UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[23_Tauri]

You know they have serious fines now for texting while driving.

I'm on the train, fol.

 

[RoboTimbo]

What you need to do is go back and explain why the differences I pointed out between the D.C. incident and the Campeche case aren't relevant rather than asking me to do your homework for you.

No, I haven't said they aren't relevant. I'm asking you to justify your declaration of them as relevant so that we can ensure that you aren't engaging in special pleading. Now, which other cases are similar to the 1952 Washington DC one?

And continuing to stuffing that mocking question on my beliefs up there is only earning you ignore points.

Which do you think is a mocking question and why?

Also, do you believe that UFOs ( witches ) exist, YES or NO?

You do understand that that question is also to show you how your special pleading works, right? That's why you don't want to answer it.

 

[ufology]

Fixed.

More misrepresentation from GeeMack ... I've never claimed to have any material scientific evidence. GeeMack just wants to imply that I've claimed that I do so he can have more fun playing his part ... which he does with a zest and a flavor that is truly unique.

 

[abaddon]

More misrepresentation from GeeMack ... I've never claimed to have any material scientific evidence. GeeMack just wants to imply that I've claimed that I do so he can have more fun playing his part ... which he does with a zest and a flavor that is truly unique.

You have no material scientific evidence?

Feet to the flames.

What do "alien craft" look like?

 

[ufology]

No, I haven't said they aren't relevant. I'm asking you to justify your declaration of them as relevant so that we can ensure that you aren't engaging in special pleading. Now, which other cases are similar to the 1952 Washington DC one?


Which do you think is a mocking question and why?

Also, do you believe that UFOs ( witches ) exist, YES or NO?

You do understand that that question is also to show you how your special pleading works, right? That's why you don't want to answer it.

Again you've provided no explanation as to how the differences between the D.C. incident and the Capeche case are not relevant, instead deferring to continued mockery through the use of absurd analogies, implied slights, and provocative demands. Please try another approach. Until then I won't be paying much attention to your posts.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Just do a search for UFO RADAR/Visual and you can study them for yourself. The Ellsworth AFB radar multiple visual case may be of some interest. I'm not going to go through them all for you here. I've got my own website to take care of. For a skeptical viewpoint on one popular case you may also want to review Astro's last edition of SUNlite.

And like the Washington DC sightings, the Condon study concluded nothing was unusual about the case other than anomalous propagation conditions.

http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s3chap05.htm#c1c

In summary, the Rapid City-Bismarck sightings appear to have been caused by a combination of:

1. stars seen through an inversion layer,
2. at least one meteor,
3. AP echoes on a GCI radar, and
4. possible ghost echoes on the GCI radar and malfunction of an airborne radar gunsight (although the commanding officer of the Rapid City detachment was later skeptical that there had in fact ever been even a ghost echo present on the GCI radar).

 

[abaddon]

Again you've provided no explanation as to how the differences between the D.C. incident and the Capeche case are not relevant, instead deferring to continued mockery through the use of absurd analogies, implied slights, and provocative demands. Please try another approach. Until then I won't be paying much attention to your posts.

You have admitted that you have no material scientific evidence.

You have evaded the very simple question:

Feet to the flames.

What do "alien craft" look like?

Why are you unable to answer this simple question?

Should I submit an NADQ to the mods?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Again you've provided no explanation as to how the differences between the D.C. incident and the Capeche case are not relevant, instead deferring to continued mockery through the use of absurd analogies, implied slights, and provocative demands. Please try another approach. Until then I won't be paying much attention to your posts.

You didn't pay attention to what I said in the one you quoted. What would be the difference?

I'll say it again, No, I'm not saying the differences aren't relevant. Read and understand that first. You said there are relevant differences. One of those was the location.

You give me a case that is similar to the 1952 Washington DC one so that we can see if the differences are relevant or not.

Also, do you believe that UFOs ( witches ) exist, YES or NO?

I understand you not wanting to answer because it will highlight your fallacy fo special pleading.

 

[ufology]

You have no material scientific evidence?

Feet to the flames.

What do "alien craft" look like?

Reports indicate that alien craft can vary in appearance in all aspects from the seemingly mundane to the highly unusual with the most common feature being a prevalence of some basic geometrical shape such as an oblate spheroid, sphere, cylinder, triangle, disk, other low aspect ratio shapes or a combination of such shapes. The one I saw was a glowing sphere.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Reports indicate that alien craft can vary in appearance in all aspects from the seemingly mundane to the highly unusual with the most common feature being a prevalence of some basic geometrical shape such as an oblate spheroid, sphere, cylinder, triangle, disk, other low aspect ratio shapes or a combination of such shapes. The one I saw was a glowing sphere.

Glowing spheres surrounded the military plane at Campeche.

 

[carlitos]

carlitos,

Remind me again just how you are so completely certain of your assessment, keeping in mind of course that absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is what we've had for 424 pages and running. But, as you said, absence of evidence isn't evidence. Of anything.

