UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Point to ANY post of mine where I have argued that.

Now the astute reader will immediately recognise this as the "strawman argument". Set up a false statement attributable to you opponent, merely to knock it down. We are getting it all here today! Roll up ladies and gentlemen... roll up and see...

Apologies, that was KotA.

 

[kitakaze]

Actually no...I did NOT post that link...Pantaz did... it is therefore NOT "my" preferred evidence that you discuss. Perhaps ask Pantaz about it.

The link I DID post is not working correctly so that we cannot currently access the relevant documentation. I have contacted the webmaster at that site and have asked if it would be possible to fix the broken links in the page I posted...so stand by...I'll let you know when they are up and running...

Say whaaaa? You posted a link under the heading "physical evidence." That link worked. It was a link to a bunch of links. The only links that worked came to a bunch of smoke stories that had absolutely no physical evidence for anyone who wants to be on your side to examine. Why are you hitting Pantaz with responsibility for your links not containing what they say they do. I can only assume that the links that were broken had the same things as the ones that weren't - no physical evidence of VEFI.

1) I need to understand what's going on here so I am going to ask you a simply question. Did you check you links and there content before you posted them? Yes or no followed by whatever explanation you like.

2) What would I find if I did follow those links?

3) I obviously need to ask, afterall - is there reliable physical evidence for VEFI? Yes or no followed by whatever explanation you like.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Well seriously, there are hundreds - thousands - probably millions of stories of UFOs, but not one piece of solid, verifiable evidence.

Bring me something concrete and I'll start believing that there's something to it. Until then, anyone can tell stories.

Exactly. Until the believers can do more than simply tell stories and make arguments from ignorance (my favorite is how "UFO" - which is, by definition, unidentified - has somehow morphed into "alien spacecraft") their lame arguments will continue to be dismissed.

Personally, I think all the UFOs are simply leprechauns - go on, I challenge any of you to prove me wrong...

 

[Rramjet]

Apologies, that was KotA.

Apology accepted RoboTimbo and I am fully appreciative that you actually took the (what is for most - if not all - people) difficult step in posting it.

Thank you.

 

[jer_j]

I've seen the pictures and heard the tales. I've seen skeptics recreate pictures just as convincing as the best UFO evidence, and I know any deluded/mistaken person or liar can come up up a story. I myself have seen things that didn't make sense for a time, but I've avoided jumping conclusions. I've felt myself pulled out of bed to float around the room, while an alien presence observed me from outside my field of vision - then I learned about the nature of sleep paralysis, which I had been plagued with until my teen years.

After it all, I have a few questions that would have to be answered before I would consider an alien hypothesis even half-way plausible:

1) Why does our world, in my day to day experience, not look like one that aliens regularly visit?

And if #1 is explained by a conspiracy by the government/visitors to hide their presence, I would ask:

2) Why do aliens - with their vast technology that allows them to fly silently, maneuver on a dime, and avoid detection - allow their ships to hover in plain sight of human observers?

3) Why do those same aliens fly at night with bright external lights on?

4) Why do those same aliens abduct people then release them into the general population instead of killing them?

5) How do people manage to keep posting UFO information on the internet and testifying on shows like Coast to Coast AM without disappearing in the middle of the night?

Until these questions can be given reasonable answers, the alien hypothesis is not only unsubstantiated, but incomprehensibly absurd.

 

[Rramjet]

Say whaaaa? You posted a link under the heading "physical evidence." That link worked. It was a link to a bunch of links. The only links that worked came to a bunch of smoke stories that had absolutely no physical evidence for anyone who wants to be on your side to examine. Why are you hitting Pantaz with responsibility for your links not containing what they say they do. I can only assume that the links that were broken had the same things as the ones that weren't - no physical evidence of VEFI.

Obviously my intention was to enable people to access the information under that link. THAT obviously failed in practice. I apologise for any inconvenience so caused and have already begged you indulgence while I attempt to rectify the problem… what more do you need from me on that score?

As for Pantaz …it was YOU who referenced information under HIS link to refute MY contention. I merely claim that is unfair because that was NOT the evidence that I proposed to place on the record as “my” evidence. Again I beg your indulgence until the problem with my reference can (hopefully) be sorted out.

1) I need to understand what's going on here so I am going to ask you a simply question. Did you check you links and there content before you posted them? Yes or no followed by whatever explanation you like.

2) What would I find if I did follow those links?

3) I obviously need to ask, afterall - is there reliable physical evidence for VEFI? Yes or no followed by whatever explanation you like.

1) Yes
2) You would find articles and documented research arguing the case BOTH for AND against the contention that there is physical evidence for UFOs. That is a fair and balanced discussion resource and I cannot myself be more fair than that…
3) Yes (but possibly also I misunderstand "VEFI")and again I beg your patience until the site is fixed. Failing that I will have to dig out the references and post them individually, but that is not necessary yet…

Moreover, if you read some of the cases I have posted, you will find physical evidence mentioned therein… the Zamora case is one such… The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing is another… there are others… perhaps you would like to discuss that physical evidence while the other site is unavailable?

 

[Rramjet]

After it all, I have a few questions that would have to be answered before I would consider an alien hypothesis even half-way plausible:

1) Why does our world, in my day to day experience, not look like one that aliens regularly visit?

What would a world look like that “aliens” DID visit? If you have no conception of what such a world would look like, then that immediately answers your question. This world might be exactly the type of world that “aliens” regularly visit.

(…)

2) Why do aliens - with their vast technology that allows them to fly silently, maneuver on a dime, and avoid detection - allow their ships to hover in plain sight of human observers?

3) Why do those same aliens fly at night with bright external lights on?

4) Why do those same aliens abduct people then release them into the general population instead of killing them?

Who knows the “mind” of an alien? Do you? How can we possibly attribute motivation or intention to “aliens”? Moreover, what IS an “alien”?

5) How do people manage to keep posting UFO information on the internet and testifying on shows like Coast to Coast AM without disappearing in the middle of the night?

Why don’t clothes lines turn into toasters?

Until these questions can be given reasonable answers, the alien hypothesis is not only unsubstantiated, but incomprehensibly absurd.

Reasonable questions can have reasonable answers, absurd questions possibly have only absurd answers.

You are also confusing "alien" with "ET" - there is a difference.

 

[GeeMack]

Oh, so Blue Book, Condon, Sturrock, Condign, et al. are "unprofessional" and "unscientific"? Please StrayCat, your opinion is at odds with, well...just about everybody on that score...

Please provide the quotes, with references, from those professional and scientific research projects which show that any initially unidentified sky sightings turned out to be, after identification, aliens/craft from space or other planets. Or, if you are unable to do that, acknowledge that you can't.

 

[arthwollipot]

Actually that is fallacious reasoning. No-one said anything about "a simple statement" making ANYTHING true, let alone a UFO report.

My contention is that there seems to exist a body of evidence that points toward phenomena (a phenomenon perhaps) that defies our realist theories on "objective reality". I contend that there is something occurring that would cause many people to sit up and say "Wait on...what IS going on here?"

The body of evidence I point to in my references in my original post. THEREIN lies the evidence. "Proof" either way cannot, indeed must not and should not rely on a "single" report. That being said there are some pretty interesting ones in there

I'm sure there are. But they're not evidence of anything other than "people say that they see things".

Actually, science and law apply different standards of evidence. And it is NOT "hearsay" when it is a first hand report. I think you might be confusing "anecdote" with "hearsay"?

No, it's hearsay. The Blue Book reports that other people report seeing things. The Blue Book is not in any case a first hand report.

Anyway - you want to know what's second bottom on the law courts' list of reliable forms of evidence, just above hearsay? Eyewitness statements.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Ah yes, the "It might be, therefore it is" argument. Point to the evidence to support the "balloons" hypothesis.

Loud roar, bright flame, slow ascent.

I see lots of generalised statements by my "opponents" here, but not much actual addressing of the evidence... I expected as much...yet foolishly perhaps I remain optimistic.

What evidence? "We saw something in the sky"?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Who knows the “mind” of an alien? Do you? How can we possibly attribute motivation or intention to “aliens”?

Aliens must be intelligent beings. And intelligent beings don't do what UFO enthusiasts pretend us to believe.

 

[riptowtan]

This is one of the cases where a prosaic explanation is seemingly missing. That is if the internet is your only source. Have you read Philip Klass's take on the Delphos, Kansas incident? If not check it out. It's a pretty reasonable explanation. I think its in "UFOs identified". Pretty much the eyewitness testimony contradicted itself, pointing towards a hoax, and the ring left on the ground was either from an animal feeder that was originally placed there, or some other circular object. The motive for the hoax was a local prize for the best ufo evidence/case. The trees that ended up dying most likely were affected by an invasive Japanese tree that happened to be amongst them. Philip Klass got a hold of overhead shots taken from a plane of the Delphos woods near the house and noticed that the trees started to die 10 years before the incident. From what I remember the radiation levels were high, but that was where most of the disagreement was between Friedman and Klass. I'll have to check the book out at the library again, its been a few years since I read it. This is one of the more interesting cases though.

 

[LTC8K6]

Bruce Maccabee is a believer. I'll certainly read reports from believers, but they have considerably less credibility, imo. I'd rather read reports from unbiased sources.

All you need to know is contained in 2 words. Gulf Breeze.

 

[jer_j]

What would a world look like that “aliens” DID visit? If you have no conception of what such a world would look like, then that immediately answers your question. This world might be exactly the type of world that “aliens” regularly visit.

(…)


You are also confusing "alien" with "ET" - there is a difference.

So basically, the ET hypothesis is full of internal contradictions, but that's okay because the whole thing's outside our realm of understanding?

Okay, then let me try: I say we live in a world that's been conquered by Darth Vader and his storm troopers. We can't conceive of what a world conquered by Darth Vader and his stormtroopers would look like, therefore you can't argue against me on the basis that they appear strangely absent.

 

[Stray Cat]

Meaning? Wikipedia is a good, accurate source? A bad source? Who is referencing Wikipedia? Red Herrings StrayCat…red herrings…

Meaning that as interesting as Wikipedia is to read, it's hardly a 100% credible source of information and the more inaccurate pages that get added don't make it any more credible. It's not a red herring, it's a comparison to what you claim is a vast collection of UFO evidence. A vast collection of unverifiable anecdotes is even less impressive than just one unverified anecdote.

No… it is not your “job” to do anything… people merely asked if I could provide evidence. I did so. It is entirely up to you how you deal with it.

Phewww.... that's good then because for a minute I could see many months of my life disappearing in order to re state what has already been stated over and over again: "At this moment, there is no physical proof of alien visitations to this planet"

“entirely blown out of the water" ? …but you have not looked at the information in my references and seem to be basing you contentions on previously arrived at belief systems… THAT is not what this is about StrayCat… I posted evidence. You deal with it by replying with an ingrained, deeply held belief system. If you want to truly argue against the evidence I present… provide the counter-evidence.

I see no new compelling evidence, just the same nonsense I saw last time I read up on any of those accounts. The counter evidence already exists, I'm not going to search it out for you. you're the one making the extraordinary claim... back it up with something new and compelling.

Which is why I posted references ONLY to Dr. Jesse Marcel’s statements. THEY are interesting. “Roswell” itself is “mired deep” and probably will be now forever… I invite you to look beyond the heading at the actual content of the evidence I present.

The difference between "interesting" and conclusive proof is a whole universe apart. And funny how EVERY single thread of the Roswell story has come from Military Intelligence sources... the exact same people who were charged with covering the whole affair up... including Marcel. Didn't they do a great job?

“Enough doubt”… “Falling flat”? These are value judgements Stray Cat and many would disagree with your assessment on the matter. I simply then invite readers to go to the thread you mention and make up their own minds.

Anyone with half a mind to take a critical look at what the Trent's said and photographed will realise that the possibility of a hoax hasn't been ruled out. The onus is on you to prove it impossible to be the case... so far, you haven't done that.

Yes, maybe, but if you contend that then you must show me how and why you reached that conclusion. Merely stating that something is …well, you know the rest.

The information is freely available on the internet. Astrophotographers website is probably the best place to find the real critical research done.

Covered where and by whom? And “Rouge” River. Perhaps you really ARE not familiar with the case….

