UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Tomtomkent]

Tomtomkent,

Perhaps you might try to understand the event by reviewing what I've already written before you make your unfounded proclamations. You are just coming across as biased and adversarial. Here ( again ) is how I could tell what was going on, explained as simply as possible.

Perhaps you've never watched cars on a dark road bounded by trees from a distance? As a car moves past each tree, light gets brighter, and as it moves behind them it gets dimmer. The flickering effect and the way the light filters out from behind them gives you cues for the density of the trees and direction of movement. You have no doubt that the car and the road are behind the trees or which way the car is moving. You also don't have to see all of each individual tree to know what's going on. This effect can be seen from much farther than 3Km.

Similarly, as the object approached the treetops and began going down into the forest, the jagged edges formed by the pointed tops of the trees created an outline and texture so that you could make out the density without having to see all of each tree or the small details. And as it descended below the tops, you could see the light filtering out from behind the trunks and branches. No special abilities are required.

Funny, as if it fell into the trees themselves what you would expect to see was open space where it smashing its way between trees. Unless of course the trees were far enough apart to allow it to pass between them with out being harmed, in which case one has to wonder why you could not simply see through them. By definition the gaps were as large as an object you could see with a suitable clarity to judge size and shape.

This seems very much to be a case of wanting it both ways.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Mr. Albert,

Your cute VW Beetle replacement in my graphic demonstrates quite well how accurate my initial description was ... thank you.

Original description as compared to a VW Beetle:

.

You do realise that illustration doesn't actually offer any compartive size or scale for the beetle? Right? So, how does it help you again?

 

[Drs_Res]

Third Fifth time is a charm I hope.

Since this seems to have been missed ignored, I'll repost this:

Could you take the image and indicate the core object minus the glow? Maybe as a red circle or something?

I'll keep in mind that the edge might not be 100% discernible, but a close estimate would be nice. You did after all say that it was about 15.55 feet (I think that was the number) in diameter, so you must have had some idea where the edge was vs. the glow. You can even tag the the red circle with the words "Estimated size of the Core", or something to that effect.

Thanks.

Drs_Res

I don't think I could do that with any real accuracy on the scale of the picture I posted because the picture is too small. The relative size of the object to the trees as it neared them and landed behind them gave clues as to it's size. In this picture I can't really get that across accurately. Maybe if the image was the size of a picture window, like what human perception sees, but that's just way too big to post here and nobody has a monitor that big anyway. When I get more time I'll create an illustration that is larger and closer and in scale. About the only thing you could do is imagine a sphere of light about 15 feet wide. Note that in the illustration, this was just before the object departed and it had gotten much brighter, so the core size seems larger because of that.

The reason that I asked for something close to scale for the core on this picture is because you said earlier that this was a good representation of what you saw. I was trying to picture how much of the "Object" labeled UFO was core vs. glow in that picture. Is it possible that you have the object labeled "UFO" to large, even though you are including the glow?

Another question if you don't mind. Was the sky clear that night / morning?

Thanks.

And this:

Another question if you don't mind. Was the sky clear that night / morning?

Thanks.

And another question for you, whilst you're answering Drs_Res's question if you will, <SNIP>. At any time during the sightings (night or early morning) could you see the reflection of the orb / light / UFO / shiny thing in the lake?

Edited by Locknar: 

Politeness Man throws his Stainless Steel handkerchief; name calling is never civil/polite.... Post <SNIP>'ed, breach of rule 0.

BTW, if you can't recall or are unsure, please just say so.

Thanks.

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snipped hoax graphics>

More evidence of your Hoax. Here he has taken a graphic out of context to further perpetrate what many consider to be a UFO hoax by J. Randall Murphy.

 

[Tomtomkent]

More evidence of the J. Randall Murphy VolksUFO ( firefly ) Hoax. Here he has taken a graphic out of context to further perpetrate what many consider to be a UFO hoax by J. Randall Murphy.

Only to his own satisfaction. In all senses of the term.

 

[GeeMack]

The constant nagging helpful cooperation of the skeptics here has helped me to present my sighting in more detail make up more stuff to add to the hoax than ever before. I don't know how to thank you all for the continued inspiration you've provided.

Fixed it. There's some helpful cooperation for you.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The constant nagging of the skeptics here has helped me to present my sighting in more detail than ever before. I don't know how to thank you all for the continued inspiration you've provided.

You're welcome! I just hope that your insistence on listing the Top UFO Hoaxes works out for you.

Have you had any luck coming up with your Top 10 UFOs (Unidentified Flying Saucers) list and the evidence that falsifies the null hypothesis yet? That would address the topic of this thread. The Top 10 Hoaxes of which ufology's VolksUFO ( firefly ) Hoax is one isn't the topic.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So were ANY trees even remotely damaged by the object landing between them? Surely you would have gone there with a camera and photographed the trail of destruction left by the object. Mind you even if there was no broken branches to photograph, idle curiousity would have gotten me to walk out to a point I, apparently, could readily identify to gather evidence in the day time.

