UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Spektator]

Proclamation doesn't derive from claim, but from the Latin word proclamare, "to announce, to declare." Proclaim means roughly "to put forward a claim."

 

[ufology]

Let's see...

Given that as JA pointed out your "calculated" distance of the mountain has varied so widely we have to assume the distance of the object can be upto seven times further away also.

Secondly, 8-9 times the apparent size of Jupitor with a naked eye is FAR smaller than your depictions. Too small to distinguish much in the way of detail.

Tomtomkent,

Maybe you've never seen Jupiter when it's bright on clear night, but 8-9 times that size is plenty enough to make out the disk ( the core object ).

Other than that, I don't claim to have been able to make out any detail. In fact I've said that it was too far away to make out any surface detail. But essentially a big glowing sphere is pretty hard to get wrong. I could also make out the outline of the treetops as it neared and went behind them, but not individual trees. And when it was behind them the light filtered out from behind the trees in a way that provided visual cues.

 

[John Albert]

A compact car the size of a VW beetle would barely be visible at 3km, let alone 8km. And 25km? No way, without powerful binoculars or a telescope.

Here are some photographs to illustrate a 25km distance:

That mountain with the tower is roughly 25km away

That town is about 25km away


The range estimates vary between 3km and 25km, yet JR asserts that he was somehow able to accurately differentiate the object's size from a VW beetle as seen from the front, and one from the side.

I'm calling shenanigans. There's no way, at those distances, to accurately measure an object only a few feet across with any kind of accuracy. J. Randall Murphy's story just doesn't hold water.

 

[AdMan]

A compact car the size of a VW beetle would barely be visible at 3km, let alone 8km. And 25km? No way, without powerful binoculars or a telescope.

Here are some photographs to illustrate a 25km distance:

[qimg]http://oi53.tinypic.com/zmdtfk.jpg[/qimg]
That mountain with the tower is roughly 25km away

[qimg]http://oi56.tinypic.com/21jqhyv.jpg[/qimg]
That town is about 25km away

Do you know what lenses were used for the photos? That first one looks like a telephoto (because of the compression effect). If so, with the naked eye you would see much less detail than even that.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Tomtomkent,

Maybe you've never seen Jupiter when it's bright on clear night, but 8-9 times that size is plenty enough to make out the disk ( the core object ).

Other than that, I don't claim to have been able to make out any detail.

At that distance you can't even say it was a disk. Only that it looked disk shaped at that distance.

But, if the estimated distance is reliant on a reference point, that as others continualy point out, seems to move in varying tellings, then we have to increase the margin for error also. At best you saw something very small to the naked eye, which BY YOUR OWN TELLING you had trouble seeing the edges (and therefore shape) of.

At worst, the blob of light is reduced to a point.

 

[Resume]

Other than that, I don't claim to have been able to make out any detail. In fact I've said that it was too far away to make out any surface detail. But essentially a big glowing sphere is pretty hard to get wrong.

And yet . . .

 

[John Albert]

Do you know what lenses were used for the photos? That first one looks like a telephoto (because of the compression effect). If so, with the naked eye you would see much less detail than even that.

You're right. The first one was definitely taken through either a telephoto lens, or maybe a variable lens zoomed all the way in.

I also found this pic of the NASA Vehicle Assembly Building from roughly 25km (according to the amateur photographer who took it):

But I didn't post it before, because there's no way to ascertain the distance is accurate, as it was obviously taken through a very long telephoto lens. If you're not familiar with it, that building is *****' HUGE... it's the giant hangar where they assemble the rockets.

 

[Correa Neto]

LOL
Touché

NoNo No It’s my turn to do the probing!
Besides that price seems way too expensive.
I wouldn’t charge anything I promise.

Amateurs.

The Alien Brotherhood is commited to a zero harm probing policy. All Brothers use disposable individual protection equipment and specially developed probing gels. That's why its expensive. Because we care.

 

[tsig]

And now we see Carlitos present another less enviable tactic, the addition of accusatory remarks like "dishonestly fail to explain", as if that somehow not addressing the strawman in the form of off topic subject matter somehow makes his position valid. This example also illustrates the additional tactic of making proclaimations such as calling the topic a "faith-based belief system", as if simply saying it makes it true. Add to that more accusatory remarks and proclaimations and the whole thing amounts to nothing more than name calling and character attacks. Another fine example of the JREF at work enlightening our community.

When you start making catty remarks about the forum maybe you should rethink your participation here.

 

[Akhenaten]

GeeMack,

With the help of a savvy poster ( JimOfAllTrades ), calculations for an illuminated spherical object about as wide as the length of a VW Beetle at the distance we observed has been worked to be about 8-9 times the apparent size of Jupiter.

It's fairly simple arithmetic, Mr Folog, despite your willingness to be impressed that yet another number can be added to your campfire story.

Despite your pretended inference that a third party has been able to calculate an apparent size for your imaginary flying saucer, you aren't fooling anyone into forgetting that both the distance and size of your Volksblimp, on which the calculation is based, are entirely speculative on your part and could be wrong by as much as a factor of ∞.

This is plenty enough to make out the core object with the naked eye.

Recipe for Failure

1. Invent size and distance for imaginary object.
   
   
2. Calculate apparent magnitude based on invented size and distance.
   
   
3. Declare that, based on calculations, object must have been clearly visible.
   
   
4. Ignore howls of derision and declare victory against Meanie Skeptics™.

Serves none.​

Then there was the surrounding glow that extented out several times farther than the core object in all directions. And yes I was in my teens and my eysight was excellent.

For a glow to extend beyond a light source requires something in the air to reflect the light - it's not an effect one sees in clear air. What was the reflecting medium in your alleged sighting, Mr Folog?

Once again your proclamations don't add up.

Add to that the non-scale diagrams and faulty calculations by the other skeptics here and it's just one big biased and poorly executed debunking effort.

In exactly the same way that an illustrator making Jack's beanstalk 10mm too thick = "OMG . . . giants!"

Every measurement and estimate I've made has been well within reason given the parameters of my initial observation.

Given that your initial obsrvation is alleged to have been of an alien flying saucer the last phrase that should be used to describe any of your measurements is 'well within reason'.

All the skeptics here have done is help me make it even more precise ... thank you.

I have little doubt that a burning desire to be able to get away with posting that lie on your flying saucer club website has been the motivation for this nonsense from the outset.

 

[Robrob]

just one that is alien to human civilization.

I nominate this for a Stundie!

 

[Akhenaten]

Tomtomkent,

Maybe you've never seen Jupiter when it's bright on clear night, but 8-9 times that size is plenty enough to make out the disk ( the core object ).

Which you've no doubt established by observing the other planets in the Solar System that are 8-9 times the size of Jupiter.

Other than that, I don't claim to have been able to make out any detail.

Why not? You've just finished saying "that size is plenty enough to make out the disk."

In fact I've said that it was too far away to make out any surface detail. But essentially a big glowing sphere is pretty hard to get wrong.

Which is exactly why Venus has never been reported as a UFO.

No, wait . . .

I could also make out the outline of the treetops as it neared and went behind them, but not individual trees.

Stop the presses!!! You've discovered the horizon.

Now tell us, Mr Laser-rangefinders-for-eyes, how far away is the horizon?

Hint: It varies from millimetres to light years. Answer carefully.​

And when it was behind them the light filtered out from behind the trees in a way that provided visual cues.

In my thoughts I have seen rings of smoke through the trees,
And the voices of those who stand looking.

. . .

And a new day will dawn for those who stand long
And the forests will echo with laughter.

. . .

And as we wind on down the road
Our shadows taller than our soul.
There walks a lady we all know
Who shines white light and wants to show.​

It's just a VW in a hedgerow, ufology. Let it go.

 

[Archer17]

...I also found this pic of the NASA Vehicle Assembly Building from roughly 25km (according to the amateur photographer who took it): [snip]

If you're not familiar with it, that building is *****' HUGE... it's the giant hangar where they assemble the rockets.