Sorry, am I not allowed a typo here and there?
Covered by the fact that a blimp company (verifiable) regularly flew the route (verifiable) at the time of the sighting (verifiable), the witness statements fit the description of a blimp from front and side, the contentious issues seeming to be the size and speed... the two things which are difficult (almost impossible) to determine without frames of reference.

Prototype-balloon company “nearby”? Now you DO make me laugh…the company – as I have already pointed out to you elsewhere- was a WHOLE CONTINENT away from the “scene of the crime”.

No, I think you'll find that Raven Industries is right there in the US of A.

“Minor inconsistencies”? Which? Where? And “minor”?

Of course you probably don't pick up on them... but again it's not my job nor intention to point them out to you. I've already done work on this and I'd just be repeating myself.

BS is always going to be inconclusive StrayCat – but again “BS” is just your belief system (about the matter)…

My 'belief system' is based upon the evidence (lack of) for anything other than a mundane explanation. Unless you can provide new and compelling evidence. I will maintain that UFO's are as the title fairly represents UNEXPLAINED.

Then I ask you to examine the EVIDENCE as I presented it StrayCat. Your attitude seems to be “Don’t bother me with evidence, my mind is already made up”. If that is the case then please move aside and let others decide for themselves – on the evidence.

I'm not stopping anyone from looking through what ever they want to look through... My opinion of the evidence you have provided is that it's all old hat, been done too many times. Bring something new.

Oh, so Blue Book, Condon, Sturrock, Condign, et al. are “unprofessional” and “unscientific”? Please StrayCat, your opinion is at odds with, well…just about everybody on that score…

Then point me specifically to the bit in any of those reports that conclusively proves that Aliens are visiting our planet.
And I'll be glad to point you to UFOlogists websites, reports, conferences, lectures, books videos, dvd's that make that massive unfounded assumption, and then tell me how scientific they are.

You seem to be throwing slurs against any and all here without due consideration of the facts. All I ask is you look at the evidence as presented in the links I posted. If you can provide counter-evidence, then I urge you to do so. Casting slurs and aspersions and making unfounded generalisations is not particularly helpful…really.

Actually I was suggesting a more constructive approach to future UFO research. A point I see you have overlooked. Am I to take it you think the past 50 years has been a half century of unimprovable research?

This is a trend I have noticed. Debunkers rarely discuss or debate the actual evidence as presented to them, relying instead on casting unsubstantiated and generalised slurs on the witnesses and the research to get by. That is a methodology that belies critical thinking and rational thought processes and incidentally is definitely anti-scientific.

The trouble with dealing with people who use dubious methods to back up unsubstantiated claims is that they get tarred with the same brush as the methods they chose to use. Which is exactly why they need to re-boot the system and start over to gain some credibility instead of making the same mistakes over and over.
As soon as someone comes along who earns some credibility with some real critical research, I'm sure we will be the first to support the efforts... However at this point in time, I feel that the person who does this will be labelled as debunker by the 'believers' and Ufologists, because let's face it they are in the mystery business and we all know it's not good business to solve the mystery.

 

[Rramjet]

I'm sure there are. But they're not evidence of anything other than "people say that they see things".

There is also the matter of physical trace evidence… photos, video, radar…but why let all that evidence stand in the way of your contention that "people say that they see things" is all there is to UFOs.

No, it's hearsay. The Blue Book reports that other people report seeing things. The Blue Book is not in any case a first hand report.

Splitting hairs arthwollipot. Is that what my arguments have reduced you to? Besides you are simply mistaken, a sworn eyewitness testimony is NOT hearsay and IS admitted in court as evidence…they also take video and verbal tape testimony if you are interested. Facts arthwollipot, facts and research.

Loud roar, bright flame, slow ascent.

Sounds like a Saturn V rocket to me…are you contending Zamora saw a Saturn V rocket?

What evidence? "We saw something in the sky"?

Perhaps you should read the evidence then Gord… “something in the sky” is just one tiny piece of the jigsaw. There is MUCH more to it than that – if you read the evidence that is…

Aliens must be intelligent beings. And intelligent beings don't do what UFO enthusiasts pretend us to believe.

Ah… Patricio Elicer knows the mind of “aliens”. Please, go on, tell me why “they” do what “they” do? As you might have guessed, I am very interested in the topic.

…and the ring left on the ground was either from an animal feeder that was originally placed there, or some other circular object.

“…or some other circular object”? I thought you had a “reasonable explanation”. This is an argument explaining the unknown by proposing the unknown… interesting, we have not had that one in that post until now… roll up…roll up…

From what I remember the radiation levels were high

Then you have an explanation for that then?

But you do raise some interesting points. I will get back to you.

Bruce Maccabee is a believer. I'll certainly read reports from believers, but they have considerably less credibility, imo. I'd rather read reports from unbiased sources.

All you need to know is contained in 2 words. Gulf Breeze.

Okay…let’s focus people. I reckon the The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver.html) is a good one. Can we please have some focused discussion on THAT particular case for a moment. Present the couter-arguments to THAT one and I might be inclined to listen to objections to others. THIS is the case I am currently interested in and it is THIS case you must knock down for me. Can I ask people to actually read the report before posting anything on it… attack the evidence. State to me how it is NOT simply an “unknown” craft.

PS: if I’ve missed anyone my apologies… I’ll get back as soon as I can … in the meantime (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver.html). WHAT do you think?

 

[LTC8K6]

There's nothing to counter in the Rogue River report, imo.

Some people saw something in the air that they could not ID. They never confirmed what it was. They made some drawings of what they saw. The drawings are vague and could easily be of conventional aircraft.

What's to counter?

 

[Marduk]

Um no...I never claimed it was "the most convincing" - I have consistently denied that ANY case, on its' own is "convincing".

You chose it at the suggestion of Tapio one page back, why deny it now that evidence to the contrary is provided, shall we guess why you'd do that ?

You seem to be pushing the "blimp" hypothesis...yet you provide no evidence to support your contention. My evidence is the witness descriptions. I have provided that. You on the other hand have provided no evidence (read none) to support your "blimp" contention.

you haven't got a clue have you
I have physical evidence, the blimps and blimp hangar
I have documentary evidence, the flight routes
I have scientific evidence, the profiles of a blimp in flight
I have demonstrative evidence, go look at a blimp
you have hearsay, from non experts, which is next to worthless

Again...(and again)...Merely stating that something is true, does not MAKE it true...

I am stating it true based on my own research and evidence
you are stating it false based on imagination and no evidence
you lose

really if this demonstrates anything its demonstrating that even if I provided a statement written by the blimp pilot stating that he was in that location on that day and nothing else was flying in the area you wouldn't believe it

youre a ufo nut, thats suddenly become very very clear, as such you don't deserve any more time wasted on you, you just deserve contempt
you certainly now have mine and before you start spouting crapola its your attitude and refusal to look at real evidence thats earned it, nothing else
well done, youve proved to everyone here that youre a complete waste of our time

 

[Rramjet]

There's nothing to counter in the Rogue River report, imo.

Some people saw something in the air that they could not ID. They never confirmed what it was. They made some drawings of what they saw. The drawings are vague and could easily be of conventional aircraft.

What's to counter?

The drawings are "vague"? Have you even looked at the report? The drawings are particularly precise actually.

I am not surprised at this type of post though. It fits a general pattern. When there are no substantial objections to the evidence, just make up some unfounded and generalised negative assertion and given that no-one seems interested in looking at the actual evidence, then who is to find out that the assertion is false?

But,also of course you have your opponent running around in circles just trying to counter such nonsense, wasting time and energy, instead of focusing on the real issues with the story... and as yet no-one has come up with anything to substantively dispute the account...

The only thing so far has been some sort of "blimp" hypothesis, but if you read the report, you will understand why that is just grasping a straws and not a real objection at all. If it were a "blimp" then the Air Force would have stated as much - instead they reached for "kite", an altogether more improbable explanation than "blimp". Moreover, "blimp" directly contradicts the eyewitness accounts of jet plane speeds. Please...read the accounts. Examine the evidence. Come up with anything substantive to dispute the conclusion that the sighting represents a TRUE unknown.

The one thing the drawings are NOT, is "vague".

 

[Rramjet]

Meaning that as interesting as Wikipedia is to read, it's hardly a 100% credible source of information and the more inaccurate pages that get added don't make it any more credible. It's not a red herring, it's a comparison to what you claim is a vast collection of UFO evidence. A vast collection of unverifiable anecdotes is even less impressive than just one unverified anecdote.

