• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
tomi71 said:
What´s wrong with this RoboTimbo? He seems a very nasty man. From this on I am totally ignoring his comments.

edit: RoboTimbo has now been successfully added to your ignore list. You will now be returned to where you were.
Click to expand...

So you're asking questions, getting answers and ignoring them?
 
Archer17 said:
Regarding Rendlesham many might be unaware that the dubious claims by the various players involved back then got even more dubious over the years. Linda Moulton Howe's website used to have a free link to Sgt. Jim Penniston's claim that he actually touched the "craft" and received a "download" in "binary" form that established the craft was ours...from the future. A future where things apparently are so bad 'they' (or 'we' in future-tense I suppose) need to go back in time to use 'us' as genetic "band aids" (Penniston's term). If one wants to lose some brain cells there's more info on this hokem a google or two away.
Click to expand...
Yes poor gullible LMH, will post any old crap that people give her.
Penniston's notebook (in which he claims to have written the binary code) is really funny as he apparently didn't even have it at the time of the incident yet he claims he wrote it all down as he went (it even has the wrong date on it's cover) Ian Ridpath has written extensively about this case and this website is a treasure trove of information and original documentation:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm

Tim Printy has also written about it in SUNlite magazine though I can't remember which edition it was they are all here:
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite.htm
He'll no doubt be along soon with precise information. :)

For anyone who hasn't seen this yet, I made a short Rendlesham animation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSY--POpAjQ
 
Last edited:
I learned a couple things today. So, Penniston's "binary code" wasn't the source of his claims of time-travelers, it was regressive hypnosis. (Got to get the woo right if I want to address it).

Stray Cat said:
Yes poor gullible LMH, will post any old crap that people give her.
Penniston's notebook (in which he claims to have written the binary code) is really funny as he apparently didn't even have it at the time of the incident yet he claims he wrote it all down as he went (it even has the wrong date on it's cover) Ian Ridpath has written extensively about this case and this website is a treasure trove of information and original documentation:
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm
Click to expand...

I recall reading Mr. Ridpath's earlier evaluation of Rendlesham a while back and he did a very good job then on throwing water on the ufological-angle but I was unaware he kept at it as this case evolves (or devolves as the case seems to be). Thanks for the link.

For anyone who hasn't seen this yet, I made a short Rendlesham animation here: {snip}
Click to expand...
That was good! :D


Astrophotographer said:
I can help you with those specific issues.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite2_6.pdf

And

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_2.pdf

also Peter Brookesmith in http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_1.pdf

I really have to work on a master index on the newsletter.
Click to expand...

Master Index or not you have an excellent newsletter no matter how you slice it. I've been a fan of yours since I read your analysis of the Belgian "UFO wave" years back.
 
tomi71 said:
Yes I have. The phenomena itself challenges the mundane explanation, since it behaves in a non mundane way. Is this the best you got? I wonder how you can be so sure that these phenomenons mundane...
Click to expand...
the existence of the belief in UFO=aliens is not proof of aliens, in the same way that the prevalence of religious belief is not proof of god(s).

Everyone here recognises the phenomenon of UFO sightings, the topic though, is to find evidence that UFOs are alien craft. So far that has not been achieved.
 
tomi71 said:
Who cares if they are mundane or non mundane. The question is: what are they?
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I seem a little stupid today (I have a cold), but isn't part of the reason that these reports (barring Rendlesham) are the top ten reports is because no satisfactory mundane explanations have yet been found? (the other reason being that they most closely fit a cognitive bias towards alien visitation).

So clearly we can't give you specific answers. Until satisfactory explanations are found, mundane or otherwise, these reports remain unexplained, cause unknown. Even the documentary itself, despite suggesting alien visitation, repeatedly says we don't know what happened or what these reported sightings are. So, until things change, we stay with the null hypothesis that has remained unfalsified for so long: there is a mundane explanation.

It's worth bearing in mind that the reason the documentary was made and you're here asking the question is precisely because the evidence, such as it is, is equivocal.

You might as well ask us for mundane explanations for all the greatest unsolved murder mysteries because you think they could have been done by <insert favorite exotic being here>.

If you want speculation, there are plenty of forums full of speculation, from conspiracy theories to Earth spirits, inter-dimensional entities, aliens, God, mass hallucination, etc. Who knows, we may even find that aliens have visited and these reports were nothing to do with them :D

Personally, I find the alien visitation hypothesis unsatisfactory because (apart from the overwhelming pragmatic physical considerations) there are too few reports for which satisfactory mundane explanations haven't been found, too little consistency between those reports, and too little supporting evidence in general. But that's just me - I'd love it if we were being visited by aliens who wished us no harm - who wouldn't?
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Pythonic,
Human perception is much better than the cynics and skeptics give it credit for. It is based on well known scientific principles with known tolerances. That is why optometrists can measure eyesight and if necessary create perfect lenses for glasses.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. That part's just laughable. The object "perceived" is validated by the optometrist. He's not just taking the patient's word for it, he knows the letter(s) he's looking at. If he couldn't validate the object, then he couldn't make the prescription! It's a shared observation.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with soundness of one's claim. Witness testimony can never beat actual evidence such as DNA or fingerprints that places someone at a crime scene. Which would you believe?
 
Last edited:
Pythonic said:
I'm sorry. That part's just laughable. The object "perceived" is validated by the optometrist. He's not just taking the patient's word for it, he knows the letter(s) he's looking at. If he couldn't validate the object, then he couldn't make the prescription! It's a shared observation.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with soundness of one's claim. Witness testimony can never beat actual evidence such as DNA or fingerprints that places someone at a crime scene. Which would you believe?
Click to expand...


It appears that Mr Fology has left the building. Until further notice his part will be being played by his understudy, Mr 71.

The management understands your disappointment and extends its apololgies.
 
Don't forget edge, the Biblical UFOlogist.

Rramjet's line of succession:
SnidelyW
King of the Americas
ufology
tomi71
edge
 
I remember when UFO believers had uniforms and fancy science degrees and all. You just don't get them kind o' UFO believers no more. I never had to yell at J. Allen Hynek to git offen my lawn, dagnabbit. Them was the good ol' days.
 
Archer17 said:
Regarding Rendlesham many might be unaware that the dubious claims by the various players involved back then got even more dubious over the years. Linda Moulton Howe's website used to have a free link to Sgt. Jim Penniston's claim that he actually touched the "craft" and received a "download" in "binary" form that established the craft was ours...from the future. A future where things apparently are so bad 'they' (or 'we' in future-tense I suppose) need to go back in time to use 'us' as genetic "band aids" (Penniston's term). If one wants to lose some brain cells there's more info on this hokem a google or two away.
Click to expand...

That was one of the scenario for one of the writting of "outter limit" or "twlight zone" or some similar TV serie, some kids (with a teacher) go into the wood, find an alien craft, go inside, think they got ao alpha centauri (or any alien planet) but in reality land somewhere, find out their eggs / sperm have been taken during travel, and look outside, find skeleton of mutated human, and realize they are the out for human civilisation to continue after they mutated to extinction.

It was a two episodes story. First episodes the teacher and their student discover the mysterious craft and agree to go inside. Second part in another episode was the student waking up and landing and finding out they went in one direction abck and forth only landing on earth.

I have to wonder if that TV episode did not come first, way before the 1980 incident...
 
Last edited:
I don't recall the episode in question Aepervius but I get the gist of your post. I've told saucer-peddlers a time or two that "UFO" reports tend to mimic contemporary expectations. We previously had the "airships" (blimps), "ghost-rockets," and such, now we see more modern "versions" of "alien" craft touted by John. Q. Woo.
BTW, edge might not like it but I never considered "orbs" as ufological, they're ghost-related woo in my book. Regarding them, I'm not sure "orbs" were all stylish before the advent of the camera ...sorta like "rods" if you get my drift.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Human perception is much better than the cynics and skeptics give it credit for. It is based on well known scientific principles with known tolerances. That is why optometrists can measure eyesight and if necessary create perfect lenses for glasses. There are many instances when eyewitness tesimony may be better than material evidence.
Click to expand...

No, you're describing visual acuity, which has almost nothing to do with perception in the context of eyewitness testimony. People with 20/20 vision or better can still be fooled by optical illusions. That's because the principle there is not whether the eye is optically suitable, but whether the brain to which it's attached is interpreting the image correctly.

People like Chabris and Simons who study perception professionally (and reasonably scientifically) note that the common beliefs about human perception are often very wrong. So it's safe to say that the UFO believers, who invariably base their evaluation of eyewitness testimony on those common beliefs, are more likely to be the ones not giving proper credit.
 
JayUtah said:
No, you're describing visual acuity, which has almost nothing to do with perception in the context of eyewitness testimony. People with 20/20 vision or better can still be fooled by optical illusions. That's because the principle there is not whether the eye is optically suitable, but whether the brain to which it's attached is interpreting the image correctly.

People like Chabris and Simons who study perception professionally (and reasonably scientifically) note that the common beliefs about human perception are often very wrong. So it's safe to say that the UFO believers, who invariably base their evaluation of eyewitness testimony on those common beliefs, are more likely to be the ones not giving proper credit.
Click to expand...


JayUtah,

Acuity is part of perception and although your point is well taken none of it makes it "safe to say", that eyewitness testimony should not be given more credit than the skeptics and debunkers here do ( which is essentially no credit at all ).
 
Pixel42 said:
Nobody here has said they are sure the explanation of every UFO case is mundane. You are missing the point of the null hypothesis as completely as ufology did.
Click to expand...


Pixel42,

Your proclamation that I don't understand the null hypothesis is not backed by any reasoning with respect to the statements I've made. I understand it very well and if anything, it is the skeptics here who have made the ill conceived choice to apply it to ufology.

A null hypothesis is supposed to be used under relatively controlled conditions to establish a statistical probability. UFOs do not volunteer for experiments under controlled conditions. The critics here also continue to claim that because their pet hypothesis has not been falsified, it somehow gives them license to conclude UFOs are mundane objects, which ignores the fundamental rule of any null hypothesis ( it cannot be proven ), and therefore in the absence of falsification, no conclusion can be drawn.

Simply because UFOs have not been proven to exist does not in any way prove they don't exist or that they are mundane objects or phenomena. The best you can do if properly invoking a null hypothesis is to maintain the status quo, something the critics here never outline to begin with, which is yet another fault in their application of the null hypothesis. The other thing they don't do is establish fixed standards of evidence, constantly moving the goalposts to suit their bias.

In the end, the only purpose of the null hypothesis as applied to ufology by the critics here has been to cloud the issue and steer the discussion.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
JayUtah,

Acuity is part of perception and although your point is well taken none of it makes it "safe to say", that eyewitness testimony should not be given more credit than the skeptics and debunkers here do ( which is essentially no credit at all ).
Click to expand...

Which means that you didn't take the point well at all or didn't understand it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom