UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[23_Tauri]

There is nothing that defies known principles of physics in interstellar travel. Fusion is a known principle of physics and combined with a sizable ship and a long time span, it could be done at speeds well below C. For example the nearest star is only 4.2 light years which at one tenth C could still be reached well within the useful life of an automated craft.

You've just implied in your previous post that, between 1952 and 1954, 704 (22% of 3,200) alien space ships visited Earth. This many in the space of just two years. So there are hundreds of these little critters flitting about overhead every, single year? And these guys are travelling for a very very long time in big ships? Using all that fuel? Big ships that when they get here have the ability to move at incredible speeds, doing 90 degree turns, and go from zero to 25kps in an instant? Or do the big ships have little whizzy ships inside of them for doing the acrobatics that impress the Earthlings?

Sorry if I'm beginning to sound somewhat derisive of your claims, but they're not stacking up for me.

 

[Marduk]

For example the nearest star is only 4.2 light years .

the nearest star is the Sun. its not quite that far


however, project Orion seen here

could have travelled the 4.2 light years in 85 years
but the aliens would have heard us coming a way off

 

[23_Tauri]

There is nothing that defies known principles of physics in interstellar travel. Fusion is a known principle of physics and combined with a sizeable ship and a long time span, it could be done at speeds well below C. For example the nearest star is only 4.2 light years which at one tenth C could still be reached well within the useful life of an automated craft.

Only 4.2 light years.

Do you have any idea what you've just written? 25.2 trillion miles. That's 25,200,000,000,000 miles. Just how fast this is "sizeable ship" moving at, folo? That's a sizeable ship from an imaginary Goldilocks planet circling Alpha Centauri, that's managed to harbour advanced life forms with a keen interest in travel. That one, right?

 

[ufology]

You've just implied in your previous post that, between 1952 and 1954, 704 (22% of 3,200) alien space ships visited Earth. This many in the space of just two years. So there are hundreds of these little critters flitting about overhead every, single year? And these guys are travelling for a very very long time in big ships? Using all that fuel? Big ships that when they get here have the ability to move at incredible speeds, doing 90 degree turns, and go from zero to 25kps in an instant? Or do the big ships have little whizzy ships inside of them for doing the acrobatics that impress the Earthlings?

Sorry if I'm beginning to sound somewhat derisive of your claims, but they're not stacking up for me.

I interpret the numbers somewhat differently than you do. First off, I don't know if alien craft are extraterrestrial spacecraft. However given the descriptions, an extraterrestrial craft of some kind cannot be ruled out.

Secondly, the number of alien craft sighted may be the result of the same craft or a limited number of such craft being sighted at different times and places. For example the Concorde has been seen thousands of times in hundreds of places, but that doesn't mean there are thousands of Concordes. There were no sighings of UFO fleets with hundreds of craft.

Thirdly, a number of the results are probably still the result of classified conventional aircraft or missile projects. It was about the time that we were experimenting a lot with new jet and rocket propulsion, and these were still strange and revolutionary to many people back then.

So all combined, there is probably a larger margin of error in the numbers than given and there were probably fewer individual craft than the numbers suggest.

 

[23_Tauri]

I interpret the numbers somewhat differently than you do. First off, I don't know if alien craft are extraterrestrial spacecraft. However given the descriptions, an extraterrestrial craft of some kind cannot be ruled out.

Secondly, the number of alien craft sighted may be the result of the same craft or a limited number of such craft being sighted at different times and places. For example the Concorde has been seen thousands of times in hundreds of places, but that doesn't mean there are thousands of Concordes. There were no sighings of UFO fleets with hundreds of craft.

Thirdly, a number of the results are probably still the result of classified conventional aircraft or missile projects. It was about the time that we were experimenting a lot with new jet and rocket propulsion, and these were still strange and revolutionary to many people back then.

So all combined, there is probably a larger margin of error in the numbers than given and there were probably fewer individual craft than the numbers suggest.

If "a number of the results are probably still the result of classified conventional aircraft or missile projects" then why couldn't all of the 22% unidentified have fallen into this category? Why do some of them have to be alien space ships?

What would Giordano Bruno think?

 

[ufology]

Only 4.2 light years.

Do you have any idea what you've just written? 25.2 trillion miles. That's 25,200,000,000,000 miles. Just how fast this is "sizeable ship" moving at, folo? That's a sizeable ship from an imaginary Goldilocks planet circling Alpha Centauri, that's managed to harbour advanced life forms with a keen interest in travel. That one, right?

All I've done is shown that your assertion is faulty. So why not just admit that instead of fudging around and moving the goalposts? Nothing about the laws of physics defies interstellar travel. It is just a really major undertaking.

BTW: At one tenth C we're looking at around 200 stars that could be reached at a travel time between 50 - 300 years, including some of the ones that show promise for intelligent life.

 

[23_Tauri]

All I've done is shown that your assertion is faulty. So why not just admit that instead of fudging around and moving the goalposts? Nothing about the laws of physics defies interstellar travel. It is just a really major undertaking.

I admit that my assertion is faulty and that theoretically would be possible to travel 26.2 trillion miles under the power of a small, on-board, nuclear reactor. It's just a very, very long way. And it doesn't overcome the fact that you still have zero evidence for aliens from Alpha Centauri, or anywhere else for that matter, having visited Earth.

 

[Garrison]

All I've done is shown that your assertion is faulty. So why not just admit that instead of fudging around and moving the goalposts? Nothing about the laws of physics defies interstellar travel. It is just a really major undertaking.

Yes a theoretical one that does nothing to provide any evidence to back the claims that such craft are whizzing about our skies making impossible manoeuvres. It certainly doesn't do anything to reinforce you dubious 40 year old recollection of a light in the sky.

 

[23_Tauri]

Yes a theoretical one that does nothing to provide any evidence to back the claims that such craft are whizzing about our skies making impossible manoeuvres. It certainly doesn't do anything to reinforce you dubious 40 year old recollection of a light in the sky.

Which must've been one of the little, whizzy saucers that come out of the big mothership once it gets here, because evidently the big nuclear powered mothership couldn't do that nought to twenty five kilometres a second trick and the figure of eights....

 

[John Albert]

Sure, with what we know now, lightspeed travel is not possible. However the flaw in this argument with respect to interstellar travel is that it assumes we need lightspeed travel to accomplish the task. Really, all we need is enough time and a decent ship.

How much time is "enough time" to travel tens or hundreds of light years?

A thousand years? Ten thousand years?

The other thing is that we can safely assume that even though we don't have adequate technology now, providing our species and its technology continues to survive and evolve, we will have sufficient technology in the future, and given the rate our technology is currently evolving, a century or two should be about all that it takes. By then our own science will likely have solved both energy and aging problems, if not many more.

You cannot safely assume such a thing, because you have absolutely no evidence on which to base your assumptions.

Science fiction stories don't count, remember. We're talking about reality here.

 

[ufology]

I admit that my assertion is faulty and that theoretically would be possible to travel 26.2 trillion miles under the power of a small, on-board, nuclear reactor. It's just a very, very long way. And it doesn't overcome the fact that you still have zero evidence for aliens from Alpha Centauri, or anywhere else for that matter, having visited Earth.

OK we're making some progress. Thank you. Now to continue, I've already admitted that I don't have sufficient evidence to scientifically demonstrate that Earth is being visted or has been visited by aliens from another star system. How many times do I need to say that before the skeptics stop bashing me over the head with it?

The above being said, lack of proof positive still does not equal proof negative, and there is plenty of inconclusive ( from a scientific point of view ) evidence to warrant further study. So how about providing some useful commentary in that spirit? Help sift out the fake videos and accounts using facts and logic rather than prejudicially ruling them all unworthy of investigation or consideration. Let's try to accomplish something positive in 2012.

 

[Marduk]

So how about providing some useful commentary in that spirit? Help sift out the fake videos and accounts using facts and logic rather than prejudicially ruling them all unworthy of investigation or consideration. Let's try to accomplish something positive in 2012.

we already sifted out every one of your claims using facts and logic didn't we, not what you were looking for ?

perhaps the standard of your evidence needs to be higher, or actually present

 

[23_Tauri]

OK we're making some progress. Thank you. Now to continue, I've already admitted that I don't have sufficient evidence to scientifically demonstrate that Earth is being visted or has been visited by aliens from another star system. How many times do I need to say that before the skeptics stop bashing me over the head with it?

Hey, so you believe aliens are visiting us, I'm cool with that. You are spared a newting.

The above being said, lack of proof positive still does not equal proof negative, and there is plenty of inconclusive ( from a scientific point of view ) evidence to warrant further study. So how about providing some useful commentary in that spirit? Help sift out the fake videos and accounts using facts and logic rather than prejudicially ruling them all unworthy of investigation or consideration. Let's try to accomplish something positive in 2012.

I'm sure they'll be plenty of lively discussion on the subject in the coming year.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo,

Instead of attacking me why not respond to the issue. If you need to look up the definition of alien ... go ahead ... it is not limited to extraterrestrial and I made it clear what I intended it to mean among the various possibilities.

folo, how about if you respond to the issues? And you should look up the definition of unidentified and unknown and alien ... go ahead ... unknown and unidentified neither one refer to alien but they do refer to each other. There is no reference in the definition of alien to unknown or unidentified.

Now that you know, you should no longer repeat your mistake. I will assume that you made an honest mistake before. Now you know differently. Neither "unknown" nor "unidentefied" mean "alien".

 

[John Albert]

OK we're making some progress. Thank you. Now to continue, I've already admitted that I don't have sufficient evidence to scientifically demonstrate that Earth is being visted or has been visited by aliens from another star system. How many times do I need to say that before the skeptics stop bashing me over the head with it?

One major problem with your position is that you keep saying you merely don't have "scientific evidence," when in fact you do not have any evidence at all.

All you have are a number of wild-ass stories, which you like to refer to as "anecdotal evidence," "official reports," "accounts," or "firsthand experiences," but which are really just claims. As we've pointed out countless times ever since you first showed up in this forum, claims are not evidence for themselves.

The above being said, lack of proof positive still does not equal proof negative

That's an argument from ignorance.

Lacking evidence, there's absolutely no logical reason to believe.

...there is plenty of inconclusive ( from a scientific point of view ) evidence to warrant further study.

There is no evidence whatsoever. This is the crux of the issue that you persistently refuse to acknowledge.

So how about providing some useful commentary in that spirit?

Here's some useful commentary (though given your history around here, I'm sure you won't bother to make any use of it): You have no evidence for your beliefs. Please come back when you have something substantial instead of empty claims and hot air, and then we'll have something to talk about.

Help sift out the fake videos and accounts using facts and logic rather than prejudicially ruling them all unworthy of investigation or consideration.

OK, first thing you need to do is provide some conclusive evidence that any such "alien craft" even exist in the first place, and then we'll have some basis on which to evaluate the videos and accounts for accuracy. Lacking that evidence, there's absolutely no reason to assume any of the videos or accounts are anything more than hoaxes or misperceptions of mundane phenomena.

Let's try to accomplish something positive in 2012.

Why don't you try to accomplish something positive in 2012?

Try to start debating honestly.

Read and consider with an open mind what your opponents are actually saying. Take the time to actually examine the evidence they're showing you, instead of just watching for points to refute. They're going to all the trouble to find, evaluate and present that evidence just for your edification, so the least you can do is take the time and effort to honestly examine and consider it, instead of simply ignoring or dismissing it out of hand.

 

[ufology]

folo, how about if you respond to the issues? And you should look up the definition of unidentified and unknown and alien ... go ahead ... unknown and unidentified neither one refer to alien but they do refer to each other. There is no reference in the definition of alien to unknown or unidentified.

Now that you know, you should no longer repeat your mistake. I will assume that you made an honest mistake before. Now you know differently. Neither "unknown" nor "unidentefied" mean "alien".

I've made no mistake, and I've explained the reasoning. In the context of the studies done, for all intents and purposes unidentified is synonymous with alien, only alien is more descriptive and accurate. The USAF just didn't like using words that might be construed as meaning extraterrestrial, even though there were people inside who were of that opinion. Also, in my Encarta dictionary the word "unknown" is also listed as a synonym for alien. So again the context is perfectly legitimate.

 

[GeeMack]

So again you willfully ignore Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14, a massive statistical study the Battelle Memorial Institute did for the USAF of 3,200 UFO cases between 1952 and 1954. Of these, 22% remained and were classified as unidentified ("true UFOs"). Another 69% were deemed identified (IFOs). There was insufficient information to make a determination in the remaining 9%.

Exactly 0.000% of them were eventually identified as alien craft. Unless you are able to falsify that null hypothesis of yours, you remember the one:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin."​

So now you're going to say "unidentified" does not equate to "alien" and I'll respond by saying that for all intents and purposes, when considered against the criteria used to determine whether the object was "unknown" the word becomes synonymous with "alien" ... as in inconsistent with our knowledge and ability, or outside our known civilization, or strange beyond conventional explanation. These are what I mean by alien, not limited to but including the possibility of an ET intelligence.

I've made no mistake, and I've explained the reasoning. In the context of the studies done, for all intents and purposes unidentified is synonymous with alien, only alien is more descriptive and accurate. The USAF just didn't like using words that might be construed as meaning extraterrestrial, even though there were people inside who were of that opinion. Also, in my Encarta dictionary the word "unknown" is also listed as a synonym for alien. So again the context is perfectly legitimate.

That is another argument constructed from bald faced, abject dishonesty. Unidentified does not equal to, nor is it synonymous with alien. Unidentified means it has not been determined to be some particular thing. It is a lie to suggest otherwise.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've made no mistake, and I've explained the reasoning. In the context of the studies done, for all intents and purposes unidentified is synonymous with alien, only alien is more descriptive and accurate. The USAF just didn't like using words that might be construed as meaning extraterrestrial, even though there were people inside who were of that opinion. Also, in my Encarta dictionary the word "unknown" is also listed as a synonym for alien. So again the context is perfectly legitimate.

The above is an outright lie and an example of the fallacy of dishonest redefinition. Again. The above poster deliberately chooses to attempt to dishonestly redefine words to magick Alien Space Ships into existence since he has no evidence for them.

 

[AdMan]

Unbelievable. Now he's trying to redefine "unknown" to mean alien.

 

[ufology]

One major problem with your position is that you keep saying you merely don't have "scientific evidence," when in fact you do not have any evidence at all.

All you have are a number of wild-ass stories, which you like to call "anecdotal evidence" or "firsthand experiences," but which are really just claims. As we've pointed out countless times ever since you first showed up in this forum, claims are not evidence for themselves.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence, just not the kind you'll accept. Why? Because you proclaim that anecdotal evidence = mere claims, but that isn't true. Anecdotal evidence stems from well established scientific principles, most significantly the stimulus response. If someone sees something, the vast majority of the time it is because light reflecting or emitted from an object has stimulated the receptors in the eye, causing impulses to be sent to the brain's visual cortex and interpreted as some object or another. It means something was seen, and an account of what was seen can be communicated from one human being to another because we are the most intelligent of species on the planet and our brain surpasses the intelligence of any machine ... and therefore what we see and think and communicate can be valuable ... very valuable ... whether you want to admit that or not.