This is pretty good imo. Can't be identified, thus UFO. No extraoneus caveats like "no plausible mundane cause" etc. I can accept it.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
This is pretty good imo. Can't be identified, thus UFO. No extraoneus caveats like "no plausible mundane cause" etc. I can accept it.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
That's your problem. You continue to assert that you have eliminated all mundane explanations when you clearly have not. I will ask you again, since you ignored it the last time: Describe the process you've used to eliminate all mundane explanations, including the ones you haven't thought of. Until then, you make it clear that you believe in UFAOs, not UFOs.
Actually, your argument isn't subtle at all. You assume that UFOs are alien unless someone can prove otherwise. You pull the typical UFO creduloid tactic of switching the burden of proof. You compound it by denying every mundane explanation that is presented. Rogue River is your Waterloo in that respect.
It's been explained to you multiple times. You simply don't want to understand. Go back and read the entire thread and then tell me specifically which parts are confusing and I'll try to explain them again.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
So, if a UFO is reported and explained by one investigation but not accepted by others, does that make it a UFMO or a UFO? I can think of several examples of this:
1. Gulf Breeze. MUFON (and Dr. Maccabee) says they were true UFOs but CUFOS (and several investigators that were associated with MUFON) says they were hoaxes.
2. The Campeche case. Not everyone accepts the likely explanation of oil well fires being the source of the recorded images.
3. The Arizona 10PM event. Almost all investigations prove the lights were flares. However, others (Bill Hamilton, Lynne Kitei, Jim Dilettoso, etc) still say they were unique and not flares.
4. Tom Mantell case. Most accept that he died trying to pursue a Skyhook balloon without oxygen. I have read some recent (http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2008/06/thomas-mantell-case-reinvestigated.html) comments by UFO proponents, where they are questioning this explanation.
So are these cases UFOs or UFMOs or whatever? Where do they fall in your definition?
So you agree that the object did in fact have at least one fin, and therefore your claim that it did not have fins was false. And you also agree that the drawings are not in fact circular, but a distorted oval very similar in shape to that of a blimp.
You know, a simple "yes" would have sufficed.
Marcus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,857
By definition, UFO's are unidentified. If they were identified, mundane, alien, whatever, they wouldn't be unidentified.
It is not up to me to cite any UFO cases. You made the (false) claim that there are people here who don't believe in the existence of UFO's, it is up to you to provide evidence.
a longer answer
First link includes sketches of aliens and their craft, as seen by "Father Gill." I am going to have to just completely dismiss this fantastical image of little men sitting in a saucer as a hallucination / fabrication. Furthermore I note that, per se, Father Gill obviously believes many, many things on faith, and not on evidence. I suspect that Father Gill convinced the poor folks of Papua New Guinea of many things, including the sublime teachings of Jesus and what-not. If you think that his alien-comic-book-inspired sketch of little men on a saucer is evidence, then that is your prerogative. Please post what convinces you here, preferably in your own words and for God's sake be concise for once.
----
Second link is SPAM for some british webserver company. I'm not even going to repost it, because I don't know if it's safe for everyone to click.
----
Third link is to Travis Walton, a guy who apparently makes money off his story about aliens. He doesn't offer the book in print, but is kind enough to give the links to where I can buy his book at amazon and barnes and noble. Very considerate.
Image from Travis Walton's website that makes me laugh - http://www.travis-walton.com/s_aliens.gif. Yeah Travis, you go boy!
The parts of Mr. Walton's take that are online read like bad fiction. Because they are bad fiction. Travis Walton is a fantacist, Rramjet. He wrote a story that is clearly inspired by movies about aliens. Mr. Walton either went on a five-day bender and came up with this story as an excuse, or he has a vivid imagination, or he's mentally ill. And what's worse is that he is making money off this stuff; he's appearing at a UFO conference that costs up to $699 per person. That is despicable.
Similar to the first vase, if you think that his alien-comic-book-inspired story about being "abducted by aliens" is evidence, then that is your prerogative. Please post what convinces you here, preferably in your own words and for God's sake be concise.