Or is that just my pesky scientific reasoning making me expect too much of people? Like the obvious.

 

[John Albert]

Your cute VW Beetle replacement in my graphic demonstrates quite well how accurate my initial description was ... thank you.

It demonstrates nothing more than the absurdity of a grown, adult man's foolish attempts to pass off a ridiculous story, full of inconsistencies and nonsense, as reality.

The constant nagging of the skeptics here has helped me to present my sighting in more detail than ever before. I don't know how to thank you all for the continued inspiration you've provided.

On the contrary, it has proven your dishonesty. Your willingness to revise and edit your story to account for any inconsistencies is further evidence that you probably just made the whole thing up. Throughout this thread, you have behaved like a child caught in a lie who keeps changing the particulars of his story when questioned, and inventing new details until the whole thing makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

Wait a minute.

if Ufology did say the object emited a glow at that highest altitude he saw it, which was what, a thousand foot ? That's an altitude where you most certainly don't have mist at that time of the day in june (he did not say there was a thick fog so it is only morning mist). In other word the object *could not* have had a glow at that altitude, UNLESS the object was much nearer , a few feet of altitude in the morning mist and was a firefly .

 

[ufology]

Thanks Everyone

What's really interesting about this thread from a UFO researcher's point of view is how well the pseudoskeptics mirror the behavior of the ulta-woos. You get the same exaggertations, proclamations, false analogies, name calling and misrepresentation from both sides, and if you're like me and refuse to take an extremist view either way, you become a target of both. Meanwhile the actual subject matter falls by the wayside. From my perspective in the middle, what both sides fail to recognize is that poalrized views are only a small fraction of the bigger picture. The pseudoskeptics are as filled with the same denial about the realities as the ultra-woos are. It's all quite fascinating. I never anticipated I would experience this quite so firsthand by coming here. But it has been a very worthwhile lesson from a ufology studies perspective. Thank you all again for your continued participation in this thread.

 

[Garrison]

What's really interesting about this thread from a UFO researcher's point of view is how well the pseudoskeptics mirror the behavior of the ulta-woos. You get the same exaggertations, proclamations, false analogies, name calling and misrepresentation from both sides, and if you're like me and refuse to take an extremist view either way, you become a target of both. Meanwhile the actual subject matter falls by the wayside. From my perspective in the middle, what both sides fail to recognize is that poalrized views are only a small fraction of the bigger picture. The pseudoskeptics are as filled with the same denial about the realities as the ultra-woos are. It's all quite fascinating. I never anticipated I would experience this quite so firsthand by coming here. But it has been a very worthwhile lesson from a ufology studies perspective. Thank you all again for your continued participation in this thread.

All the waffle in the world won't change the fact that you've turned what might charitably have been regarded as your flawed memories and distorted perceptions of a mundane event that actually occurred into an outright work of alien spacecraft fiction, and if you think your view that UFO=alien spacecraft isn't an extremist position I can't imagine what you think constitutes 'ultra woo'.

 

[John Albert]

...I can't imagine what you think constitutes 'ultra woo'.

I'm guessing J. Randall Murphy is referring to the folks over at the Paracast forums who, despite being a bit critical thinking-impaired themselves, were nonetheless quick to point out the absurdity of his arguments.

By all appearances, it is Mr. J. Randall Murphy of Ufology Society International who has out-woo'd the woos.

 

[Aepervius]

What's really interesting about this thread from a UFO researcher's point of view is how well the pseudoskeptics mirror the behavior of the ulta-woos. You get the same exaggertations, proclamations, false analogies, name calling and misrepresentation from both sides, and if you're like me and refuse to take an extremist view either way, you become a target of both. Meanwhile the actual subject matter falls by the wayside. From my perspective in the middle, what both sides fail to recognize is that poalrized views are only a small fraction of the bigger picture. The pseudoskeptics are as filled with the same denial about the realities as the ultra-woos are. It's all quite fascinating. I never anticipated I would experience this quite so firsthand by coming here. But it has been a very worthwhile lesson from a ufology studies perspective. Thank you all again for your continued participation in this thread.

Ha. The childish accusation in the hope to rile us up.

I fear, you see, that anybody reading that thread impartially will have seen you as the losing side 100 of pages ago, with your constant misinterpretation of null hypothesis, and your refusal to admit that the NULL is that UFO are mundane. And then there is the constant revisionism on your story. Or the inconsistent detail.

Whatever. Shall i call the wambulance for you ?

 

[RoboTimbo]

What's really interesting about this thread from a UFO researcher's HOAXER'S point of view is how well the pseudoskeptics mirror POINT OUT the behavior of the ulta-woos. You get We make the same exaggertations, proclamations, false analogies, name calling and misrepresentation from at both sides, and if you're like me a creduloid and refuse to take an extremist rational view either way, you become a target of both. That's why I'm getting spanked on that other forum also. Meanwhile the actual subject matter falls by the wayside continues to be embellished by me. From my perspective in the middle outer space, what both sides I fail to recognize is that my poalrized views are only a small fraction of the bigger picture. The pseudoskeptics continue to point out the errors that the ultra-woos like me are make. It's all quite fascinating. I never anticipated I would experience this [rationality] quite so firsthand by coming here. But it has been a very worthwhile lesson which I've not learned anything from. from a ufology studies perspective. Thank you all again for your continued participation in this thread.

