UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[tsig]

Sideroxylon,

I made no reference to a "cover up", simply to the existence of high level security surrounding Space Command ... which you can lookup for yourself when Wikipedia returns from protest ... and then you'll realize why they might have sufficient proof for our previous poster. And BTW it's been proven that there has been a widespread suppression of information related to UFOs in the past, and there is no reason to think the latest information would be open for public inspection. So your "lame" comment is clearly based on faulty information. Or maybe you have some other reason besides "lame" that you'd like to share?

Kudos for Wikipedia taking a stand !

You're a cadet there, right?

 

[Stray Cat]

You don't have any of the transcripts do you? And you've never even looked at any of the intelligence reports either. Like the July 29, 1952 memorandum from Gilbert R. Levy, Chief Counter Intelligence Division / Director of Special Investigations who wrote:

And you then go on to quote a third hand account of something which "reportedly" happened. And yet there is no first hand account of this incident from either the pilot nor the ATC staff.

And BTW I've never maintained the oil flares in the Campeche incident were UFOs. Perhaps you would be kind enough to send me a link to the report of the military jet intercept during the Campeche incident in which it has been confirmed that there was a radar/visual intercept of oil well flares. Sound pretty unlikely to me so let's see how it happened.

It appears that Maccabee has taken down his analysis now the page is showing 404.
Here's Tim Printy's webpage describing the events: http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Mexico04e.htm

 

[GeeMack]

Oh those little icons are funny. Very good. But maybe you'd find a better debate in the homeopathy thread or something like that. We've dragged this one over the same ground so many times it must be getting tiresome if all you are after is some debating time.

Actually we, the skeptics participating here, are making a constructive contribution to this thread and the purpose of the JREF. We are being provided with a plethora of inane arguments, logical fallacies, dishonest redefinitions of terms, arguments from incredulity and ignorance, and uncountable glaring examples of pseudoscientific nonsense and crackpottery. We are catching those flaws as they occur, in many cases predicting them and foiling them before they even come up.

In pointing out all that nonsense, the complete failure of any "UFOs = alien craft" proponents to support their claim, and exposing the pretense that there's anything respectable or scientific about "ufology", we are doing a great favor for the organization and any lurkers who might be wandering past.

Your contribution? Providing the transparent arguments for us to use as examples of the antithesis of critical thinking. And if any lurkers don't catch on right away, you repeat the same failed arguments again and again. That gives us an opportunity to explain the failure many different ways. And that gives the lurkers a chance to learn about critical thinking in ways they can use and apply when they encounter the kind of irrational "ufology" nonsense we've seen so much of in this thread.

 

[tsig]

So you are saying that unless we know what evidence every agency in the world has, we have no reason to say something has not been proven to us?

Ok, you know the absence of evidence works the same regardless of reason? We have no reason to assume that ufos are alien because we have no evidence. I don't care if it was stolen, destroyed, lost or never existed, it is not there. With out evidence, for any given reason, the existence remains unproven.

But sure, now add another assertion, that the agencies could, would, or have ever, surpressed evidence of aliens.

Looks like a goal of the gaps.

 

[ufology]

And it's only a big leap of faith that would make anyone conclude: OMGAliens!

Where in the memorandum does Gilbert R. Levy say that the (as yet) unidentified object was an alien craft rather than an Unidentified Flying Object? In fact, please show in the memorandum where he states that the object was even a UFO.

The document refers to the objects as "unidentified aerial objects" that were described by radar operators as "good sharp targets" and observed in numbers from four to eight. It goes on to say that " ... no theory exists at the present time as to the origin of the objects and they are considered to be unexplained." However we know that there was a theory that ojects such as these might be ET craft, but that the ET theory was suppressed and although not completely ruled out, deemed unlikely. There are other documents illustrating that as well. But of course you should already know all this because the skeptics here claim to be fully informed about such things. So why do you need me to explain it all?

All I'm looking for here is some info from the skeptics on more recent sightings. How about those videos where it looks like there is some kind of swirling vortex in the sky? I was thinking CGI hoaxs and/or rocket tests but I don't have any specific details about launches or that sort of thing. They have been seen over Australia, China, Norway and elsewhere. Can anyone here put together a serious debunking report on these that I can post up on our site? That would be a real show of constructive input.

 

[GeeMack]

The document refers to the objects as "unidentified aerial objects" that were described by radar operators as "good sharp targets" and observed in numbers from four to eight. It goes on to say that " ... no theory exists at the present time as to the origin of the objects and they are considered to be unexplained." However we know that there was a theory that ojects such as these might be ET craft, but that the ET theory was suppressed and although not completely ruled out, deemed unlikely. There are other documents proving that as well. But of course you should already know all this because the skeptics here claim to be fully informed about such things. So why do you need me to explain it all?

So, yes or no, did that event result in an objective determination that the UFO was an alien craft? Because if it wasn't, then that case is closed since it's irrelevant to your claim.