Really, if these two stories convince you of the reality of aliens, how do you feel when you read other works of fiction? Do you believe everything that you read? You are aware that some people just make up stories, right? Every day, there are hoaxes by psychics, UFO believers, bigfoot fans, crop-circle makers, cults, you name it. Do you believe all of them, or just the alien ones?
OK, that's fair. I didn't answer you directly because I've been busy. To be fair, if those links you cited indeed prove something, you would have been better served by posting relevant excerpts, but never mind.
First link includes sketches of aliens and their craft, as seen by "Father Gill." I am going to have to just completely dismiss this fantastical image of little men sitting in a saucer as a hallucination / fabrication. Furthermore I note that, per se, Father Gill obviously believes many, many things on faith, and not on evidence. I suspect that Father Gill convinced the poor folks of Papua New Guinea of many things, including the sublime teachings of Jesus and what-not. If you think that his alien-comic-book-inspired sketch of little men on a saucer is evidence, then that is your prerogative. Please post what convinces you here, preferably in your own words and for God's sake be concise for once.
----
Second link is SPAM for some british webserver company. I'm not even going to repost it, because I don't know if it's safe for everyone to click.
----
Third link is to Travis Walton, a guy who apparently makes money off his story about aliens. He doesn't offer the book in print, but is kind enough to give the links to where I can buy his book at amazon and barnes and noble. Very considerate.
Image from Travis Walton's website that makes me laugh - http://www.travis-walton.com/s_aliens.gif. Yeah Travis, you go boy!
The parts of Mr. Walton's take that are online read like bad fiction. Because they are bad fiction. Travis Walton is a fantacist, Rramjet. He wrote a story that is clearly inspired by movies about aliens. Mr. Walton either went on a five-day bender and came up with this story as an excuse, or he has a vivid imagination, or he's mentally ill. And what's worse is that he is making money off this stuff; he's appearing at a UFO conference that costs up to $699 per person. That is despicable.
Similar to the first vase, if you think that his alien-comic-book-inspired story about being "abducted by aliens" is evidence, then that is your prerogative. Please post what convinces you here, preferably in your own words and for God's sake be concise.
Really, if these two stories convince you of the reality of aliens, how do you feel when you read other works of fiction? Do you believe everything that you read? You are aware that some people just make up stories, right? Every day, there are hoaxes by psychics, UFO believers, bigfoot fans, crop-circle makers, cults, you name it. Do you believe all of them, or just the alien ones?
I stated “IF” all mundane explanations have been eliminated “THEN” UFO… there is a difference between that thought experiment and directly claiming that all mundane explanations HAVE been eliminated (in a particular case) – you just did not read my post carefully enough…
The evidence:
Circular (like a coin), silvery metallic appearance, no protrusions of any sort except for a fin on the upper surface, no openings, silent, speed of a jet plane.
Plausible mundane explanations:
Bird (or any other living creature)? No.
Airplane? No.
Astronomical object (including, planets, stars, meteors, plasma balls, etc)? No.
Balloon (including blimps, wind borne debri, etc)? No.
Hoax? No
Illusion, delusion? No.
“Secret” military hardware? No.
Hmmm… what’s left? Oh yes… “something I haven’t thought of”! Well, if YOU can think of something that I have not thought of, then present it for consideration…
The mere statement of an unfounded assertion does NOT make it true! Once I have ruled out all plausible mundane explanations (“plausible” because I seriously doubt even YOU would contend things such as “train”, or “tree”, or “telephone”, or “chewing gum”, or “bacteria”, etc…), then I am left with UFO.
By definition a UFO is an “alien” object – simply because it is NOT mundane. However, to then contend “UFAO” is tautological because “alien” is inherent in the meaning of the term – and that is (as you put it) “your problem”.
However, if you believe that ALL UFO reports have mundane explanations (despite the evidence to the contrary), then you DO believe in UFMOs rather than UFOs.
