UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

So you're relying on witness descriptions as accurate? Why would you do that, knowing how fallible memory and perception can be?

Timbo,

Why, you ask do I rely on witness descriptions? Well I guess I'm just Mr. Gullible and believe everything I hear no matter how crazy it sounds, especially if it involves aliens. You know how it is with us ufologists ... we get our pyramid hats out and put on our They Live sunglasses, and we just dial the aliens right in and see them everywhere.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Timbo,

Why, you ask do I rely on witness descriptions? Well I guess I'm just Mr. Gullible and believe everything I hear no matter how crazy it sounds, especially if it involves aliens. You know how it is with us ufologists ... we get our pyramid hats out and put on our They Live sunglasses, and we just dial the aliens right in and see them everywhere.

Ahem:
"The only thing is that the witness descriptions don't really match commercial air traffic. Maybe they were USAF aircraft doing maneuvers off in the distance."

Or perhaps they weren't. Perhaps the witness testimony was innacurate and the actual event was exactly like commercial traffic.

Why do you put so much weight on witness testimony?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Or, to put it another way, when is ufology, or any other plaudit going to drop witness testimony and actually provide something that can be used as evidence?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Timbo,

Why, you ask do I rely on witness descriptions? Well I guess I'm just Mr. Gullible and believe everything I hear no matter how crazy it sounds, especially if it involves aliens. You know how it is with us ufologists ... we get our pyramid hats out and put on our They Live sunglasses, and we just dial the aliens right in and see them everywhere.

So it would seem. What did you think of the pictures that edge posted of the mud puppy, the x-ray pic of Sirius A & B, and the Brocken Spectre?

 

[Garrison]

Timbo,

Why, you ask do I rely on witness descriptions? Well I guess I'm just Mr. Gullible and believe everything I hear no matter how crazy it sounds, especially if it involves aliens. You know how it is with us ufologists ... we get our pyramid hats out and put on our They Live sunglasses, and we just dial the aliens right in and see them everywhere.

Which is probably the most plausible thing you've said in the last 10 pages...

 

[Archer17]

Timbo,

Why, you ask do I rely on witness descriptions? Well I guess I'm just Mr. Gullible and believe everything I hear no matter how crazy it sounds, especially if it involves aliens. You know how it is with us ufologists ... we get our pyramid hats out and put on our They Live sunglasses, and we just dial the aliens right in and see them everywhere.

Even in acronyms it seems.
To be fair not all ufologists are so 'out there' they feel the need to redefine same.

Or, to put it another way, when is ufology, or any other plaudit going to drop witness testimony and actually provide something that can be used as evidence?

Can you imagine the state of ufological lore without witness testimony?

 

[John Albert]

I must admit that I still find the "They Live" slam hilarious.

 

[Akhenaten]

Timbo,

Why, you ask do I rely on witness descriptions? . You know how it is with us ufologists ... we get our pyramid hats out and put on our They Live sunglasses, and we just dial the aliens right in and see them everywhere.

Sounds a bit like a straw man, but it sounds a bit like the truth as well.

Hmm . . .

WWRrD?

 

[Akhenaten]

#3 is viewed on a regular basis with out cameras.
Same in a way as I have observed without a camera, so I can't say what it is.
But plate tectonics seem to cover that.
But in no way does it cover my other observances or any other mundane explanations for those sightings except that it was a conveyance. I was quite capable of elimination of the mundane.
I can even accept that three of my observances were hallucinations or originating from my mind or sleep deprivation, but not three others that I had seen wide-awake and when I was as clean as anyone could be.

As close to a perfect summary of the current state of play in ufology as I could possibly imagine.

 

[Aepervius]

which is probably the most plausible thing you've said in the last 10 pages whole thread...

ftfy

 

[Cuddles]

I'm sure you were quite capable of eliminating mundane explanations

If you look at Edge's posting history, you might notice that he's pretty much incapable of eliminating mundane explanations for anything, ever. Just as with Rramjet, ufology, and so many other believers, "I was quite capable of elimination of the mundane" actually means "I haven't even tried to eliminate mundane explanations, but it was aliens, so there.".

Well I guess I'm just Mr. Gullible and believe everything I hear no matter how crazy it sounds, especially if it involves aliens. You know how it is with us ufologists ... we get our pyramid hats out and put on our They Live sunglasses, and we just dial the aliens right in and see them everywhere.

Yes, this certainly appears to be the case. Since you now appear to recognise your own credulity, can we assume you'll stop trying to pretend your stories are worth anything at all?

 

[edge]

A Brocken Spectre. Rather common and well-undestood natural phenomenon.

For that picture you are right and as right as I am.
These were examples of how not to be fooled, as we are also capable of not being fooled.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If you look at Edge's posting history, you might notice that he's pretty much incapable of eliminating mundane explanations for anything, ever. Just as with Rramjet, ufology, and so many other believers, "I was quite capable of elimination of the mundane" actually means "I haven't even tried to eliminate mundane explanations, but it was aliens, so there.".

Oh, I know he can't eliminate them in reality. I meant that he is quite capable of eliminating them Rramjet fashion, by simply declaring them to not be mundane. So in his mind, they can only be alien.

I would donate $100 to MUFON if any of them could demonstrate an actual ability to eliminate all mundane explanations.

 

[RoboTimbo]

For that picture you are right and as right as I am.
These were examples of how not to be fooled, as we are also capable of not being fooled.

I'd like to see you demonstrate that also.

 

[Akhenaten]

For that picture you are right and as right as I am.
These were examples of how not to be fooled, as we are also capable of not being fooled.

We?

 

[edge]

The first one has too low a resolution to be able to determine what it might be. However, judging by the weather pattern in the image, i would not be surprised if it was some sort of wind blown debris. It could be a raindrop on the window as well (being close it is out of focus). I would put that as insufficient information. However, I would find it unlikely as good evidence for UFOs/alien craft.

The second one is a light of some kind. However, one can not determine what the light is from. There is no evidence to indicate it is unnatural or coming from a UFO/alien craft.

Is this your UFO evidence? I am not impressed.

The first one I don't know what it was either but the pattern is a saucer shape, your right not enough information.
But there were other shots in that storm I haven't posted yet.
I have in the past though.
I was actually taking a picture of the gas stations sign and didn't notice the object to the right in that frame till I got back to Florida.
The one with the cars I didn’t see till later.
So I can’t be sure either, what I am sure of I wrote in here and explained them to a tee.
No camera that day though, only me, and I am sure totally of what it was.
That is why I could give you such a good description and that’s all I can give you..

 

[Akhenaten]

The first one I don't know what it was either but the pattern is a saucer shape, your right not enough information.
But there were other shots in that storm I haven't posted yet.
I have in the past though.
I was actually taking a picture of the gas stations sign and didn't notice the object to the right in that frame till I got back to Florida.
The one with the cars I didn’t see till later.
So I can’t be sure either, what I am sure of I wrote in here and explained them to a tee.
No camera that day though, only me, and I am sure totally of what it was.
That is why I could give you such a good description and that’s all I can give you..

1. Post pictures of stuff that you can't identify.
   
   
2. Post descriptions of stuff that you don't have pictures of.
   
   
3. ???
   
   
4. Profit.

Yeah. Good plan.

 

[edge]

Neither am I. The second pic is an X-Ray image from Chandra of Sirius A & B .

Yes it is; you're right but many might see it as a UFO, but I know when looking in the sky what it is and Venus are, just as you do.


How many mud puppies are out there, on other planets?
If they are out there wouldn't it follow along with other alien looking creatures we hope to find on other planets, doesn't it make sense that there would be creatures of higher orders, sentient beings also and possibly millions of years more advanced than ourselves?
And by the way when viewing some of these I didn’t wear shades at dusk or at night.
I know you want to be funny but after one time it gets old.
Nothing I have described to you goes against biblical teachings since it says there are many creatures around the throne of God.

 

[Spektator]

Yes it is; you're right but many might see it as a UFO, but I know when looking in the sky what it is and Venus are, just as you do.
(snip)

I don't think anyone would see the X-ray emissions of a star as a UFO, but then I don't know anyone who sees X-rays. As for the gas station photo, it could be many things: windblown trash, a helicopter, a Mylar balloon...but if it were possible to prove exactly what it was, I'd bet a bundle on its not being a flying saucer from outer space.

 

[edge]

Robo,

Thanks for your comments on: http://www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/Docs/EuroSETI2002_OSI.htm

Anyone Else?

Also thanks for posting the link on the Deming Lights. I had considered that maybe what I saw was one of the Earthlight type phenomena, but the precision repitition was just too controlled for that. There was nothing erattic about it.

BTW: So what would make you rule out fireflies for the Deming Lights phenomena? It seems they are all up in the sky where you can't be sure the light or object ( whatever it is ) is closer than any particular background landmark. And I don't see any images of the light shining out from behind any other landmark nearby either. So where are the distance cues? The blurryness seems to indicate some distance. I see aircraft on approach here where I live a lot, and if they were photographed with a longer exposure, I imagine the pictures would look very similar. The only thing is that the witness descriptions don't really match commercial air traffic. Maybe they were USAF aircraft doing maneuvers off in the distance. Not much info to go on there.

The best thing they said there on the demming site, was that they at times seem to come out of the mountains.
Those would be erratic as described, but if they moved in a controlled manner that is different as with the one I seen on that mountain range.


Just down a quarter of a mile on that range was one of the richest hard rock mines that town produced called the Kelly Mine.
So this is one sighting that also could be a light in my instance that could be associated with plate tectonics except that it seemed to be controlled in its movements also.

So that leaves a question unlike the other two I observed years earlier in that area which leaves no doubt what so ever at what I observed.