UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[edge]

Then post them.

I did you want new scans of them?

 

[Stray Cat]

I did you want new scans of them?

So not only are they poor quality photos, they are poor scans of prints of poor negatives?

Great quality evidence you got there edge.

 

[AdMan]

Orbs are UFOs of sorts they are airbourne, yes?

"Orbs" are mundane photographic artifacts.

If you have evidence that they are not, present it.

 

[edge]

This has nothing to do with the polygraph.

Boiled cabbage tastes horrible.
Boiled liver tastes even worse, but that doesn't make boiled cabbage taste any better.

But it proves you'll argue in favor of one type of technology while discrediting another and one that has been and is still used to this day.
The cops can't use it in court but it will still sway a jury before it is rejected and stricken from the record but it will be too late.
You can't strike a record from a jury’s mind.
But real pork in that cabbage makes it way better.
Before it even goes to court it will make a cop if a negative result happens to look deeper in another direction or suspect as we have seen with that missing baby that was on the news the other day.
Now with that being performed on the mother they suspect her and not some one outside of the family, there words, “she failed miserably".

It can start a whole new avenue of investigation.

Yes boiled liver would be terrible, no doubt there.

 

[Stray Cat]

But it proves you'll argue in favor of one type of technology while discrediting another and one that has been and is still used to this day.

It proves nothing of the sort as I wasn't arguing in favour of one technology whilst discrediting the other.

I was making the stand alone point that the polygraph is not reliable.

 

[John Albert]

What the hell is a "God helmet"? Even more of your usual nonsense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

There's a thread about it.

 

[edge]

So not only are they poor quality photos, they are poor scans of prints of poor negatives?

Great quality evidence you got there edge.

Remember we are limited on this site.
I can go one step better in the copy.
They will get clearer.

I'll do it tomorrow.

"Orbs" are mundane photographic artifacts.

If you have evidence that they are not, present it.

Sure I'll addmit some are artifacts like this one below.
But the one before I seen first.

 

[AdMan]

Remember we are limited on this site.
I can go one step better in the copy.
They will get clearer.

I'll do it tomorrow.



Sure I'll addmit some are artifacts like this one below.
But the one before I seen first.

LOL

Yes, that is a mundane photographic artifact.

Do you have any examples that are anything different?

 

[Stray Cat]

Remember we are limited on this site.

Apparently limited only to stuff that's not good evidence.

I can go one step better in the copy.

So instead of being really really poor quality, they will merely be really poor quality... Mmmm... not sure how that will work out.

They will get clearer.

It wasn't originally the quality I was after, but the EXIF data.
As any data you can provide along with the photo will be unverifiable (as the photos aren't digital ones with EXIF data attached) it may not even be worth asking but I'll have a go and see where we get:

1. What is the make and model of the camera?
2. What film stock were the photos taken on
3. What was the shutter speed used
4. What was the aperture setting
5. How far away from you did you judge the 'orb' to be
6. How did you determine this distance

 

[GeeMack]

This orb was observing us.

Did it look something like this?...

​

 

[tomi71]

I am not claiming that UFOs do not have mundane explanations. Just curious to know what they are and mostly in those cases Rramjet presented in his first posts. Some of the cases really seem "out-of-this-world" but surely they can be mundane. Actually extraterrestrial craft could be a mundane explanation at some future time. However not yet, since not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Humanzee]

I had an interesting experience last night. At about 11:00pm I saw a line of 4 yellow flickering lights moving across the sky from my backyard. I watched them from low in the horizon to nearly zenith. Its been rainy here and the cloud ceiling is low. They had to be pretty close. I assumed low flying helicopters. But as they approached I heard no noise and saw no running lights and they drifted oddly. Something was wrong. For a moment I hoped I was experiencing a real alien 'invasion'. And I consider myself a skeptic.

I had my binoculars nearby and a quick look showed the flickering yellow orbs to be candles. Probably only a few hundred feet away. I was witness to a chinese lantern invasion.

I guess I mention this because even the mundane can seem inexplicable. And the desire to witness something as unique as an alien visitation is pretty strong. Well, it was for me.

 

[Pixel42]

I am not claiming that UFOs do not have mundane explanations. Just curious to know what they are

Sadly in some cases we simply don't have enough information, so we'll never be able to determine what the explanation is.

The only point that's being made here by the sceptics is that not having enough information to determine a mundane explanation does not mean we can then assume that the explanation is non-mundane. A simple enough point, but one which some people seem to find impossible to grasp.

 

[23_Tauri]

I am not claiming that UFOs do not have mundane explanations. Just curious to know what they are and mostly in those cases Rramjet presented in his first posts. Some of the cases really seem "out-of-this-world" but surely they can be mundane. Actually extraterrestrial craft could be a mundane explanation at some future time. However not yet, since not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

So, what are you saying, Tomi71? That the 1976 Tehran Incident does have a plausible, mundane explanation, as put forward by many commentators (Klass being the most well known) and of course including are very own Puddle Duck who is very kindly go through it for you one more time, because you don't seem capable of going back a couple of years and reading it in this thread for yourself? Is that what you're saying now, because I can't get a handle on your position on the matter.

Tehran? It's a cool story, bro! And Jafari's bit of the story is the one version that has particularly been embellished over the years. Probably something to do with hanging out with that Greer guy, I expect.

Not that things didn't happen that night. Various things did occur. For example, malfunctioning F-4s (from what I know of the details, they were USAF rejects / used models, and tended to malfunction all the time). But aliens? Non-mundane? See, that's where you come in; at this point you have to falsify the null hypothesis and give some evidence for anything happening that night being non-mundane, because there is nothing there that cannot be explained with resorting to ASSes.

Footnote to Stray Cat: I was looking through my pile of back issues of SFM this morning, and noticed that Jafari, nor any of the other key players, have been interviewed by that esteemed publication. Pity, it'd make a great cover!

 

[tomi71]

Not enought information. Sure for some cases, but there are cases that have excellent amount of information and even: the better the information the more unknown the object is. This good information means that most mundane objects have been able to rule out and object is still unknown. Of course we could discuss cases with bad information, but to presume that UFO-phenomena exists only because of bad information is like putting your head into a bush and hide from the truth. Of course sceptical person can always say that there is not information enough, since: if we had enough information then there would be not the U in UFO. I think this goes rounds though like a dog chasing it´s tail.

What about cases that have excellent information and there still can´t be found a mundane explanation. Is there no room for speculation? The only thing we can do, is to say: "We don´t know". At least we know 99% of the objects it is not based on the good information (I am not talking about bad information cases here).


The remaining 1% is what all this is about. Some say aliens. Some say unknown mundane object. Maybe sometimes they are the same. I am not claiming though I am only saying: could be. At least it´s not totally impossible. Aliens proven: no.

Maybe instead of UFO´s we should investigate mundane phenomenon and find out the truth that way. What is the phenomena if not aliens. What is the answer. What mundane things are there yet to be found to explain good information cases. ET-hypothesis is the most interesting one so far. What other hypothesis there could be.

 

[Stray Cat]

Tomi - This is the exact reason we constantly ask OMG-Aliens proponents for "Your best case"

Rramjet attempted it and yet in not a single one was the information good enough to conclude anything with 100% certainty. It was shown however, time and time again that the mundane had also not been conclusively ruled out.

 

[Sideroxylon]

What about cases that have excellent information and there still can´t be found a mundane explanation. Is there no room for speculation? The only thing we can do, is to say: "We don´t know". At least we know 99% of the objects it is not based on the good information (I am not talking about bad information cases here).

This is the evidence thread. Let's hear some examples of such cases.

Of course there is room for speculation, but its just that. Proponents, and perhaps yourself, want the speculations to be taken seriously but why should they be?

 

[23_Tauri]

Not enough information.

