UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rramjet said:
You left out THE MOST obvious - and propose two things that are actually one thing.

The list SHOULD logically be:

1) Known (ie: natural or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information
3) Unknown

Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the Unknown category might look like:
1) ET
2) Interdimesional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
3) Jungian conciousness
4) add as you think of one...

The categorisation is then easier to understand and I hope it makes my contentions easier to place in context. I think that is where people are actually having trouble with my ideas...they have no schema in which to place them. So I refer you to the above.
Click to expand...

You can rearrange the list all you please (I myself stated it wasn't exhaustive), but the point is that, given an unknown, there's no reason to jump to the most fantastic conclusion. Call it interdimensional, call it ET, call it whatever you want - they're all giant leaps from anything we've observed in the world around us, and as such they're extremely unlikely. I could state that the lights in the sky are the glowing, floating turds of the rare orange panda that hides in the Canadian wilderness - but what would be the value in that?

Rramjet said:
But the "blimp" is EXACTLY that (!) an "unobserved, unrecorded phenomenon".
Click to expand...

That blimp may not have been observed. But we've observed blimps many, many times in our history. I would hope this was obvious.

Rramjet said:
I cannot help it if others argue from that premise...I simply point out the illogic of that position.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that your accusing them of taking a "physics is dead" stance just because they won't assume magical explanations that contradict everything we understand about the physical universe is nonsense.
 
Rramjet said:
Take a deep breath and chill bro…

I have NEVER argued that it is “aliens”. Repeat: Never.
I have however consistently argued that there are cases that are “Unknown”.
I entered the Rogue River case into the record to supply (one piece of) evidence as to why I reach such a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Then why is there still an argument going on? You say that it's unknown, and we agree.
Let's face it, Rramjet. Your act isn't fooling anyone. You're trying to prove aliens, and everyone knows it. Drop the pretense and admit it. You're making yourself look dishonest, and it doesn't help your case.

I do however point out that there exist hypotheses for the unknown category…but in the same breath always state that these are unproven – mere speculation on possibilities.


Then how would you describe the logic contained within arthwolipot’s argument?



But again: Merely stating that it IS so, does not MAKE it so...

Evidence. Research. Facts. These are the things I work with. Not unsubstantiated assertions.
Click to expand...

No one is saying that it IS blimps. You asked for possibles. We gave possibles. You just don't want any possibles that don't support your interdimensional alien ideas.
 
Instructions for this Thread:

1) Argue
2) Get frustrated and bang my head against the wall when I realize this goes nowhere
3) Get drawn in again when I see a point that's so obvious that I just have to make it
4) Repeat

:drool:
 
StevenCalder said:
His list obviously was what the UFO's turn out to be when finally identified…
Click to expand...

Ummm…perhaps you missed then jer_j’s third point?
3) “It's a space ship flown here by visitors from another star system.”

Are you contending that we have UFO sightings identified as such?
I know you do not - but that is the logical inference of your statement.

StevenCalder said:
You don't believe in Blimps?
(I know you do, but that was the point to which you were incorrectly responding)
Click to expand...

Actually, you need to get things in their correct context.
In reference specifically to Rogue River, the “blimp” explanation is precisely an “unobserved, unrecorded phenomenon.”
 
jer_j said:
Instructions for this Thread:

1) Argue
2) Get frustrated and bang my head against the wall when I realize this goes nowhere
3) Get drawn in again when I see a point that's so obvious that I just have to make it
4) Repeat

:drool:
Click to expand...

Damn, that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Way to make me feel like a prat!
 
Rramjet said:
Ummm…perhaps you missed then jer_j’s third point?
Click to expand...

Please actually read my posts.
"when finally" are the key words you missed.

ETA: My apologies there's a "will" missing from the post, even then its seems bleeding obvious what I mean.

Rramjet said:
Actually, you need to get things in their correct context.
In reference specifically to Rogue River, the “blimp” explanation is precisely an “unobserved, unrecorded phenomenon.”
Click to expand...

Again you've missed the point by a mile, we know blimps exist, we know they were based in the area. We know that's a plausible explanation.
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
It's "the wrong time frame"? Oh Perleeeease! :boggled:
Click to expand...

Well, it last flew in 1947 as far as I can tell. Slightly off for a 1949 sighting.

What did you think I meant? And what the heck is wrong with you?

And why are experimental aircraft not considered? There were all sorts of experiments going on in those years with flying wings and such. People were trying all sorts of things. Helicopters were just getting started.
 
jer_j said:
You can rearrange the list all you please (I myself stated it wasn't exhaustive), but the point is that, given an unknown, there's no reason to jump to the most fantastic conclusion. Call it interdimensional, call it ET, call it whatever you want - they're all giant leaps from anything we've observed in the world around us, and as such they're extremely unlikely. I could state that the lights in the sky are the glowing, floating turds of the rare orange panda that hides in the Canadian wilderness - but what would be the value in that?
Click to expand...

I was merely pointing out a categorisation schema that might help you understand better where I was coming from.

I explicitely stated the the “hypotheses” were exactly that…speculative and unproven.

I do suggest however suggest that “glowing, floating turds of the rare orange panda that hides in the Canadian wilderness” IS unhelpful – but that is merely my opinion and if you want to hold to that contention – (shrugs) be my guest.

jer_j said:
That blimp may not have been observed. But we've observed blimps many, many times in our history. I would hope this was obvious.
Click to expand...

THAT blimp may not have been observed?
Then you admit no blimp was observed?
Then you argue: “But it might have been, therefore it WAS”.
That is a fallacy.
Sometime, someday, someone, somewhere will actually get that point… I live in hope…

jer_j said:
No, I'm saying that your accusing them of taking a "physics is dead" stance just because they won't assume magical explanations that contradict everything we understand about the physical universe is nonsense.
Click to expand...

The argument is – in case you missed it:

“They cannot be here because our current understanding of physics precludes it”

I merely point out the logical fallacy in that argument.

“This precludes any possibel advances in physics that might allow that very thing to happen”.

Simple. Factual. To the point.
 
jer_j said:
You can rearrange the list all you please (I myself stated it wasn't exhaustive), but the point is that, given an unknown, there's no reason to jump to the most fantastic conclusion. Call it interdimensional, call it ET, call it whatever you want - they're all giant leaps from anything we've observed in the world around us, and as such they're extremely unlikely. I could state that the lights in the sky are the glowing, floating turds of the rare orange panda that hides in the Canadian wilderness - but what would be the value in that?
Click to expand...

I was merely pointing out a categorisation schema that might help you understand better where I was coming from.

I explicitely stated the the “hypotheses” were exactly that…speculative and unproven.

I do suggest however suggest that “glowing, floating turds of the rare orange panda that hides in the Canadian wilderness” IS unhelpful – but that is merely my opinion and if you want to hold to that contention – (shrugs) be my guest.

jer_j said:
That blimp may not have been observed. But we've observed blimps many, many times in our history. I would hope this was obvious.
Click to expand...

THAT blimp may not have been observed?
Then you admit no blimp was observed?
Then you argue: “But it might have been, therefore it WAS”.
That is a fallacy.
Sometime, someday, someone, somewhere will actually get that point… I live in hope…

jer_j said:
No, I'm saying that your accusing them of taking a "physics is dead" stance just because they won't assume magical explanations that contradict everything we understand about the physical universe is nonsense.
Click to expand...

The argument is – in case you missed it:

“They cannot be here because our current understanding of physics precludes it”

I merely point out the logical fallacy in that argument.

“This precludes any possible advances in physics that might allow that very thing to happen”.

Simple. Factual. To the point.
 
Ooops...
Double post...
I am not sure how that happened...
Apologies if I caused it...
 
Rramjet said:
Evidence. For once can someone produce any real evidence to back their assertions. You require it of me, yet strangely you do not require it of yourselves.
Click to expand...

I've seen this same behavior, lacking evidence for skeptical assertions, but at the same time demanding it of me...double standards abound...

GREAT thread by the way, TONS of information, well done.
 
RoboTimbo said:
And here we have it, the shifting of burden of proof. "I make no claims myself so if you're going to propose some mundane explanantion, you have to prove it was mundane." Did you and KotA get together and decide to both try it at the same time?
Click to expand...

I was right.
 
Rramjet said:
Actually you seem to seriously misunderstand the logic.

Your contention boiled down to its elements: "An object exists that could explain the sighting, therefore any argument that it is NOT that object is false"

And THAT is just fallacious arthwollipot.

It is precisely an argument of the form: "It could be, therefore it Must be."

And THAT is just fallacious arthwollipot.
Click to expand...


No, Rramjet, that is not what it boils down to. Again I'd suggest, for your own good you know, that you take a remedial reading course there at your high school. Because if you continue to read as poorly as a fourth grade child, people might get the idea that you're simply being blatantly dishonest. And you wouldn't want to add to the mound of evidence that suggests you're a lying troll, would you? Just a suggestion to help you do a better job of discussing your inane fantasy, you understand.

Oh, and you missed another simple question about a page back...

GeeMack said:
Rramjet said:
Show me ANY evidence that there were ANY blimps anywhere near the area.
Click to expand...


It seems to be a matter of historic fact that blimps were based nearer than 200 miles from the sighting, well within the flight range of such an aircraft.

Stray Cat said:
Portland Oregon Naval Blimp Base:

Some information from Examiner.com

Photo of Blimp tethered outside Portland Blimp Hangar:
[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/AirialBlimpHangerAdjusted.jpg[/qimg]

The Hangar houses up to 9 blimps
[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/BlimpsHangar2_thumb.jpg[/qimg]

Which had a range of 2,000 miles and could stay afloat for 3 days.
Click to expand...


Now tell us, Rramjet, as a matter of historic fact, in 1949 were there ETs, indigenous "aliens", or time travelers within 200 miles of the Rogue River, or anywhere else on Earth for that matter? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Click to expand...


Yes or no, Rramjet?
 
Rramjet said:
THAT blimp may not have been observed?
Then you admit no blimp was observed?
Then you argue: “But it might have been, therefore it WAS”.
Click to expand...
FFS! NO!

"It might have been, therefore YOU ARE WRONG WHEN YOU SAY THAT THERE'S NO POSSIBLE MUNDANE EXPLANATION"

Please to be exercising reading skills now. No-one's making a claim about what it was. All we're saying is that your conclusion that there is no possible mundane explanation is wrong.

Gaah!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom