UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[StevenCalder]

But your argument is exactly "the argument from ignorance". You logic is exactly: We don't know what is going on but tomorrow it will be explained as natural phenomena. That (I AM afraid) IS the argument from ignorance (in which it is claimed that a premise is true - that all UFOs will be explicable as natural phenomena - only because it has not been proven false - and THAT is a fallacy).

Either you've misread or I was unclear.

My argument is I don't know what the answer will be when identified, so my answer is I don't know.

I wasn't positing that all UFO's will be explicable by natural phenomena, but that they could be and it would be disingenuous of us to pretend like our lack of knowledge now implies that a greater agency must be at work. But I thought I was relatively clear with that. Hopefully that is clearer to you now.

 

[Tapio]

Rramjet, I hear you. But as with all scientific endeavours, so I feel also with the investigation into possible alien presence we must proceed one step at a time. And only one step at a time. Before the first step is assured (hypothesis becoming theory) to lead us on to the second (a new hypothesis based on the first theory), proceeding would be equivalent to taking a 'leap of faith' (which many believers demand of skeptics). That might be great and serve well an indivudual in the context of his/her life, but it's not scientific.

Anyway, I will now take this Rogue River case under closer scrutiny (good to know kitakaze is on it as well, always useful to get more opinions). Might take a while, but I'll report my layman expressions back to you.

Until then, cheers!

 

[Rramjet]

I might have had a significant look through all of this had he not already stated that he finds no logical link between the evidence and aliens, and we cannot draw any definitive conclusions the evidence.

He's posting evidence he's already said doesn't prove his hypothesis or even convince him of a logical link.

If he can post something which he can tell me will prove that hypothesis, then I'll be reading these sometimes massive documents in my free time

Ah but I CLEARLY stated that there WAS a link between UFOs and aliens. Just NOT between UFOs and ET. We just don't have any good evidence as to WHERE the aliens come from - they COULD be indigenous for example. There is a distinction to be made here. Perhaps it is the terminology that throws us. We just don't have a precise term to describe it...perhaps "foreign"... but even that does not convey the true meaning. "extra-reality"? "Supernatural"? Something outside our current conception of reality.

...and so you are just not going to look at the evidence based on the imprecision of semantics - even as a matter of personal curiosity to see what I am on about?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Perhaps you should read the evidence before assuming that the "Phoenix Lights" were merely the supposed flares dropped on one of the nights in question. There is SO much more to the story than just those lights - but THAT is the ONLY aspect of the story the debunkers focus on because THAT is the part that they can invent explanations for most easily - it was not even the most spectacular part of the story....

Actually there are two events for the one night in question. I think one can draw a much more reasonable conclusion about the source of the two events.

The 10PM event has been shown to be flares by just about anybody wanting to analyze the videos through triangulation.

The 8-8:30 PM has a very plausible solution of a formation of aircraft with lights. This has been discussed ad nauseum in several threads. I just direct people to my webpage on the subject:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/AZUFO.htm

Specifically:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/azconc.htm

 

[StevenCalder]

Ah but I CLEARLY stated that there WAS a link between UFOs and aliens.

Could you expand on this and describe this link?

If you are positing that unidentified things are the basis for this, it is still a argument from ignorance...

 

[Rramjet]

Either you've misread or I was unclear.

My argument is I don't know what the answer will be when identified, so my answer is I don't know.

I wasn't positing that all UFO's will be explicable by natural phenomena, but that they could be and it would be disingenuous of us to pretend like our lack of knowledge now implies that a greater agency must be at work. But I thought I was relatively clear with that. Hopefully that is clearer to you now.

Yes, but then, according to that logic, in order to avoid being disingenuous, you must concede equally that UFOs COULD turn out to be explicable as ETs.

So I am, on that basis, merely providing evidence to support the case that mundane (or "natural") explanations are NOT the answer - NOT that the answer IS ET.

 

[Astrophotographer]

"Both sets"? What about the daylight UFO(s) that was (were) seen? What about the scrambled fighter jets? There is MORE to the story than just "lights".

Which thread do you refer to... I would be interested to have a look.

There were no daylight sightings unless you want to tack on a whole bunch of stories people told months later or associate some other events. When it comes down to it, there are only two events concerning the Arizona UFOs. One has been explained, the other has a reasonably plausible explanation for which there is reasonable anecdotal evidence for.

As for the scrambled fighter jets, no witnesses from the NUFORC database who saw the 8-8:30PM event report seeing F-15s or F-16s going after the V shaped formation of lights. These are just claims that can not be verified and are typical to the hype that UFOlogists like to add to a story to make it sound better.

 

[Rramjet]

Could you expand on this and describe this link?

If you are positing that unidentified things are the basis for this, it is still a argument from ignorance...

Umm... not really, I am simply providing evidence that there is an OBJECTIVELY REAL phenomena occurring that we, as yet, have no explanation for and we should therefore research it to see what we can find out about it.

 

[Lanzy]

This is an insanely huge number of links.

Have to pass.

 

[Rramjet]

There were no daylight sightings unless you want to tack on a whole bunch of stories people told months later or associate some other events. When it comes down to it, there are only two events concerning the Arizona UFOs. One has been explained, the other has a reasonably plausible explanation for which there is reasonable anecdotal evidence for.

As for the scrambled fighter jets, no witnesses from the NUFORC database who saw the 8-8:30PM event report seeing F-15s or F-16s going after the V shaped formation of lights. These are just claims that can not be verified and are typical to the hype that UFOlogists like to add to a story to make it sound better.

Interesting that you pick on this case. I very nearly did NOT include it ...but as it WAS a very public case I thought it really did belong in the set. As you well know, it is (again) a case where debunkers and believers alike have strong arguments to support their respective cases. ALL I ask is that people take the time to read over exactly WHAT occurred (as reported) and THEN see if either side's explanation measures up to the reported facts.

I am NOT saying it is a case that has been "proven" one way or other ...merely that it IS a case that has caused much debate and controversy and I thought people should have at least the opportunity to "see for themselves" so to speak - thus it was a reference of convenience for people more than anything else.

 

[Astrophotographer]

My proposal is to discuss the cases in turn, beginning with the “Aliens Throughout History” links and work through the list and see what eventuates.

This is a shotgun approach to this. You have just thrown a bunch of stuff up against the wall and hope some of it sticks. Have you read all of this or did you just post a bunch of links?

If you expect to discuss each case ad infinitum, you are in for a long haul. I suggest you break this up into a thread for each case. That way each can be discussed. This shotgun approach is just going to scatter the discussion all over the place. The instant one of these cases gets shown to have a valid explanation, you are just going to remove it and present another. It is like fighting the mythical hydra.

 

[Rramjet]

This is an insanely huge number of links.

Have to pass.

Yes of course... that is your prerogative, but the evidence is there nevertheless - if you ever feel any curiosity toward the topic, just dip a toe in the water sometime - you don't have to read them all - you may even be surprised.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Interesting that you pick on this case. I very nearly did NOT include it

The case was discussed in this forum several times. I only "pick on it" because I have a pretty good knowledge of the specifics. I could easily have stated the Roswell case is also flawed since I have spent a lot of time looking at that as well. However, in that case, you have only three choices. It was a secret balloon project, an ACTUAL alien spaceship crash, or something else that the military was testing. I don't think you can say it was something "natural" that defied explanation.

 

[StevenCalder]

Yes, but then, according to that logic, in order to avoid being disingenuous, you must concede equally that UFOs COULD turn out to be explicable as ETs.

Absolutely, I've never denied it.

So I am, on that basis, merely providing evidence to support the case that mundane (or "natural") explanations are NOT the answer - NOT that the answer IS ET.

Ah OK, that's a very odd way to go about it.

Given the massive amounts of possible explanations and constant possibility that you or your society's scientific level simply haven't thought of the other possible explanation that actually accounts for the event yet, that's not how you prove a hypothesis.

But if that's not your goal, I wish you luck!

 

[Rramjet]

This is a shotgun approach to this. You have just thrown a bunch of stuff up against the wall and hope some of it sticks. Have you read all of this or did you just post a bunch of links?

If you expect to discuss each case ad infinitum, you are in for a long haul. I suggest you break this up into a thread for each case. That way each can be discussed. This shotgun approach is just going to scatter the discussion all over the place. The instant one of these cases gets shown to have a valid explanation, you are just going to remove it and present another. It is like fighting the mythical hydra.

But Astrophotographer, people have been calling long and loud for me to present the evidence. I present it... and now... you imply they are saying ...oh, but that is TOO MUCH evidence!

And that is why I originally suggested the logical approach would be to take the first reference first, discuss that, then move on.

Perhaps I should be more precise. How about we DO take the first reference but limit discussion of it to say...oh..I don't know...a week... then we move on to the next...?

So, this being "my" thread, I would ask that people start with the UFOs in History references and discuss them (and ONLY them) for the next three or four days (or until we run out of ideas if that be the sooner), then we will move to the next case, and so on...would that make things more manageable?

 

[CurtC]

Do a whole bunch of very dubious reports now add up to a convincing case?

 

[Rramjet]

The case was discussed in this forum several times. I only "pick on it" because I have a pretty good knowledge of the specifics. I could easily have stated the Roswell case is also flawed since I have spent a lot of time looking at that as well. However, in that case, you have only three choices. It was a secret balloon project, an ACTUAL alien spaceship crash, or something else that the military was testing. I don't think you can say it was something "natural" that defied explanation.

Actually that is precisely why I ONLY posted links to Dr. Jesse M. It is HIS testimony that I am interested, nothing else. I think a discussion about HIS testimony might be interesting (IMHO)

But as I just posted, what about first things first?

 

[Tapio]

If you expect to discuss each case ad infinitum, you are in for a long haul. I suggest you break this up into a thread for each case. That way each can be discussed. This shotgun approach is just going to scatter the discussion all over the place. The instant one of these cases gets shown to have a valid explanation, you are just going to remove it and present another. It is like fighting the mythical hydra.

Agreed. That's why I suggest that for now we simply focus on the Rogue River Sighting, and see where it leads us. I believe we could bring up valid points for all parties through that one case alone.

 

[Rramjet]

Do a whole bunch of very dubious reports now add up to a convincing case?

"Dubious" is an assumption based on what case or cases listed above that you have examined?

And as people well know my answer to this by now: Just stating that it IS so, does NOT make it so.

 

[Rramjet]

Agreed. That's why I suggest that for now we simply focus on the Rogue River Sighting, and see where it leads us. I believe we could bring up valid points for all parties through that one case alone.

...or Rogue River... all those in favour...? The ayes have it then?