Good to know you can see that. So, do you also see that coming to a conclusion of aliens from outer space / another dimension, is as unsupported and as likely any other paranormal / quasi-religious explanation, such as vision of the Virgin Mary, the big JC, Bigfoot in his aeroplane, or invisible pink unicorns?

Sure for some cases, but there are cases that have excellent amount of information and even: the better the information the more unknown the object is. This good information means that most mundane objects have been able to rule out and object is still unknown.

for example?

Of course we could discuss cases with bad information, but to presume that UFO-phenomena exists only because of bad information is like putting your head into a bush and hide from the truth.

I'm bit confused by this good information / bad information routine. What do you mean by good and bad information? Can you give examples please?

Of course sceptical person can always say that there is not information enough, since: if we had enough information then there would be not the U in UFO. I think this goes rounds though like a dog chasing it´s tail.

Yup, and in every case where there is sufficient information to identify what the object / phenomenon was, it wasn't never an ASS.

What about cases that have excellent information and there still can´t be found a mundane explanation. Is there no room for speculation? The only thing we can do, is to say: "We don´t know". At least we know 99% of the objects it is not based on the good information (I am not talking about bad information cases here).

Now we've got "excellent information". Please explain what you mean by this.

The remaining 1% is what all this is about. Some say aliens. Some say unknown mundane object. Maybe sometimes they are the same. I am not claiming though I am only saying: could be. At least it´s not totally impossible. Aliens proven: no.

Give me something that isn't totally impossible. You also seem to not be understanding the null hypothesis. Can we prove that it is impossible for coins to turn into butterflies? No! So instead we formulate a null hypothesis "flipped coins do not turn into butterflies" and try to falsify it.

So, why aliens and not Thor? Or space serpents?

Maybe instead of UFO´s we should investigate mundane phenomenon and find out the truth that way. What is the phenomena if not aliens. What is the answer. What mundane things are there yet to be found to explain good information cases. ET-hypothesis is the most interesting one so far. What other hypothesis there could be.

• Thor
• Bigfoot in his aeroplane
• Jesus Christ
• Muhammad
• Virgin Mary
• Invisible Pink Unicorns
• Space serpents
• Hallucinations and ectopic phenomena

Get the picture?

ETA: I should stress, I'm not being facetious for the sake of it. There is as much evidence for UFOs being ASSes as there is for UFOs being any of the things in my list above. That's m'point. As John Albert put it (more succiently than I):

"extraterrestrial space aliens have never been proven to exist, therefore positing them as a cause would be indefensible by reason"

ETA2: why does everyone else get in before me? As it is, GregInAustin, JohnAlbert and others have now explained this to you. I hope it helps, Tomi.

 

[SezMe]

What about cases that have excellent information and there still can´t be found a mundane explanation.

I would dispute the existence of such a case. To have "excellent" information, one would need to have something other than eyewitnesses, tape, etc. Something like a sample of material not capable of being formulated here on Earth. Something physical - something real that could be examined on an objective basis by more than one person/lab/etc.

Lacking physical evidence means it is not an excellent case.

 

[GeeMack]

What is the phenomena if not aliens. What is the answer.

You missed this answer regarding the phenomena, or maybe you are intentionally ignoring it. People regularly see things, or believe they see things, which they are unable to identify for a variety of reasons. There's your phenomenon.

What about cases that have excellent information and there still can´t be found a mundane explanation.

They are unidentified.

Is there no room for speculation?

When there is no evidence to support a UFO being some particular thing, then anything within the realms of your imagination is as good a possibility as anything else. Rramjet and ufology seemed to have very limited imaginations, only being willing to consider aliens as an explanation. Skeptics, in contrast to the pseudoscientific approach of "ufologists", don't give more weight to any one unevidenced explanation than any other. Hallucinations, reflections, mirages, mental illnesses, hoaxes, close up things mis-perceived as being far away, even gods and demons remain on the table as possibilities when there is a total lack of objective evidence.