Fixed that for you, ufology. You're welcome!

 

[ufology]

Wait a minute.

if Ufology did say the object emited a glow at that highest altitude he saw it, which was what, a thousand foot ? That's an altitude where you most certainly don't have mist at that time of the day in june (he did not say there was a thick fog so it is only morning mist). In other word the object *could not* have had a glow at that altitude, UNLESS the object was much nearer , a few feet of altitude in the morning mist and was a firefly .

Aepervius,

Or unless the object itself gave off a glow ... which it did ... perhaps it ionized the air around it as well, the bright white of the core object and the distance might have made the purple color less distinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionized-air_glow

But apart from that, what makes you so sure there wasn't a lot of water vapor in the air. This was over a forest by a lake in the early morning. And what makes you think that changing the elements to suit your own hypothesis makes your point valid? How it created the glow, or even whether or not there was a glow isn't relevant to the point about it going down behind the trees on the other side of the lake. You've simply claimed that the glow isn't possible, ignored the part about it going down behind the trees and stamped "firefly" on the case ... that's hardly logical or skeptical. Lastly, you are also ignoring the possibility that I am right about the object being an alien craft ... and therefore our simplistic attempts at explaining it are simply innadequate. The truth is, I don't know how it created the glow around it. It just did, and just because I can't explain it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[ufology]

Fixed that for you, ufology. You're welcome!

Robo,

Yes ... thank you very much for proving my point.

For our readers reference see: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7632354&postcount=13915 in which Robo quotes my post and changes it to suit himself while making use of all the non-constructive tactics mentioned within.

 

[Tomtomkent]

At what point has anything ufology done with his story qualified as research? How many pieces of corroborating research have been posted to support his story?

None. Just illustrations and "calculations" based on his own assumptions are not research.

A title applied to himself is namecalling of a whole different kind. Though it is also worth wondering why. He is not above calling others pseudoskeptics. Hmm.

 

[GeeMack]

What's really interesting about this thread from a UFO researcher's point of view is how well the pseudoskeptics mirror the behavior of the ulta-woos. You get the same exaggertations, proclamations, false analogies, name calling and misrepresentation from both sides, and if you're like me and refuse to take an extremist view either way, you become a target of both. Meanwhile the actual subject matter falls by the wayside. From my perspective in the middle, what both sides fail to recognize is that poalrized views are only a small fraction of the bigger picture. The pseudoskeptics are as filled with the same denial about the realities as the ultra-woos are. It's all quite fascinating. I never anticipated I would experience this quite so firsthand by coming here. But it has been a very worthwhile lesson from a ufology studies perspective. Thank you all again for your continued participation in this thread.

You do know it's dishonest to blame the skeptics for your own failure to support your claim, don't you?

And exactly what is it about your alleged alien sighting that makes it objectively any different than a hoax?

 

[Drs_Res]

Third Fifth Sixth time is a charm I hope.

Since this seems to have been missed ignored, I'll repost this:

Could you take the image and indicate the core object minus the glow? Maybe as a red circle or something?

I'll keep in mind that the edge might not be 100% discernible, but a close estimate would be nice. You did after all say that it was about 15.55 feet (I think that was the number) in diameter, so you must have had some idea where the edge was vs. the glow. You can even tag the the red circle with the words "Estimated size of the Core", or something to that effect.

Thanks.

Drs_Res

I don't think I could do that with any real accuracy on the scale of the picture I posted because the picture is too small. The relative size of the object to the trees as it neared them and landed behind them gave clues as to it's size. In this picture I can't really get that across accurately. Maybe if the image was the size of a picture window, like what human perception sees, but that's just way too big to post here and nobody has a monitor that big anyway. When I get more time I'll create an illustration that is larger and closer and in scale. About the only thing you could do is imagine a sphere of light about 15 feet wide. Note that in the illustration, this was just before the object departed and it had gotten much brighter, so the core size seems larger because of that.

The reason that I asked for something close to scale for the core on this picture is because you said earlier that this was a good representation of what you saw. I was trying to picture how much of the "Object" labeled UFO was core vs. glow in that picture. Is it possible that you have the object labeled "UFO" to large, even though you are including the glow?

Another question if you don't mind. Was the sky clear that night / morning?

Thanks.

And this:

Another question if you don't mind. Was the sky clear that night / morning?

Thanks.

And another question for you, whilst you're answering Drs_Res's question if you will, <SNIP>. At any time during the sightings (night or early morning) could you see the reflection of the orb / light / UFO / shiny thing in the lake?

Edited by Locknar: 

Politeness Man throws his Stainless Steel handkerchief; name calling is never civil/polite.... Post <SNIP>'ed, breach of rule 0.

BTW, if you can't recall or are unsure, please just say so.

Thanks.