This is a spurious comparison then. Many of the accounts I presented have been verified. There are independent witnesses, there are photographs, there are videos, there are radar targets, there are physical traces…it seems the only thing that will satisfy the debunkers is a UFO in their own back yard…and I hazard a guess that even that would not suffice… meanwhile the rest of us find all that evidence adds up to something rather perplexing and seem to point to something occurring that is outside our current conception of what is possible or real.

…what has already been stated over and over again: "At this moment, there is no physical proof of alien visitations to this planet"

and I’ll just keep repeating then - that merely to state (even over and over again) that something is true, does not make it true.

I see no new compelling evidence, just the same nonsense I saw last time I read up on any of those accounts. The counter evidence already exists, I'm not going to search it out for you. you're the one making the extraordinary claim... back it up with something new and compelling.

I make no extraordinary claims whatsoever. All I am stating is that there exists evidence for UFOs and something else that we might loosely term “alien”, but that is all, nothing extraordinary in that. I have presented the evidence for why I believe my contention. On the other hand, I see you presenting no evidence to the contrary.

The difference between "interesting" and conclusive proof is a whole universe apart. And funny how EVERY single thread of the Roswell story has come from Military Intelligence sources... the exact same people who were charged with covering the whole affair up... including Marcel. Didn't they do a great job?

Are you proposing some sort of conspiracy theory then?

Anyone with half a mind to take a critical look at what the Trent's said and photographed will realise that the possibility of a hoax hasn't been ruled out. The onus is on you to prove it impossible to be the case... so far, you haven't done that.

I beg to differ and propose that anyone with “half a mind” would look at the photos AND the research and conclude that a hoax had indeed been ruled out. Even Hartman (in Condon) ruled out a hoax – and that was a scientific investigation of the evidence – not wild speculation along the lines of “It might have been, therefore it was”.

The information is freely available on the internet. Astrophotographers website is probably the best place to find the real critical research done.

Umm…A’s website. What’s the link?

Sorry, am I not allowed a typo here and there?
Covered by the fact that a blimp company (verifiable) regularly flew the route (verifiable) at the time of the sighting (verifiable), the witness statements fit the description of a blimp from front and side, the contentious issues seeming to be the size and speed... the two things which are difficult (almost impossible) to determine without frames of reference.

Back to the “blimp” hey? (chuckles) All I am asking you (anyone) to do is read the accounts and then pronounce on their veracity. You could begin by stating: “I don’t believe the estimates of speed or size because…”

Merely stating that the estimates were inaccurate does not make them so.

Then point me specifically to the bit in any of those reports that conclusively proves that Aliens are visiting our planet.
And I'll be glad to point you to UFOlogists websites, reports, conferences, lectures, books videos, dvd's that make that massive unfounded assumption, and then tell me how scientific they are.

But you raise a contention that I am NOT proposing. I do NOT contend “Aliens are visiting our planet”. It is of course possible that “aliens” are, but on the evidence we cannot conclude that. It is again the “strawman” argument.

Actually I was suggesting a more constructive approach to future UFO research. A point I see you have overlooked. Am I to take it you think the past 50 years has been a half century of unimprovable research?

There is no research that cannot be improved on. I have never argued anything else. And I am calling for people to realise that research on the subject is advisable if we ever want to find out what is going on and further, we just might make discoveries that open up possibilities we have never even dreamed of. It was YOU who stated that the research conducted was “unscientific” and I merely pointed out that this was an unfounded assertion that could not be supported in the face of the evidence.

As soon as someone comes along who earns some credibility with some real critical research, I'm sure we will be the first to support the efforts... However at this point in time, I feel that the person who does this will be labelled as debunker by the 'believers' and Ufologists, because let's face it they are in the mystery business and we all know it's not good business to solve the mystery.

So let me get this straight…you believe that NO critical research of any worth has been conducted in the field?

…and again, you finish with a wild assertion that cannot be supported by the facts. It actually flies in the face of science and rational thought. Facts. Research. These are the two things that I base my judgements on. Others may choose alternate methods… (shrugs) that is their prerogative.