UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[23_Tauri]

It's almost as if he isn't reading any of the posts.

Mr Foo certainly missed these:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7487410#post7487410

That's funny. When I have to work up in the big city for the day, I look forward to coming home in the evening and checking JREF. And you guys don't disappoint this girl.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7912215#post7912215

Jerrydecaire, welcome to the thread. .....
Now, if you would be so accommodating to a girl in a nice hat, I just need to make a few adjustments to the rest of your WoT^TM, because I think you made a few typos:

and as recently as 16th January:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7936061#post7936061

No, I can't be bothered anymore. I really can't, and I have work to do today. I shall leave it to the gentlemen and other lady here (I think there is only one other) who, over the past months, have been so patient and accommodating towards you, folo.

 

[Stray Cat]

Mr Foo certainly missed these:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7487410#post7487410


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7912215#post7912215


and as recently as 16th January:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7936061#post7936061

Yes, but to be fair, Mr Foogy was "looking at a video screen" which as he points out himself "is not the same as a live visual contact". Continuing with his excuse explanation "It's an instrument readout and subject to errors in the technology that can pollute the data before it reaches the observer"

 

[Akhenaten]

And of course all but the most skilled of observers would have missed this hidden clue:

 

[Akhenaten]

The argument that there could be a cover-up of what could be objective evidence of alien craft, and that unsupported conjecture somehow supports the notion that "UFOs = alien craft" is lame. It's just a plain stupid argument.

The above is yet another misrepresentation by the fabrication of content and context.

Fiddlesticks. It's exactly what you're claimimg.

I made no claim as suggested. I only made the claim that stating with certainty without having access to all the information, that alien craft have never been proven ( period ), is a biased and prejudicial opinion.

And will you claim with equal vehemence that stating with certainty without having access to all the information, that witches have never been proven ( period ), is a biased and prejudicial opinion?

If not, why not?

The "unsupported conjecture" comment is equally invalid. I gave an example of a formerly classified report about UFOs and alluded to the numerous other documents on UFOs that remain exempt from FOIA provisions. Are you saying no such report or documents exist?

What's being said is that these reports, either the existing ones or the pretend ones from the conspiracy of which you have lately become so enamoured, offer any support to your silly UFO ( Omgalien ) stories.

If so it's just another example of your willful ignorance of the facts. So now what will it be ... more straw or more denial?

 

[Resume]

Mr Foo certainly missed these:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7487410#post7487410


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7912215#post7912215


and as recently as 16th January:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7936061#post7936061

Yet he claims a 40-year old memory is infallible.

 

[remirol]

Never seen it before ... on my screen it's not where that screenshot you have shows it should be unless I scroll up to the thread link first and click on it. But that's not my process and I doubt I'll start doing it. I get email updates with a preview and if it catches my attention I hit the link and it takes me directly to the post. So maybe I don't get all the alerts or the preview has some toxic element that causes me to simply delete it.

It's almost as if he isn't reading any of the posts.

Well, he admitted he wasn't doing so in the above message -- or at least, that's his excuse. My guess is that, conveniently, none of the posts which ask him questions he can't answer "catch his attention", or perhaps all of the ones that are hard for him to respond to "have a toxic element".

Of course, this is an extremely dishonest manner in which to conduct a discussion, but then, that's pretty much all this thread has been for some time now -- a whole lot of dishonesty that he hopes will pull hits to his website so he can make clickthrough money off of work that he didn't do.

He could always prove me wrong by going back, reading _every post_ in this thread for the past three or four pages, and answering _all the questions_ put to him there.

 

[Akhenaten]

ehcks,

Here is some "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft.

When the only tool one has is a hammer there is "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of everything one sees being a nail.

Unfortunately for you, Mr Fology, ufailogy is a whole bag of hammers.

Diring the Washington D.C. sightings in 1952 a USAF F-94 jet interceptor was vectored by radar to a UFO, the pilot saw the UFO, his aircraft was momentarily surrounded by several more, and the UFO he had been pursuing suddenly accellerated out of range at what the pilot described as "phenomenal speed" and dissappeared from the radar scopes at the same time.

Ah, the Witches of Washington story again. Always a favourite.

No manmade or natural object we know of can explain this sighting.

Then it must be something that we don't know about.

Or are you once again claiming the omniscient ability to eliminate every manmade or natural object that exists?

Therefore the object that was tracked, intercepted, observed and pursued was alien to our civilization remains unidentified.

For the billionth time, you can't ascribe any attributes to an unidentified object.

To deny that this case is not "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft would be willful denial ... but willful denial and offhanded dismissal is also typical of the skeptics here. So which will it be for you this time?

Willful denial of the flights of fancy of the self-deluded is a good thing.