You have still not grasped the meaning of my argument. “Alien” is inherent in the meaning of UFO (that is; alien to our usual conception of the natural or technological world). What YOU get stuck on is a different meaning of “alien” – that is the UFO debunker’s “extraterrestrial intelligence” or “little green men” and that is NOT what I mean by “alien”.
What burden of proof? I make a claim, you rightly demand I support that claim with evidence. YOU make I claim and I rightly demand YOU support that claim with evidence. What could be more simple and straightforward as that concept?
Again you have misinterpreted my argument. I deny all implausible mundane explanations – if there is a plausible explanation put forward, then of course I must consider it on its merits. However there has been NO plausible explanations forthcoming for Rogue River so I maintain UFO. Simple really. (Waterloo was “won” as well as “lost” – it all depends on your personal bias which you consider to be the “right” outcome – I merely consider it a historical event having both winners and losers and having no application in the current circumstance)
Re Campeche:
I stated:
“Why am I not surprised that you resort to the favourite UFO debunker standard of accusing your opponent of precisely the sins you (yourself) commit! I have provided a detailed summary analysis of the case - at your request - then asked you for YOUR opinion …and what do I get back from you? You also contended the case somehow relates to Rogue River – yet cannot – or will not - state HOW it does...”
That is an outright falsehood. I HAVE “gone back over the entire thread” …this is what I found…
Yet your source states:
“The UFO believers who participate in the online UFO Updates forum, which includes many “leaders” of the UFO movement, laughed off the valid explanation of oil well fires as flippantly as they did the absurd ones.” (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/campeche_mexico_infrared_ufo_video/)
How DO you reconcile THAT comment from YOUR source with YOUR claims?…and so on for another ten or so of your posts asking about the Campeche incident and exhorting me to discuss it – yet NOWHERE have you “explained” to me HOW Campeche relates to Rogue River! However I provided you with precisely what YOU were asking me for here:
..and once I DID that, you suddenly refused to directly comment on or discuss the case any further! In my opinion it is obvious that once you realised that your conceptions of the case were in error and that there WAS at least one UFO (probably more) involved in the case, you decided that it was not worth pursuing.
I stated:
“The definition of UFO should be:
Unidentified flying object (commonly abbreviated as UFO or U.F.O.) is the popular term for any apparent aerial phenomenon whose cause cannot identified by the observer or subsequent investigation.”
IF it was left entirely up to the OBSERVER (as you want the definition of UFO to be a la Wikipedia…ughhh) then once the observer says that it is a UFO - then that is IT, finish, end of story. Then if you (or any other researcher) comes along later and provides a plausible mundane explanation, UFO proponents will be able to state that according to YOUR OWN definition it MUST REMAIN as a UFO because you have defined UFO strictly and solely as from the observer’s perspective at the time of the incident! And I am positive that is NOT an outcome that is desirable to you – yet it arises from YOUR definition!
The Wiki definition was:
”Unidentified flying object (commonly abbreviated as UFO or U.F.O.) is the popular term for any apparent aerial phenomenon whose cause cannot be easily or immediately identified by the observer.”
At least MY definition:
Unidentified flying object (commonly abbreviated as UFO or U.F.O.) is the popular term for any apparent aerial phenomenon whose cause cannot identified by the observer or subsequent investigation.”
ALLOWS subsequent investigation to redefine the observer’s UFO as a misidentified mundane object. One would have thought that would be a positive outcome for you.
“The definition of UFO should be:
Unidentified flying object (commonly abbreviated as UFO or U.F.O.) is the popular term for any apparent aerial phenomenon whose cause cannot identified by the observer or subsequent investigation.”
You totally MISS the point! No matter WHAT definition of UFO is used, you would be able to argue that different investigators have different opinions on the matter.
IF it was left entirely up to the OBSERVER (as you want the definition of UFO to be a la Wikipedia…ughhh) then once the observer says that it is a UFO - then that is IT, finish, end of story. Then if you (or any other researcher) comes along later and provides a plausible mundane explanation, UFO proponents will be able to state that according to YOUR OWN definition it MUST REMAIN as a UFO because you have defined UFO strictly and solely as from the observer’s perspective at the time of the incident! And I am positive that is NOT an outcome that is desirable to you – yet it arises from YOUR definition!
The Wiki definition was:
”Unidentified flying object (commonly abbreviated as UFO or U.F.O.) is the popular term for any apparent aerial phenomenon whose cause cannot be easily or immediately identified by the observer.”
At least MY definition:
Unidentified flying object (commonly abbreviated as UFO or U.F.O.) is the popular term for any apparent aerial phenomenon whose cause cannot identified by the observer or subsequent investigation.”
ALLOWS subsequent investigation to redefine the observer’s UFO as a misidentified mundane object. One would have thought that would be a positive outcome for you.
I stated:
“NOW can you see how your “blimp shape” is a complete misinterpretation of what the drawings actually represent? If you do not, then you have simply failed to conduct the experiment as outlined.”
However YOU DO make a false claim. I have NEVER "agreed" (or claimed) that the drawings are “very similar in shape to that of a blimp”! In fact I have repeatedly pointed out to you that this IS a complete misconception of the nature of the drawings.
I have provided you with a detailed explanation and a physical experiment that you could have conducted to demonstrate your misconception.
A simple “yes” would have sufficed.
“NOW can you see how your “blimp shape” is a complete misinterpretation of what the drawings actually represent? If you do not, then you have simply failed to conduct the experiment as outlined.”
There seems to be some confusion in your mind between the singular “fin” and the plural “fins”. The UFO had ONE FIN – therefore if I claim it did not have “fins” – then that claim is correct (NOT false)!
However YOU DO make a false claim. I have NEVER "agreed" (or claimed) that the drawings are “very similar in shape to that of a blimp”! In fact I have repeatedly pointed out to you that this IS a complete misconception of the nature of the drawings.
I have provided you with a detailed explanation and a physical experiment that you could have conducted to demonstrate your misconception.
I then asked you a question concerning whether you had NOW understood your conceptual error.
A simple “yes” would have sufficed.
Fermi's Paradox?
Fermi’s paradox (where are they?) and the “difficulties” posed by interstellar travel have often been cited by UFO debunkers as reasons to discount UFOs as visiting “ETIs”. The lack of peer-reviewed publication has also been used by UFO debunkers to negate the “UFOs as ETI” theory (if mainstream science cannot accept UFOs, then why should we?).
However I recently came across a paper ”Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation” published in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (http://www.bis-spaceflight.com/jbis.htm/) by Deardorff, Haisch, Maccabee and Puthoff (JBIS,Vol. 58, pg 43, 2005) that makes for some very interesting reading. The abstract states:
The full text of the paper can be found at the above link.
I may have to change my position on the “UFO as ETI” theory if this keeps up! LOL.
Fermi’s paradox (where are they?) and the “difficulties” posed by interstellar travel have often been cited by UFO debunkers as reasons to discount UFOs as visiting “ETIs”. The lack of peer-reviewed publication has also been used by UFO debunkers to negate the “UFOs as ETI” theory (if mainstream science cannot accept UFOs, then why should we?).
However I recently came across a paper ”Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation” published in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (http://www.bis-spaceflight.com/jbis.htm/) by Deardorff, Haisch, Maccabee and Puthoff (JBIS,Vol. 58, pg 43, 2005) that makes for some very interesting reading. The abstract states:
“It has recently been argued that anthropic reasoning applied to inflation theory reinforces the prediction that we should find ourselves part of a large, galaxy-sized civilisation, thus strengthening Fermi’s paradox concerning “Where are they?” Furthermore, superstring and M-brane theory allow for the possibility of parallel universes, some of which in principle could be habitable. In addition, discussion of such exotic transport concepts as “traversable wormholes” now appears in the rigorous physics literature. As a result, the “We are alone” solution to Fermi’s paradox, based on the constraints of earlier 20th century viewpoints, appears today to be inconsistent with new developments in our best current physics and astrophysics theories. Therefore we reexamine and reevaluate the present assumption that extraterrestrials or their probes are not in the vicinity of Earth, and argue instead that some evidence of their presence might be found in certain high-quality UFO reports. This study follows up on previous arguments that (1) interstellar travel for advanced civilizations is not a priori ruled out by physical principles and therefore may be practicable, and (2) such advanced civilizations may value the search for knowledge from uncontaminated species more than direct, interspecies communication, thereby accounting for apparent covertness regarding their presence.” (http://brumac.8k.com/JBISpaper/JBISpaper.pdf)
The full text of the paper can be found at the above link.
I may have to change my position on the “UFO as ETI” theory if this keeps up! LOL.
Frying Dutchmen
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 387
Am I the only one here is getting tired of your mental gymnastics. This is about you egging me on to make a straw man of your argument.
Rramjet said:
Also
So all we have from you is straw men of our position plus a brand new term to poison well with. Grats
There's a UFO debunker conspiracy on wiki lol.... What ever floats your boat Rramjet
Good for you, you say you believe in UFO's What are we debating about since no one here disagrees with you that there are UFO's.
Since you'll scoff at that sentence, so I'll ask Where is the quote of one us saying we do not believe in UFO's? Still waiting
Frying Dutchmen
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 387
You can scratch Jim Dilettoso off the list with the 10pm event, he agrees that they are most probably flares as he stated on a podcast called the Paracast done on 30th of August 2009. They also "interview" a skeptic when I say interview I mean Ambush.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
If that were true, then we shouldn't refer to anything as a UFO unless someone has identified the thing as alien and established that identification beyond any reasonable doubt.
Just 61 minutes later, Rramjet contradicted himself:
Which implies that a phenomenon that has been positively identified as alien cannot be a UFO, contrary to Rramjet's assertion quoted above.
Rramjet isn't moving the goal posts so much as rotating the playing field.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,435
Yes, exactly. Well done. I think you've finally got it. There's no proof for any explanation, which is what makes it a UFO. If there were proof of the blimp explanation it wouldn't be a UFO anymore, but an IFO. The blimp explanation is a possibility, regardless of how unlikely or implausible you personally think it might be. Other possibilities include hoax, aliens from another planet, time travellers from Earth, time travellers from another planet, inter-dimensional travellers, fairies, gods, previously unknown atmospheric phenomenon, dragons, pixies, experimental aircraft...... The list of possible explanations is almost endless.
And that's the whole point. Labelling UFOs as anything other than UFOs is a pointless exercise in semantics.
Now, can you find anyone who seriously contends that the Rogue River UFO was definitely a blimp? Yes or no?
What's unscientific is to redefine your terms in order to try to make your case stronger. The bottom line is that all of these objects under discussion are unidentified. It's possible that some of them are indeed "alien" as you want to define the term, but how does that help your argument? It's also possible that none of them are "alien". Until you can find actual proof one way or the other they are just UFOs, unidentified flying objects, and nothing more.
Your entire UFMO argument is a strawman, because none of your opponents in this debate (to my knowledge) definitely exclude the possibility of some of them being "alien".
The difference between our arguments and yours is that you contend certainty where we contend possibility. You contend that the boat was certainly stable enough, the binoculars were certainly good enough, the observers certainly couldn't have misinterpreted a blimp, there certainly wasn't heat haze, there certainly wasn't specular reflection, they certainly wouldn't have made it up. We contend that the boat could possibly have been unstable, the binoculars could possibly have been less than adequate, the observers could possibly have mistaken a blimp, there could possibly have been heat haze, there could possibly have been specular reflection, and they could possibly have made the whole thing up. Of course, by the very nature of possibility all of your "certain" contentions could be true, but there's no proof, just possibilities.
Now, you tell me, which is less scientific, certainty without proof, or possibility without proof?
All we've been saying, all along, is that you have to include the consideration that every single sighting could be the result of hoaxes or misperceptions.
Are you willing to do that Rramjet?
Because there is not enough reliable data about the observation to identify it as mundane or alien. That means that they are unidentified.
Pretend? You are confusing CAN HAVE with HAS. Noone has claimed that all UFO sightings have a mundane explanation. Some have claimed (rightfully so) that they MIGHT HAVE but we don't know, because there is not enough reliable data to work with.
And again, there is not enough data available in some observations to eliminate anything, mundane or alien.
I have adressed that repeatedly but you insist on putting words in my mouth. If there is not enough reliable data to work with, of course there can be a mundane explanation. If there is not enough reliable data to work with, of course there can be an alien explanation. Get it now?
No, I mean what I say. Deal with it.
So I repeat then. If we don't have enough information to work with it's impossible to find an explanation, mundane or aline. Thus, both are still open possibilities.
Your argument is not subtle at all. You claim UFO=alien. I claim UFO=alien or mundane. You are the one claiming that there is enough information available to exclude all mundane explanations. You thereby dismiss all contradictory data and fail to see that some of the data that do exist is not of very high quality. You are the one with a closed mind, I keep mine open.
I have stated it multiple times. You just pretend that I haven't.
I don't know if every UFO report has a mundane explanation. Some of them (like Rouge river) are riddled with contradictory and unreliable information which makes it impossible to stamp it as neither mundane nor alien.
It has now been thoroughly adressed above and it is quite clear that by UFO you mean UFAO (Unidentified Flying Alien Object).
Marcus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,857
Make up your mind. This is not the definition you have been using, which includes aliens. If you want to revert to using normal definitions, so much the better, communication is easier without all the made up stuff.
Now that we all agree on what a UFO is, perhaps you could point us to the people who don't believe in them.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Why don't you answer the question? What if two investigations come up with a different answer? One states it is a "true" UFO and another states it is a mundane source. Is it still a UFO or is it an IFO or is it a potential IFO?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
If you are no longer claiming to have eliminated all mundane explanations then I apologize for misrepresenting what you have said. Is that the case now?
Rramjet admits he cannot eliminate all mundane explanations and this is simply a thought experiment. _____________________________ sign here
Is it possible that the witnesses could have been mistaken? Like they were at Campeche (trained military observers, confirmed with FLIR and radar).
So your method of eliminating all mundane explanations is to list seven that you can think of and say "nope, can't be that"?
After you eliminated oil well fires at Campeche, what were you left with? Clearly, oil well fires can't surround a military plane (with trained military observers, confirmed by FLIR and radar).
<snicker>
Can you provide a citation to where UFO is identified as "alien"? Other than your own, of course. You may want to remember what happened last time you used Encarta.
<snicker>
That's another problem you have. Everyone understands the meaning of your argument. We've just been patiently explaining why you're so very wrong.
That one statemnet says worlds.
Will you be forthcoming with that evidence soon? Nobody here has made any claims other than you. You are halfway to your destination. You've finally proven to everyone that UFOs exist. Now, moving on to aliens...?
Historically speaking, you lost Rogue River.
You've never said what you thought was the real explanation for Campeche after you've eliminated all the implausible mundane explanations. Oil well fires is simply not plausible. That's what you've never answered. Until you can answer that, you will never understand.
So, Rramjet, what was it at Campeche since oil well fires are implausible?
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
The recent National Geographic Special, which appears to have been filmed about the same time as this interview, showed him stating they weren't flares. My guess is the analysis he is talking about was done in conjunction with the NatGeo special. Because it demonstrated the lights were flares, the probably cut it from the show. BTW, Dilettoso lied when he stated they did not have the ability to do this in 1997. Dr. Rudin of Cognitech did it for the Discovery Channel back in 1997 in a few hourse. Of course, they demonstrated the lights were behind the mountains, which Dilettoso promptly rejected.
- Status