UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rramjet said:
Obviously you have never flown in a plane and observed what you claim. No “droplets” stay on plane windows while flying. NONE at all - ever. The most that happens is that when it is raining, the water streaks and smears across the window – but definitely NO “droplets”! …and it was NOT raining.
Click to expand...

Since I have a pilots license the first assertion you make is obviously not true. Secondly, I did not say anything about water or if they were in- or outside the plane. You jump conclusions.

Rramjet said:
Perhaps…but if you notice the context, Dr Maccebee is describing the incident from the pilot’s perspective and that is the impression that the pilot got of what the lights were doing. That’s all.
Click to expand...

I notice that this is your interpretation of the text. I just want to remind you that your opinion doesn't equal objective truth. And, the same goes for my opinion. A scientific report should not be open to interpretation. That's a pretty simple concept that UFOlogists fail to understand.

Rramjet said:
Obviously you SHOULD actually read the whole article before jumping to conclusions…
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll get there. In the mean time, why don't you tell me how many radar contacts actually coincides in time and space with visual contacts. Or haven't you checked? You just assume there are many?

Rramjet said:
… jumping to conclusions before you have read the whole article perchance?
Click to expand...

I'm sure that you can either summarize or point out where the author presents the arguments that rule out "clutter effects of mild atmospheric refraction" that was common in the area. I can't find it so I would be greatful.

Rramjet said:
Well, of course, the film camera also went into this whole thing with a preconceived notion of what it should be filming too! (as did the ground radar… :).
Click to expand...

I am obviously talking about the interpretation of what was seen and filmed during this flight. You deliberately try to misunderstand simply because you can't come up with any counter arguments. Cowardly debating tactics. You never present any critical analysis of your own but only keep referring to different documents you find on the web. Documents that anyone can cast doubt on which you refuse to see.

Rramjet said:
Besides, precisely how does ”selective perception and confirmation bias” come into the viewing of unidentified, oddly behaving lights?
Click to expand...

Exactly because it's assumed from the beginning to be no mundane things. Happy now?
 
Rramjet said:
All the information required to satisfactorily answer those questions is contained within the document YOU claimed you were reading above... you have just shown me that you have NOT read the document at all! Another confirmation of the (by now) UFO debunker truism "Don't bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up".
Click to expand...

Ok, so you can't answer because you haven't thought of this before? Go figure. Ok, I'll do the counting then. I found 3 that seems to coincide.

Gonna take me a lil bit longer to count the ones that didn't coincide because they are plenty!
 
Rramjet said:
The link works fine - but it is a direct download Word document... perhaps if you try opening MS Word before trying it again... Otherwise go to ((http://brumac.8k.com/) and scroll down to the heading "NEW ZEALAND RADAR SIGHTING" and click on the link under that heading titled " RADARUFOS".

It links radar, film and eyewitness testimony together. A very solid case IMO.
Click to expand...


Perhaps if you try giving links to information in a web-friendly format instead of material intended for a specific proprietary software package not available to all users, you would be better able to present your case.
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
<snip>

Obviously you have never flown in a plane and observed what you claim. No “droplets” stay on plane windows while flying. NONE at all - ever. The most that happens is that when it is raining, the water streaks and smears across the window – but definitely NO “droplets”! …and it was NOT raining.

<snip>
Click to expand...


You have GOT to be kidding. Nobody could possibly make this statement who has only ever flown in an airliner, let alone pilots and aircrew.

It's a joke, right?


ETA:

Protip: Google "boundary layer"
 
Last edited:
Is it necessary to make ufology so hard to read? The 138 pages (so far) of this thread are surely as nothing compared to the stack of "evidence" that Rr expects us all to plough through. Since the sheer bulk of material merely delays the inevitable disappointment, perhaps some kind of executive summary would be useful.

Maybe Rramjet could be preparing such a summary of his next best case, while everyone slogs their way through this one. Just a thought.
 
How long are you going to feed him, he is not interested in the need of using any real evidence.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Is it necessary to make ufology so hard to read? The 138 pages (so far) of this thread are surely as nothing compared to the stack of "evidence" that Rr expects us all to plough through. Since the sheer bulk of material merely delays the inevitable disappointment, perhaps some kind of executive summary would be useful.

Maybe Rramjet could be preparing such a summary of his next best case, while everyone slogs their way through this one. Just a thought.
Click to expand...


Not likely. It's not about providing evidence. It's about trolling. The purpose here seems to be to get people to read his blathering. And as long as he can get people to indulge his fantasy, it validates his position, to him, so he'll keep going.
 
GeeMack said:
And in going-on 1000 posts, he hasn't offered a single piece of evidence that aliens exist. Imagine that.
Click to expand...
Or that he is a scientist in any discipline that uses the scientific method? The methods he uses here are opposed to the scientific method.
 
GeeMack said:
And in going-on 1000 posts, he hasn't offered a single piece of evidence that aliens exist. Imagine that.
Click to expand...

I have actually downloaded these latest files, but after skimming them decided not to bother further.
If RR want it taken seriously he can make a short presentation of why this one is any different/compelling than the others.
 
Paulhoff said:
How long are you going to feed him, he is not interested in the need of using any real evidence.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...


Everyone knows that, even Rramjet. He knows he's trolling. He know all he has is a bunch of little turds of incredulity and ignorance, and he's getting a kick out of building a dung heap from them. The few other people here who enjoy talking all UFOish as much as he does are willing to play in the dung with him. Everyone should have a hobby. :)
 
GeeMack said:
The purpose here seems to be to get people to read his blathering. And as long as he can get people to indulge his fantasy, it validates his position, to him, so he'll keep going.
Click to expand...

I also note a recent tendency to accuse people who disagree of failing to read the "evidence". I think he sees a potential way out by boring everyone to death and then unilaterally claiming victory by attrition when nobody can be bothered to read it any more.
 
GeeMack said:
Everyone knows that, even Rramjet. He knows he's trolling. He know all he has is a bunch of little turds of incredulity and ignorance, and he's getting a kick out of building a dung heap from them. The few other people here who enjoy talking all UFOish as much as he does are willing to play in the dung with him. Everyone should have a hobby. :)
Click to expand...
I have a few, I should fire up the HF radio and get on the air.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Rramjet said:
Astrophotographer, with reference to the detailed radar analysis contained in the above document, perhaps you could please explain to us all why the concurrent radar/visual evidence in this case does not constitute good, scientific evidence for the sighting of a UFO.

If you contend, as you no doubt will, that “UFOs exist” and that nobody disputes that, then what mundane “explanation” can you come up with for the sightings? If you cannot come up with a mundane explanation for the sighting, what then do you suggest could be an explanation for this case?
Click to expand...

First of all, even Maccabee admits there was Anamolous propogation (AP) conditions that night. He uses one radiosonde point to refute the idea that AP was involved. That Radiosonde was at Christchurch if I recall correctly. The radar data came from Wellington. The plane was between Christchurch and Wellington. Therefore, using radiosonde data that does not intersect the radar path is completely worthless. If you ever watched the Nova program I mentioned, you will see that Dr. Ireland discussed how the winds from the nw blows over the mountain ranges and causes irregularities in the radar path and can produce AP.

Maccabee spends a lot of time trying to demonstrate that these were not point sources, but this was a large hand held camera shooting at "lights" through the window of the airplane where the operator keeps coming in and out of focus. He alsoa ppears to be adjusting the exposure settings causing the images to "bloom". If you want to say they show alien spaceships go right ahead.

The key point in all of this is that they only recorded lights at night with the video camera and the radar contacts were ghost-like. Several times the pilots looped around to see if they could identify the radar contacts being report but they could not see anything. This means that AP was abundant that night and to suggest that a few of these were actual alien spaceships/UFOs/whatever, is ignoring the conditions that existed that night. If you don't want to read any of the material outside Dr. Maccabee's website, which is no surprise, then you really are closed-minded and not very scientific. Let me know when you read Dr. Ireland's paper on the matter.
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
All the information required to satisfactorily answer those questions is contained within the document YOU claimed you were reading above... you have just shown me that you have NOT read the document at all! Another confirmation of the (by now) UFO debunker truism "Don't bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up".

Perhaps a direct link to that document will help:
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc)
Click to expand...

IMO you do not understand the document and can't explain it. You have to parrot Maccabee in order to make your point. If you do not understand the material so you can answer the questions, it indicates a lack of research. If you refuse to read anything but one person's article on the matter, you are not being very scientific.

Tell me where in any of these documents do we see that an alien spaceship was definitely seen. BTW, is THIS your BEST CASE? I am getting a little tired of jumping about.
 
Toke said:
If RR want it taken seriously he can make a short presentation of why this one is any different/compelling than the others.
Click to expand...

I agree. As best I can tell, he either has not read the documents or does not understand the material. I would think a few paragraphs explaining the most important contacts and phases of the event would help us narrow down what he thinks indicates these are "alien" in nature.
 
Astrophotographer said:
I agree. As best I can tell, he either has not read the documents or does not understand the material. I would think a few paragraphs explaining the most important contacts and phases of the event would help us narrow down what he thinks indicates these are "alien" in nature.
Click to expand...

Splendid idea. How about it Rr? Summarise the case in a few paragraphs of your own words, demonstrating that you actually understand the material you linked to, and picking out any salient points which support the case you set out to make long, long ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom