UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[EHocking]

Krikkiter,

Take it easy there. I don't always read everyone's posts because I'm not on here 24/7 and pages can go by between visits. ...

Uh huh.

You've been here a year and never thought to use this button so you don't overlook any posts in a thread that you're subscribed to...

 

[ufology]

John Albert answer was just fine, in my opinion.

We very much need to recap. From http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7943074#post7943074


These - not any other aspect (rader vs. FLIR, etc.) - are the similarities that enable us to question your conclusion about D.C. That is why I said

Just like an analogy, D.C. does not need to be the same as Campeche in every regard in order for the principle directly above to apply.

Paul,

Sure there is no harm in comparing two cases in order to consider the parallels, but I didn't see enough similarities in the CSI article on the Campeche incident to say that answers from the Campeche incident can be applied to the D.C. incident with any accuracy. Ground based RADAR is substantially different than FLIR. The type of aircraft is substantially different. A live visual contact is different than an after the fact video recording. Lastly and most importantly, the theoretical cause of the Campeche incident ( oil well flares ) do not apply to D.C. The similarities ( it involved an airplane at night ) are not sufficient to balance out the differences.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Paul,

Sure there is no harm in comparing two cases in order to consider the parallels, but I didn't see enough similarities in the CSI article on the Campeche incident to say that answers from the Campeche incident can be applied to the D.C. incident with any accuracy. Ground based RADAR is substantially different than FLIR. The type of aircraft is substantially different. A live visual contact is different than an after the fact video recording. Lastly and most importantly, the theoretical cause of the Campeche incident ( oil well flares ) do not apply to D.C.

What other cases are similar to the 1952 Washington DC one then?

 

[Stray Cat]

A live visual contact is different than an after the fact video recording.

The pilot not only got RADAR returns on his screen but also had live view of the FLIR monitor and provided a running commentary of what he was seeing.
He had a "live visual contact" and a positive RADAR return.

But we know you'll continue to ignore these things and keep trying to point out differences... Which by your method, there is nothing that can be compared adequately.
I mean no one would be able to compare a light at the other side of a lake with 2 Volkswagens because Volkwagens don't fly and also have 2 lights each at the front and no one reported seeing four lights.

 

[GeeMack]

In the future if I miss a question please include a link to it in your reminder.

Hey there... yoohoo! You missed this one: Of all the things ever seen which appeared to be flying objects, which were at first unidentified but eventually identified as a particular thing, how many of those turned out to be alien craft?

Note to lurkers: This question is being asked again because it will be ignored. And ignorance of the question itself demonstrates the vacuous nature of not just the arguments of the "ufologists" in this thread, but of the entire pseudoscience. In "ufology" there can be no honesty and no objectivity, in fact there can be no acknowledgement of reality because, like so many other religions, reality threatens the core of the faith.

 

[ufology]

Uh huh.

You've been here a year and never thought to use this button so you don't overlook any posts in a thread that you're subscribed to...

EHocking,

Never seen it before ... on my screen it's not where that screenshot you have shows it should be unless I scroll up to the thread link first and click on it. But that's not my process and I doubt I'll start doing it. I get email updates with a preview and if it catches my attention I hit the link and it takes me directly to the post. So maybe I don't get all the alerts or the preview has some toxic element that causes me to simply delete it.

 

[ufology]

The pilot not only got RADAR returns on his screen but also had live view of the FLIR monitor and provided a running commentary of what he was seeing.
He had a "live visual contact" and a positive RADAR return.

But we know you'll continue to ignore these things and keep trying to point out differences... Which by your method, there is nothing that can be compared adequately.
I mean no one would be able to compare a light at the other side of a lake with 2 Volkswagens because Volkwagens don't fly and also have 2 lights each at the front and no one reported seeing four lights.

Point taken, however looking at a video screen is not the same as a live visual contact. It's an instrument readout and subject to errors in the technology that can pollute the data before it reaches the observer, and video cameras have been notorious for false artifacts.

 

[GeeMack]

What other cases are similar to the 1952 Washington DC one then?

The 1952 Washington, DC situation did not result in an objective determination that any alien craft were seen nor that any alien craft exist. Given an honest, objective evaluation, it would seem that every case of anything that appeared to be flying objects resulted in that same conclusion. In that regard, at the core of the issue as it pertains to this thread and the claims made by "ufologists" here, they are all similar.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Point taken, however looking at a video screen is not the same as a live visual contact. It's an instrument readout and subject to errors in the technology that can pollute the data before it reaches the observer

...and the other guy was looking at a video screen!

 

[23_Tauri]

Uh huh.

You've been here a year and never thought to use this button so you don't overlook any posts in a thread that you're subscribed to...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_26614f184c7e31c96.jpg[/qimg]

To be fair, I've been here two years and I've never noticed the "first unread post" feature before....

But now I know, it'll save me lots of going backwards and forwards. Thank you.

 

[GeeMack]

The pilot not only got RADAR returns on his screen but also had live view of the FLIR monitor and provided a running commentary of what he was seeing.
He had a "live visual contact" and a positive RADAR return.

But we know you'll continue to ignore these things and keep trying to point out differences... Which by your method, there is nothing that can be compared adequately.
I mean no one would be able to compare a light at the other side of a lake with 2 Volkswagens because Volkwagens don't fly and also have 2 lights each at the front and no one reported seeing four lights.

[* Ignoring these things and desperately trying to point out differences snipped. *]

Perfectly predicted, Stray Cat.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Point taken, however looking at a video screen is not the same as a live visual contact. It's an instrument readout and subject to errors in the technology that can pollute the data before it reaches the observer, and video cameras have been notorious for false artifacts.

