UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

RoboTimbo,

How do you figure? I provided an unbiased independent dictionary definition and showed how I use it within the context of the discussion so as not to confuse the issue. Where is the so-called "dishonesty"? All you're doing now is name calling. Explain yourself.

What Tomtomkent said. And how about showing some decorum in admitting that you are dishonestly cherry picking definitions when it is pointed out to you rather than dishonestly clinging to them and reposting them as if they had never been shot down multiple times already?

Also, if you could point to where I called you a name. If you can't, at least admit that you were dishonestly trying to poison the well.

 

[ufology]

I assume you mean "we are", or we're.

That is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen on the internet. What do you think the "U" in UFO stands for???

If you are going to "act" this ignorant, how do you expect others to take you seriously??

R.A.F.

Here it is again with the typo fixed ... ( thank's for that ).

You still don't get that a word origin isn't the same as a word definition and that we're talking about the word UFO not the word "unidentified". Eventually, some day, when you figure that out, your comments will have some relevance.

 

[Drs_Res]

Is the object in this picture that is marked UFO in scale?

 

[Garrison]

Garrison,

We've already discussed the evidence issue. Have you forgotten so quickly? Perhaps you should go back and review. And thanks for making it absolutely clear how your personal bias prevents you from contributing anything constructive to this discussion. Please let me know when that changes by saying something useful.

Stop posting your forty year old fantasy/lie and give us some real evidence. You've offered nothing but evasion, special pleading and endless rewrites of your story, it's worthless as evidence. I do not know how to make that reality any clearer in the face of your religious belief in the power of your memory.

 

[Tomtomkent]

R.A.F.

You still don't get that a word origin isn't the same as a word definition and that we're talking about the word UFO not the word "unidentified". Eventually, some day, when you figure that out, your comments will have some relevance.

You realise "supposed to be" does not mean "is". And "claimed" doesn't mean "definately" either?

"a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials."

Your own source disagrees with your claim that UFO "means" alien vessel.

Why bother to persist? Why are you arguing?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Garrison,

We've already discussed the evidence issue.

Yes, we've discussed that there is no evidence at all for your alleged sighting. In fact, there is much evidence that any event that did occur on that day that you may have seen bears no resemblance to your perception or your memory of it. Your memory and perception problems have been well documented in this thread.

Have you forgotten so quickly?

 

[R.A.F.]

R.A.F.

Here it is again with the typo fixed ... ( thank's for that ).

You still don't get that a word origin isn't the same as a word definition and that we're talking about the word UFO not the word "unidentified". Eventually, some day, when you figure that out, your comments will have some relevance.

So your "answer" is to repeat the same thing? What is there about my previous post that you don't understand??...the "U" in UFO stands for unidentified, and for you to deny that shows that there is no common ground for any discussion...you're simply a credulous believer who refuses to think rationally.

There is nothing different or special about your "argument"...I've been hearing similar "gibberish" for years.

How about presenting actual evidence for alien visitation...your sighting just doesn't qualify as evidence.

 

[23_Tauri]

Go back and review the actual post in the context of the discussion. There is no way I had meant from ground level. We were using Google Earth to get values. The readings it gives are from sea level ( I presume ). And if you read the account, in the context of what I had said, it's the only context that makes any sense. Yet the skeptics here self-servingly ignore these things and present them out of context to obscure, rather than clarify the issue because that is what suits their bias. It's a really bad habit that should be put in check.

Absolute poppycock and bullpoo. You are asked again and again to clarify how you got to a figure of 4608ft, and you never did explain. To re-cap, let's go back to pages 308 and 309...
First, SC asked you:

So a lot needs clarifying here. Were you talking relative heights in relation to your viewing position when you mentioned two thirds up the mountain (that would put the object much lower than the later claimed 4608ft) or are you saying you could work out the height of the mountains and mentally triangulate the objects height taking into account it's closer position? Source

You completely ignored his question, and instead said this:

Lately I've been using the elevations marked on Google Earth.

Four Points Mtn: 50°28'21.05" N 115°53'25.74" W | Elevation: 6200 ft

LZ: 50°26'32.96" N 115°56'34.17" W | Elevation: 2931 ft.

So the diagram posted earlier showing the heights as way above the mountain tops are way off ... or Google's heights are off ... or we have our programs on different settings, but those markers are not accurate for some reason.
Source

So he asked you again:

So could you answer my question now;

Were you talking relative heights in relation to your viewing position when you mentioned two thirds up the mountain (that would put the object much lower than the later claimed 4608ft) or are you saying you could work out the height of the mountains and mentally triangulate the objects height taking into account it's closer position? Source

Then befuddled as I was, I wrote:

Forgive me folks but I'm very confused now. Even if ufology meant 4608ft above sea level, not 4608ft relative to his location at 3000ft (which would put the object moving through an alleged vertical distance of 1608ft), it still doesn't tally with what we've been told elsewhere. Source

To which you replied:

We're trying to nail that down now. It doesn't change what I saw. I'll have something soon. Working on it now for you. I'm trying to figure out how to use the Google 3D view.Source

So,

Are 'we' still trying to nail that down? Because that was twelve days ago when you and whoever you were nailing it with were working on it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

R.A.F.

Here it is again with the typo fixed ... ( thank's for that ).

You still don't get that a word origin isn't the same as a word definition and that we're talking about the word UFO not the word "unidentified". Eventually, some day, when you figure that out, your comments will have some relevance.

Well, if you are talking about a UFO you are by definition talking about the word unidentified. And the words "Flying" and "Object". Sesame street was today brought to you by the word "context", and in that discussion it is now clear that means "Unidentified Flying Objects, their research and evidence." Not, by any means restricted to "alien craft". Claiming a different "context" for your own posts and claiming it is the context for the conversation would be rather silly.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Absolute poppycock and bullpoo. You are asked again and again to clarify how you got to a figure of 4608ft, and you never did explain. To re-cap, let's go back to pages 308 and 309...

Like I said, no reference was given to indicate sea level, and that is an option you have to apply. The programe out-of-the-virtual-box (I never touched any settings) is set to tagged to ground. When I applied an altitude it went relative to ground.

But apparently I was "confused". So much for that decorum eh?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Like I said, no reference was given to indicate sea level, and that is an option you have to apply. The programe out-of-the-virtual-box (I never touched any settings) is set to tagged to ground. When I applied an altitude it went relative to ground.

But apparently I was "confused". So much for that decorum eh?

And it would be silly to think that ufology was mentally estimating the alleged point of light's altitude above sea level when he was allegedly sighting it. So maybe that's what he meant.

 

[23_Tauri]

Dude ... Google Earth gives the lake an altitude of 2640ft. I suppose you'd say it was floating in the sky too.

4608ft - 2640ft = 1968ft

Nowhere have you said it hovered to 1968ft.

We have yet another number for the altitude of the UFO! How many is that now then?

ETA: look folo, why don't you just drop the numbers, eh? Because this is getting a bit silly and it's clear you don't know how high it was over and above that you saw the bright object against the backdrop of the mountains. Why don't we just leave it at that?

 

[ufology]

Is the object in this picture that is marked UFO in scale?

Drs_Res,

Before answering, to be clear on what constitutes the "object", what I mean by the object is the core of that glowing spherical area of light marked "UFO". It could not be made out with absolute distinction, but you could tell it was there. The size of the core object was estimated not only from this last part of the sighting as illustrated, but from earlier times when it had landed in the forest at night, and the way the glow filtered through the trees compared to the core.

Imagine someone aiming a bright flashlight at you from behind a tree trunk in a dark forest. Depending on the size of the tree trunk, you may see the glow but not the light itself. By observing how the core light illuminated the treetops as it landed, and how the trees themselves obscured the core light, you could tell you weren't looking at a small light, but something larger about a car length wide and circular. Also it had a very distinct quality to it. It was bright but soft ( if that makes any sense ), not penetrating like an aircraft landing light or headlamp ... just a big bright glowing ball and you could look directly at it without it hurting your eyes.

If you look at the glow in the illustration, you can actually see through it, it is not part of the "object", but the scale itself is about right. The illustration doesn't really do the experience justice. But it's very similar to what I saw.

 

[Marduk]

We've already discussed the evidence issue. Have you forgotten so quickly? Perhaps you should go back and review. And thanks for making it absolutely clear how your personal bias prevents you from contributing anything constructive to this discussion. Please let me know when that changes by saying something useful.

1975 - Glowing Orb

During June of 1975, I was with my girlfriend Karen at her parent's ranch on the west side of Lake Windermere in British Columbia Canada. Her parents were gone and I was staying overnight with her and another younger friend of hers. The three of us were sitting together on the couch in the dark looking out the picture window and listening to Led Zeppelin Two. Just after midnight a glowing blue-white orb sprung up from behind the mountain range across the lake and bounced down the side of the mountain in three big arcs. We were all stunned and didn't know what to say. Finally Karen said, "did you see that?" we were already nodding. The sphere itself was about as wide as a Volkswagen beetle as seen from the side, and it had a plasma like glow surrounding it, but at our distance ( about 3 kilometers ), we couldn't make out any surface details. When it landed it went dark and stayed on the ground until about 2:00AM. Then it lit up, ascended straight up to about 200 meters, stopped instantly for about two seconds, then traced a graceful infinity symbol about 200 meters wide at a 30 degree angle to the right ( south ) of its starting point. It traced the symbol precisely in the same place four times in about 7 seconds, leaving a glowing trail of light behind, not unlike the effect of waving a glow-stick in a dark room. Then it stopped instantly and settled back into the forest in exactly the same spot it had taken off from and went dark again.

After that I was determined to stay awake all night so that in the morning I could get a fix on where it went down. The second time it came up it was around 4:00AM and by then both of the girls had nodded off. The orb repeated the same maneuver as it had the first time, then settled back into the forest and went dark. Around 6:00AM the light of dawn began to illuminate the valley well enough to make out where the orb had landed. So I went outside to get a better look, and just as I stepped out onto the landing, the orb came up again. It rose vertically to about 200 meters and stopped instantly. Only instead of repeating the infinity symbol maneuver, it turned bright white and instantly accelerated north up the valley as far as I could see. Quite literally, from where I was standing it traveled over 25 kilometers in about 1 second ... from a dead stop. No human technology has anything that comes close to that kind of performance. Given the precise repetitive maneuvers that it had performed, there is also no way that it was a random natural phenomenon. I am convinced that it was intelligently controlled.

this is in your own words, you describe the object as a glowing orb, not once do you call it a UFO, and there is no mention at all of an "alien craft"
when you dry out what youre currently shoving you'll have a bright future in the manure supply trade

 

[Tomtomkent]

If you look at the glow in the illustration, you can actually see through it, it is not part of the "object", but the scale itself is about right. The illustration doesn't really do the experience justice. But it's very similar to what I saw.

The illustration showing a point of light? That one? That's what simaler to what you saw? The one that shows the point of light?


Even after arguing, rudely, against the very idea that what you saw was a point of light...

 

[Tomtomkent]

this is in your own words, you describe the object as a glowing orb, not once do you call it a UFO, and there is no mention at all of an "alien craft"
when you dry out what youre currently shoving you'll have a bright future in the manure supply trade

Well, now we know that the measurements are all taken from sea level, we know the "flying" object was several hundred meters bellow ground...

 

[Garrison]

Drs_Res,

Before answering, to be clear on what constitutes the "object", what I mean by the object is the core of that glowing spherical area of light marked "UFO".

previously it was just a light, now it has a 'core' a response no doubt to people pointing alternate possible light sources, a convenient 'edit' that contradicts those possibilities.

Imagine someone aiming a bright flashlight at you from behind a tree in a dark forest. you would see the glow but not the light itself. By observing how the core light illuminated the treetops as it landed, and how the trees themselves obscured the core light, you could tell you weren't looking at a small light, but something larger about a car length wide and circular.

Or that is how you now choose to remember events, because it has to be an alien spacecraft your memory fits accordingly.

Also it had a very distinct quality to it. It was bright but soft ( if that makes any sense ), not penetrating like an aircraft landing light or headlamp ... just a big bright glowing ball and you could look directly at it without it hurting your eyes.

Or it was a weak light much closer than you would like to believe.

If you look at the glow in the illustration, you can actually see through it, it is not part of the "object", but the scale itself is about right. The illustration doesn't really do the experience justice. But it's very similar to what I saw.

And you think your painting has some evidentiary value? it's just another part of your editing process.

 

[ufology]

this is in your own words, you describe the object as a glowing orb, not once do you call it a UFO, and there is no mention at all of an "alien craft"
when you dry out what youre currently shoving you'll have a bright future in the manure supply trade

Marduk,

Glowing orbs, also called nocturnal lights, are a class of UFO. I think it was Hynek who coined the term. I used the words glowing orb because I also saw it in the morning light, therefore it wasn't strictly nocturnal. UFO is still valid so far as any reporting would be concerned, and I'm personally convinced it was some kind of alien craft.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Marduk,

Glowing orbs, also called nocturnal lights, are a class of UFO. I think it was Hynek who coined the term. I used the words glowing orb because I also saw it in the morning light, therefore it wasn't strictly nocturnal. UFO is still valid so far as any reporting would be concerned, and I'm personally convinced it was some kind of alien craft.

Worthless pseudoscience jargon. You might as well point out that glowing orbs are an important part of spirit photography and no larger than a coin.

UFO is only valid in the meaning "unidentified", as personal belief means nothing.


Now about that evidence... Got any?

 

[Garrison]

Worthless pseudoscience jargon. You might as well point out that glowing orbs are an important part of spirit photography and no larger than a coin.

UFO is only valid in the meaning "unidentified", as personal belief means nothing.


Now about that evidence... Got any?

They are also popular with modern ghost hunting TV I believe, I wonder how Ufology ruled out 'spirits of the dead' as an explanation?