 

[Paul2]

Pixel,

Let's try that again, this time removing the bias:

Claim 1: There's a shed at the bottom of my garden
Claim 2: There are fairies at the bottom of my garden

Sufficient evidence for claim 1: A shed at the bottom of the garden.
Sufficient evidence for claim 2: A fairy at the bottom of the garden.

The following may not work in every case, but it works here.

Thanks, logy, for proving ECREE. A shed is not extraordinary. A fairy is extraordinary. So you just said we need something extraordinary to demonstrate an extraordinary claim like fairies, and that we only need something mundane like a shed to demonstrate a claim like a shed in a garden.

 

[GeeMack]

Reports Lies, fish tales, fairy stories, hoaxes, anecdotes, and other assorted works of fiction, fraud, and fakery indicate that alien craft can vary in appearance in all aspects from the seemingly mundane to the highly unusual with the most common feature being a prevalence of some basic geometrical shape such as an oblate spheroid, sphere, cylinder, triangle, disk, other low aspect ratio shapes or a combination of such shapes.

Fixed that for you.

The one I saw was a glowing sphere.

You didn't see an alien craft. It has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you either misinterpreted something you saw, or that you didn't see anything at all, your arguments are lies, and you're attempting to perpetrate a hoax. But no, you did not see an alien craft.

 

[Garrison]

Reports indicate that alien craft unsubstantiated claims can vary in appearance in all aspects from the seemingly mundane to the highly unusual...

FTFY

with the most common feature being a prevalence of some basic geometrical shape such as an oblate spheroid, sphere, cylinder, triangle, disk, other low aspect ratio shapes or a combination of such shapes. The one I saw was a glowing sphere.

And what tangible evidence do you have to substantiate these shapes were not simply mundane objects observed under unusual circumstances?

 

[Garrison]

Fixed that for you.

Didn't notice you had already generously done some proof reading for Ufology.

But the point is the same, no evidence to show that any of these things were alien craft, heck craft of any kind for that matter.

 

[John Albert]

Reports indicate that alien craft can vary in appearance in all aspects from the seemingly mundane to the highly unusual with the most common feature being a prevalence of some basic geometrical shape such as an oblate spheroid, sphere, cylinder, triangle, disk, other low aspect ratio shapes or a combination of such shapes. The one I saw was a glowing sphere.

So in other words, they can look like pretty much any shape at all. That still doesn't give us anything useful to go by, in terms of a description.

You sound like that one judge in the obscenity case who said, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

UFOs are your "pornography."

 

[GeeMack]

More misrepresentation from GeeMack ... I've never claimed to have any material scientific evidence. GeeMack just wants to imply that I've claimed that I do so he can have more fun playing his part ... which he does with a zest and a flavor that is truly unique. I really hate it when someone repeatedly points out that all my arguments are logical fallacies, giibberish, and nonsense, so I'll try the poor-persecuted-me ploy again.

There's the honest way to say it.

 

[23_Tauri]

Reports indicate that alien craft can vary in appearance in all aspects from the seemingly mundane to the highly unusual with the most common feature being a prevalence of some basic geometrical shape such as an oblate spheroid, sphere, cylinder, triangle, disk, other low aspect ratio shapes or a combination of such shapes. The one I saw was a glowing sphere.

abaddon asked "What do alien craft look like?"

You answered the question "how have people described sightings of unidentified flying objects?"

Do you understand the difference?

 

[ehcks]

Reports indicate that alien craft can vary in appearance in all aspects from the seemingly mundane to the highly unusual with the most common feature being a prevalence of some basic geometrical shape such as an oblate spheroid, sphere, cylinder, triangle, disk, other low aspect ratio shapes or a combination of such shapes. The one I saw was a glowing sphere.

You know what else looks like a glowing sphere? A light bulb.

One of the few things I've used since I left the navy is my knowledge of helicopter anti-collision lights. The number of times I've been told that those lights were something else, when I'm absolutely certain of what they are, is staggering.

Ive been told they were everything from alien space craft to white strobe lasers used to set off explosives in the WTC towers. No, they're light bulbs. If something as simple as a light bulb can be misidentified so horribly, I wouldn't be surprised if every UFO sighting was a misidentification.

Then we have the fact that no one has any evidence of an alien spacecraft. Not "not enough evidence;" not "not good enough evidence;" not "anecdotal evidence," because that's an oxymoron; NO evidence.

 

[abaddon]

Reports indicate that alien craft can vary in appearance in all aspects from the seemingly mundane to the highly unusual with the most common feature being a prevalence of some basic geometrical shape such as an oblate spheroid, sphere, cylinder, triangle, disk, other low aspect ratio shapes or a combination of such shapes. The one I saw was a glowing sphere.

And the honest answer you desparately seek to avoid, is that you have no clue what alien spacecraft should look like.

Given your lack, why should anyone believe you?