All I'm looking for here is some info from the skeptics on more recent sightings. How about those videos where it looks like there is some kind of swirling vortex in the sky? I was thinking CGI hoaxs and/or rocket tests but I don't have any specific details about launches or that sort of thing. They have been seen over Australia, China, Norway and elsewhere. Can anyone here put together a debunking report on these that I can post up on our site?

Don't "ufologists" do any of their own work?

 

[tsig]

Physical evidence isn't all eye witness accounts are used to back up. The D.C. sightings in 1952 involved multiple witnesses and radar tracking. The eye-witness observation of the pilot backed up the radar tracking of an object that no manmade or natural phenomenon can adequately explain to this day. This easily qualifies as "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft. So address the case ... radar/visual pursuit by a USAF F-94 ... during the D.C. sightings in '52.

no manmade or natural phenomenon

If it wasn't a natural phenomenon then it must be supernatural OMG WITCHES!!!

 

[tsig]

And was Santa good to you last year?

She was very very
good.

 

[tsig]

More specifically, "God moves in mysterious ways"... what more proof do you need?

UFOs also move in mysterious ways. OMG Aliens are god!

 

[John Albert]

No manmade or natural object we know of can explain this sighting.

There's no way you could possibly know that. Just because nobody has found a manmade or natural object to explain it, that does not mean one does not exist. And not knowing what something is does not justify a jump to the conclusion that you know what it is.

It's a classic argument from ignorance.

 

[tsig]

Yes stories about UFOs are quite wonderful actually. They fire the imagination and grab our curiosity. They cause us to reach out and look for explanations and in doing so discover all kinds of interesting things about airplanes and space and history and science. Even if you don't believe in UFOs at all, they still inspire us to look beyond our present constraints and imagine what it's like to live in a universe with other life ... and that can nurture creativity and motivate us to get involved in projects like SETI or astrobiology or write books or make films or learn to build websites or even just participate in forum discussions ... yes indeed ufology is cool and it's open to believers and skeptics alike

Name one.

 

[tsig]

They certainly cause you to use your imagination.


Imagination is a wonderful tool. Reality is pretty cool, too. Try it sometime.

Yep, if you're looking for a magic carpet ride, most of us prefer to fly commercial.

 

[ufology]

Don't "ufologists" do any of their own work?

The reason I'm asking the skeptics is to get a skeptical report. I spend a lot of time maintaining my website, but it's too much for me to do it all myself. I figured the skeptics would jump at the cahnce to put together a good skeptical report that would go straight into the ufology community. But with few exceptions, it seems they would really prefer to just argue about everything. If the skeptics here don't want to contribute, then maybe some other ones will. I wonder if maybe Astro would be interested. I'll ask him.

 

[tsig]

Originally Posted by ufology View Post
I watch a lot of science shows myself. Love the stuff.



Cool. Learn anything about how science works?

I fear it was a one night stand.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The document refers to the objects as "unidentified aerial objects" that were described by radar operators as "good sharp targets" and observed in numbers from four to eight.

We know that UFOs ( witches ) travel in geegles of 4 to 8 so that is the most likely explanation.

It goes on to say that " ... no theory exists at the present time as to the origin of the objects and they are considered to be unexplained." However we know that there was a theory that ojects such as these might be ET craft, but that the ET theory was suppressed and although not completely ruled out, deemed unlikely.

No, there was no "theory" that they might be Alien Space Ships. We definitely know that there is a theory that the objects were UFOs ( witches ).

There are other documents illustrating that as well. But of course you should already know all this because the skeptics here claim to be fully informed about such things. So why do you need me to explain it all?

Now you're claiming that there are documents proving that it was Alien Space Ships? We'll need evidence of that.

All I'm looking for here is some info from the skeptics on more recent sightings. How about those videos where it looks like there is some kind of swirling vortex in the sky? I was thinking CGI hoaxs and/or rocket tests but I don't have any specific details about launches or that sort of thing. They have been seen over Australia, China, Norway and elsewhere. Can anyone here put together a serious debunking report on these that I can post up on our site? That would be a real show of constructive input.

No, we aren't finished with the previous discussion yet.

Why do you dismiss UFOs ( witches ) out of hand like that? We know that UFOs ( witches ) exist and have been proven in courts of law ( triers of fact ). We know that there is no evidence for Alien Space Ships. Unless you have some that would falsify your very own J Randall Murphy null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

We know that witches are mundane, they've been proven to exist.

 

[carlitos]

Even if you don't believe in UFOs at all, …:

You are so silly. Go on, list the names of posters here who have indicated that they "don't believe in UFOs."

Maybe you missed the part where I said ufology is open to both skeptics and believers alike. Nobody has to join the Raelians or some UFO church or believe UFOs are extraterrestrial visitors. .

Yes. Many of us remember that you disingenuously arrived at the jref with an agenda for skeptics to debunk Raelians, so that you could attribute skeptical chops to your online bookstore. Your agenda was as obviously transparent then as it is now.

 

[Krikkiter]

The document refers to the objects as "unidentified aerial objects" that were described by radar operators as "good sharp targets" and observed in numbers from four to eight. It goes on to say that " ... no theory exists at the present time as to the origin of the objects and they are considered to be unexplained."

So no reference at all to alien craft. Thanks. Why would you bring this up then? The title of the thread is "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence". You may well call this research (I wouldn't because all you've done is read a document and make thinly veiled assumptions - research involves more than that IMHO), but it is certainly not evidence of alien visitation is it ufology? However, the highlighted text does indicate evidence of an unexplained object. Unexplained or even unidentified if you'd like.

However we know that there was a theory speculation that ojects such as these might be ET craft, but that the ET theory was suppressed and although not completely ruled out, deemed unlikely.

FTFY
Evidence please regarding the speculation (theory), suppression and (highlighted) conclusion. Remember, you are the one making the claim(s). It is up to you to provide the evidence.

Also remember that this is the "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence" thread, not the "UFOs: The Speculation" thread.

There are other documents illustrating that as well. But of course you should already know all this because the skeptics here claim to be fully informed about such things. So why do you need me to explain it all?

I myself make no such claim. I hereby state categorically that I have very little knowledge regarding UFO reports. However, what I am certain of is that, as yet, no research or evidence evidence has been presented that shows that extra terrestrial life, intelligent extra terrestrial life or intelligent extra terrestrial life capable of sending piloted (or non-piloted) craft to this planet even exists, let alone has been witnessed.

Also remember, you are the one making the claim(s). It is up to you to provide the evidence. So far you have contributed [nothing at all] very little to this thread which, may I remind you again, is entitled "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence."

All I'm looking for here is some info from the skeptics on more recent sightings. How about those videos where it looks like there is some kind of swirling vortex in the sky? I was thinking CGI hoaxs and/or rocket tests but I don't have any specific details about launches or that sort of thing. They have been seen over Australia, China, Norway and elsewhere. Can anyone here put together a serious debunking report on these that I can post up on our site? That would be a real show of constructive input.

No. That's not all you are looking for here. You know it, I know it and everyone else here knows it. Skeptics are under no obligation whatsoever to do your dirty work but, although it may have somehow escaped you, they frequently do so anyway because they feel like they are, in general, doing the general community a service. Sort of like this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23059&highlight=Campeche

So, start showing some research (beyond reading old documents and jumping to unfounded conclusions) and evidence (beyond personal anecdotes that lead to dead ends) or my suggestion is that you stop posting until you can.

ETA: I take back the statement that you have contributed nothing at all to this thread. Apologies. Also, I do believe, despite my assertion otherwise, that you have presented some research. However, very little has been original and none of it has led to evidence. Apologies.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The reason I'm asking the skeptics is to get a skeptical report. I spend a lot of time maintaining my website, but it's too much for me to do it all myself. I figured the skeptics would jump at the cahnce to put together a good skeptical report that would go straight into the ufology community. But with few exceptions, it seems they would really prefer to just argue about everything. If the skeptics here don't want to contribute, then maybe some other ones will. I wonder if maybe Astro would be interested. I'll ask him.

If you want the skeptical viewpoint, you could post some of the excellent debunking that went into the J Randall Murphy VolksUFO ( firefly ) Hoax. Or you could post the J Randall Murphy null hypothesis and ask if any UFOlogists had falsified it. Or you could list all of the UFOs which have turned out to be Alien Space Ships. Or you could really do an expose on the fallacious reasoning used to bolster a UFOlogist's religion-like beliefs in Omgaliens.

 

[GeeMack]

Don't "ufologists" do any of their own work?

The reason I'm asking the skeptics is to get a skeptical report. I spend a lot of time maintaining my website, but it's too much for me to do it all myself. I figured the skeptics would jump at the cahnce to put together a good skeptical report that would go straight into the ufology community. But with few exceptions, it seems they would really prefer to just argue about everything. If the skeptics here don't want to contribute, then maybe some other ones will. I wonder if maybe Astro would be interested. I'll ask him. No.

Fixed that for you.

 

[ufology]

You'll find the duelling smilies in the smilies list here on JREF, I haven't imported it. And what is it with you thinking girls should be discussing homeopathic remedies, not spaceships? Why can't we play with the boys' toys too?

ps: call me tragic, but I don't find this thread tiresome at all.

Tauri,

Actually my apologies, I never noticed you were a girl. But you're so feisty you'll probably take that as a compliment anyway. And if you really want to argue about UFOs that's cool. It's just that I didn't come here to argue so much as to find skeptics who can write constructive skeptical articles that I can post on our website to help give it balance. I've just added a retail book section on Skepticism and Critical Thinking. The reason I get drawn into the arguments here is to provide food for thought for those who watch but don't participate and to let people hesitant to become involved for fear of ridicule know that not everyone here is going to attack them.