I had the fortune of checking out that behemoth up close and personal a few years back and definitely concur. It's so huge I heard it has it's own weather.

Getting back to the latest topic in this thread, ufology's supposed "UFO=Alien Craft" encounter...

...All the skeptics here have done is help me make it even more precise ... thank you.

But that's not really what compelled you to post this stuff, is it? Any reader of your website that actually buys into any of that other stuff you claim there doesn't even require a 'skeptical' "refinement" of this supposed "UFO" sighting as they obviously don't have a functional 'baloney detector' to begin with. You should know that too but don't and that's a clue. I used to think you were yanking chains here until I finally read your posts on that UFO board previously referenced just a little while ago. You did the same thing over there that you are doing here. I'll let the folks here connect their own dots but as far as I'm concerned it's not trolling per se or refinement of a fable that makes you have to post here about "UFOs=Alien Craft," it's something you have no control over. That's tragic enough but what makes it even worse is how you can't seem to "get" how lame your various affirmations are. The rebuff by those on that UFO board should have been a cold slap in the face to you.

Anyway, ramble on.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So in one post Akhenaten quoted it went behind trees, but ufology couldn't see the individual trees. In the next quote ufology says he can make out light between them.

So he couldn't see individual trees except for when he could?

 

[Archer17]

So in one post Akhenaten quoted it went behind trees, but ufology couldn't see the individual trees. In the next quote ufology says he can make out light between them.

So he couldn't see individual trees except for when he could?

Were you ever really buying his spiel?

Even ufology, with his supposed special abilities, isn't perfect. Either is his story-telling. He won't admit it, but no one knows what an "alien craft" looks like. He'll do no better than disrespecting the 'U' and continue to post silly "memories"/affirmations here. He won't admit to that either and will continue to think he can sell something he can't produce on demand ---> aliens.

 

[carlitos]

no stairway

In my thoughts I have seen rings of smoke through the trees,
And the voices of those who stand looking.

. . .

And a new day will dawn for those who stand long
And the forests will echo with laughter.

. . .

And as we wind on down the road
Our shadows taller than our soul.
There walks a lady we all know
Who shines white light and wants to show.​

It's just a VW in a hedgerow, ufology. Let it go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOt3r_aNNxE#t=0m30s

 

[23_Tauri]

Murph, are you ignoring my posts #13816 and #13818? They both refer to the possibility that you observed two separate objects in the two separate incidences during the night.

If you do not agree with me that this could the case, then please, could you explain why they have to be the same object? Thank you.

I guess that's a yes, then.

 

[Akhenaten]

I guess that's a yes, then.

Here, put these on and see if he notices you:

 

[John Albert]

For a glow to extend beyond a light source requires something in the air to reflect the light - it's not an effect one sees in clear air.

This is a very good point. I was thinking the very same thing the other day, but I didn't post it as a critique because I wasn't sure exactly how to go about describing the phenomenon without getting too technical about the details.

Any time you see a "halo" or area of "glow" extending beyond the edges of a bright object, that effect is commonly caused by the light passing through an intervening refractive material such as cloud cover, fog, atmospheric mist, or possibly a window pane. That effect is not something you will see when looking directly at a bright object on a clear night.

Therefore, if the object in question exhibited such a "glow," then it most likely resulted from diffraction of the light through water droplets in the air, or maybe the glass of a window. In that case, the extent of the effect (beyond the outer edges of the actual object itself) would have been dependent on the atmospheric conditions at the time of viewing, and not the actual size of the object itself.

Of course, a pseudoscientist might attribute such an effect to "a plasma field," "molecules held in stasis by antigravity propulsion technology" or "piezoelectric discharge caused by tectonic shifting" or some such nonsense, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Akhenaten]

This is a very good point. I was thinking the very same thing the other day, but I didn't post it as a critique because I wasn't sure exactly how to go about describing the phenomenon without getting too technical about the details.

At least you didn't get 'reflect' and 'refract' mixed up like the silly old Egyptian.

Thanks for the much improved explanation of what I was getting at.