What other UFO cases are similar to the 1952 Washingon DC one?

 

[Pixel42]

To be fair, I've been here two years and I've never noticed the "first unread post" feature before....

There's also a little button just before each thread title on the index page that will take you straight to your first unread post on that thread.

 

[Paul2]

Point taken, however looking at a video screen is not the same as a live visual contact. It's an instrument readout and subject to errors in the technology that can pollute the data before it reaches the observer, and video cameras have been notorious for false artifacts.

Point taken, however looking at a live visual contact is not the same as a video screen. It's a perception/experience and subject to errors by the organism that can pollute the data before it reaches others, and people are notorious for false reporting, memories, etc.

 

[Akhenaten]

Geeze, turn your back for a day, and a blatherdemic breaks out.

Keep ignoring me as you will, folo, but I'm still going to respond to all of your drivel as I get to it, blithely unconcerned about whether this spoils the continuity of your fairytale or not.

Anyway . . .

This Space Command? http://www.afspc.af.mil/

How far does their jurisdiction extend? Over the whole world?

Do you contend that they have evidence (rather than anecdotal claims) of the existence of alien craft and are covering such evidence up?

No. I'm merely pointing out that they are one of the agencies that could have the kind of "proof" some of the skeptics here might accept, but that because of the restricted access to the records, the general public may simply be unaware of it.

weasel words much?
And Walden Media could have proof that we might accept that the Chronicles of Narnia is a true story, but that because of concerns about intellectual property rights the general public may simply be unaware of it.

Pretending that your fanciful conjecture is any more valid than mine is but one more aspect of your inability to approach this topic with even a veneer of objectivity. You appear to lie to yourself even more than you do to us.

And you haven't yet bothered to explain why a dedicated space agency is so concerned with what you yourself are inclined to believe is the terrestrial phenomena of UFOs ( flying saucers ).

Therefore without inside knowledge from such sources around the world, or without direct access to witnesses memories, anyone who claims that the existence of alien craft has never been proven is simply stating a biased opinion.

No, they are stating the null hypothesis.

You, on the other hand, are rabitting on about a worldwide conspiracy theory for which you have the same (zero) evidence that you do for your fanciful UFO ( Omgaliens ) theories.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to show that records pertaining to UFOs have been routinely witheld from the public, including reports that describe craft that are alien to our civilization. A case in point being the D.C. radar visual sighting and intercept by a USAF F-94 in '52.

How is a publically available and widely scrutinised report supposed to serve as evidence that such reports are being covered up?

How many more equally good or better reports are there? We don't know do we?

You're pretending that you do.

But we do know for sure that numerous records pertaining to UFOs have been made exempt from FOIA provisions.

How do you know that these weren't records that proved beyond any possible doubt the existence of witches?

Yet we get comments from the skeptics like "the cover up is lame".

The only thing that is lame are such lame comments. They serve no useful purpose in this discussion other than to flame the thread.

Not to put too fine a point on it, folo, but the judgement of which posts here are the most useful is not yours to make.

 

[Akhenaten]

What other UFO cases are similar to the 1952 Washingon DC one?

He can't tell you because they're seekrit.

 

[Stray Cat]

Point taken, however looking at a video screen is not the same as a live visual contact. It's an instrument readout and subject to errors in the technology that can pollute the data before it reaches the observer, and video cameras have been notorious for false artifacts.

So we're discounting any RADAR screens now too?
They have after all, been notorious for false artifacts.
OK, that leaves your list of "evidence" devoid of any substance what-so-ever.

Except for this pilot's "first hand eye witness testimony" (that you keep alluding to)... remind us, where is his first hand testimony by the way?
I've not been able to find it's source anywhere, which is odd in itself because information that important would be included in the intelligence reports made at the time and not withheld by the pilot and then simply mentioned in a press interview years later surely.

 

[tsig]

Just like every other post that catches him out on his deceptions, he'll ignore it until someone posts one that he can try to twist and be vague about.

...Just like he's done to every post that highlights his admission that he's only here to get hits for his website.

It's almost as if he isn't reading any of the posts.

 

[Akhenaten]

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?

No. I'm saying that making the statement that alien craft have never been proven to exist ( period ) without having access to and examination of all the data is biased.

Preceding your answer with the word "No" does absolutely nothing to disguise the fact, revealed by your own petulant special pleading, that you are doing exactly what Tomtomkent said you were doing.

Certainly I would accept that it has never been proven to most of "us" whomever you are referring to there besides me.

The entire rest of the world's population, folo. The only people who think otherwise are bleevers for whom a special, meaningless definition of proof exists.

 

[Garrison]

And it would be a bad thing to get more hits because of skeptical contributions ... why?

Because it implies a willingness to listen to the skeptical viewpoint that is in reality sadly lacking. Your only interest in skeptics is to use their comments to patch up the holes in your story

And it's a bad thing that a ufology interest group asks for skeptical input ... why?

Because they never actually absorb or accept any of it, you yourself being an excellent example.

BTW: I noticed nobody has provided anything other than offhanded dismissals and unfounded proclamations for the Washington D.C. 1952 radar/visual F-94 intercept

This is pure hypocrisy; you expect others to accept your unsupported claims that contravene the laws of physics while retaining the right to dismiss other peoples points because they don't provide reams of documentation to support mundane facts.

and instead we've now been diverted from that to the Campehe incident ... which is turning out to be a fairly interesting case from the perspective of skeptics vs ufologists, so at least it still hasn't been a total waste of time, thanks for the link there.

It's not skeptics versus ufologists; its reality versus ufologists. And until you embrace the realities that anecdotes are not evidence and that UFO does not equal alien craft it is something of a waste of time but you live in hope...