the object had to be at least on the other side of the lake.

The only thing we know with absolute certainty is that the area you're describing does in fact have a lake and some trees in it.

 

[ufology]

The most recent USAF definition of "UFO" reads as follows:

"Any aerial phenomenon or object which is unknown or appears out of the ordinary to the observer."
​

Mr. Albert:

So you've cherry picked the one line that self-servingly suits your needs out of that's the post Robertson Panel watered down version and ignored the rest. So what? The case I presented used more references and observations of the reality of the situation. Let's have your reference to the link where you took your example from as well please.

 

[23_Tauri]

.....

3.statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry.
​

[/INDENT]

Statements of witnesses. Funny you should bring that up, because the last time you gave us evidence of a UFO doing crazee acrobatics, it turned out to be a story / anecdote / contemplation on past events by Ruppelt, that he put in his book. Stray Cat asked you to provide the original documents that would back this up,( i.e. the statements of witnesses, as referenced above in your definition of evidence ) because he could not find any such documents on the internet, only a repeat of Ruppelt's story.

You failed to respond to Stray Cats' request. Why was that?

 

[Akhenaten]

Have you ever seen one, in yellow?
Do you believe that the universe as the bible states is void of other sentiant beings?
Unicorns does it have to be a horse?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/22284d037902df692.jpg[/qimg]

Your post does it have to be gibberish?

 

[ufology]

The only thing we know with absolute certainty is that the area you're describing does in fact have a lake and some trees in it.

We also know with certainty that if there were a light that did what I described, that its distance could be estimated with reasonable accuracy. Carlitos did not acknowledge this fact, instead resorting to denial and sarcasm. Not too classy for people who are supposed to be representing higher principles of education to an online community.

 

[Resume]

The only thing we know with absolute certainty is that the area you're describing does in fact have a lake and some trees in it.

I think we also know with some certainty that a specie of firefly is native to the region.

 

[ufology]

​

Oh man that's funny ... that is just great! That's one of my favorite cult alien invasion shows of all time! LOL

 

[John Albert]

Garrison:

Semantics is what we use to accurately convey what we mean. It is perfectly legitimate to discuss semantics as it relates to understanding the true nature of the research.

Semantics is also often used dishonestly, in order to try and fool others into believing that one's argument is logical, reasonable and fact-based, when in fact it isn't.

A prime example of the abuse of semantics is the logical fallacy of dishonest redefinition. In a redefinition fallacy, some bit of terminology is deliberately misused in order to induce a misunderstanding, which is then exploited to support the perpetrator's own viewpoint.

In the specific case at hand, Mr. J. Randall Murphy (proprietor of the pseudoscience bookstore "Ufology Society International"), we see you defending your usage of an outdated USAF definition by means of yet another semantic-based logical fallacy.

Your assertion:

The definition I have used and posted here was created by the people who created the word in the first place ( not by me ) and it applies to the same kinds of objects that were being referenced then as they are today. Therefore, how old that definition is is not relevant.

is the epitome of a genetic fallacy.

Why is this a fallacy?

Well, a living language like English is not static. It changes over time. Words change; definitions change.

Definitions are determined by conventional popular usage, not by demand of some "word nazi" on the Internet. Just because a word had a specific definition 50+ years ago, that doesn't mean it still has the exact same definition today. Especially in the case of an acronym like "UFO," its meaning is contained right there in its initials, so that has become the common usage definition for the word.

As many people have already pointed out, none of us are living on a 1950s United States Air Force base, therefore that anachronistic and obsolete definition no longer applies. Your attempts to force-fit it into the context of out Internet discussion here in the year 2011 is an obvious genetic fallacy.

 

[Akhenaten]

The only thing we know with absolute certainty is that the area you're describing does in fact have a lake and some trees in it.

We also know with certainty that if there were a light that did what I described, that its distance could be estimated with reasonable accuracy.

Rubbish. The only thing we know with certainty is that the place you've chosen as a setting for your campfire story actually exists.

There's no reason whatsoever to believe any of the rest of it.

Carlitos did not acknowledge this fact, instead resorting to denial and sarcasm. Not too classy for people who are supposed to be representing higher principles of education to an online community.

The bloke telling stories about 'the one that got away' doesn't get to make this call.

 

[Tomtomkent]

We also know with certainty that if there were a light that did what I described, that its distance could be estimated with reasonable accuracy. Carlitos did not acknowledge this fact, instead resorting to denial and sarcasm. Not too classy for people who are supposed to be representing higher principles of education to an online community.

No. We don't know it for certain. We just know that is your description. Same goes for any other eye witness account.

 

[Akhenaten]

I think we also know with some certainty that a species of firefly is native to the region.

Indeed.

Artist's Impression​