 

[Akhenaten]

None of the FoI documents regarding the 1952 Washington UFO incident tell this story the way you tell it.

But the seekrit documents that are being kept hidden by the Corps of Space Cadets, or whoever it is, would surely back him up.

 

[Akhenaten]

Explain the above to the person who made the statement with such certainty that alien craft have never been proven.

What's to explain?

The statement is quite obviously true.

Maybe they will listen to you because your reasoning above is exactly why such statements are prejudicial.

Prejudicial to what? Your silly fantasies?

Meh.

The best that can be said at this point is that alien craft have not been proven to everyone and those who claim to have had it proven to them haven't got sufficient material scientific evidence to back their claim.

The best that can be said is that those who consider the matter proven don't have any evidence???

Srsly?

 

[Garrison]

Then it must be something that we don't know about.

Or are you once again claiming the omniscient ability to eliminate every manmade or natural object that exists?

Not to mention he assumes that the witness reports can simply be assumed to be accurate accounts of events without misperceptions, faulty memory or embellishment.

 

[Akhenaten]

Not to mention he assumes that the witness reports can simply be assumed to be accurate accounts of events without misperceptions, faulty memory or embellishment.

Although somewhat, miraculously, only witnesses to UFOs ( Omgaliens ) and UTR ( talking rabbits) are infallible. Witnesses to UFOs ( witches ), USOs ( Nessies ), UBFs ( Sasquatches ) and USEs* ( ghosts ) are all as unreliable as we'd expect.



* Unidentified Spectral Entity.

 

[Akhenaten]

I should have known ... if you didn't go with willful ignorance or affhanded dismissal you move the goalposts. Eye witness accounts are evidence. So stop your denial.

Speaking of affhanded dismissal, when will you be explaining how you've been able to to rule out the possibility of UFOs ( witches ) in every single case you've encountered?

You didn't ask for videos or photos. You asked for "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft.

None of which you've been able to provide.

So address the case ... radar/visual pursuit by a USAF F-94 ... during the D.C. sightings in '52.

Witches.

 

[Akhenaten]

Physical evidence isn't all eye witness accounts are used to back up. The D.C. sightings in 1952 involved multiple witnesses and radar tracking. The eye-witness observation of the pilot backed up the radar tracking of an object that no manmade or natural phenomenon can adequately explain to this day.

Hence the 'U' in the acronym 'UFO'. And that's giving the ufailogists ( space cadets ) a free pass on the 'flying' and 'object' part.

This easily qualifies as "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft.

No it doesn't, folo, no matter how many times you assert that it does. You need to demonstrate that alien craft exist before you can legitimately claim that any particular incident serves as any kind of evidence for them.

So address the case ... radar/visual pursuit by a USAF F-94 ... during the D.C. sightings in '52.

Witches.

 

[Krikkiter]

I'm wondering, if ufology were actually interested in doing some real UFO research, how would he go about it?

Of course it doesn't help that he denies his own null hypothesis or that he uses unverified/unverifiable anecdotes as evidence. Or that he insists that "secret" documents that are apparently being suppressed are evidence. Or that he redefines terminology to suit his preconceived ideas. Or that he employs logical fallacies to draw conclusions.... etc.

But apart from all that ( ), how would he go about it?

 

[Akhenaten]

How predictable, if you can't deny, dismmiss or move the goalposts, you switch the subject matter and substitute something else that suits your argument.

Please address the case in question, not the Campeche case.

Because the Washington and Campeche cases obviously involved craft from two completely unrelated Omgalian civilisations and the last thing we want to do is get them mixed up with each other. Or the ones from Rogue River. Or the ones from Cape Otway. Or Windermere Lake. Or . . .

 

[Akhenaten]

Never heard of witches or God being tracked on radar and pursued by jets, or appearing as glowing balls of light ... maybe you have?

You don't know whether you have or not unless you've devised some method for differentiating between, gods, witches and Omgaliens.

Have you developed such a method, folo? Would you like to share it with us?

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes stories about UFOs are quite wonderful actually. They fire the imagination and grab our curiosity.

So do stories about wyverns, white whales and the Wicked Witch of the West, and while there's nothing at all wrong with maintaining an active imagination it's not quits so desirable to have the sort of curiosity that leads one to undertake, in earnest, an investigation into the characteristics of the various races of mythical Omgaliens.

They cause us to reach out and look for explanations and in doing so discover all kinds of interesting things about airplanes and space and history and science.

Which some of us ( ufailogists ) will then reject holus-bolus in favour of "OMG . . . aliens!" for no better reason than to make us ( them ) feel special.

Even if you don't believe in UFOs at all . . .

For Thoth's sake, folo, it's not a question of belief any more than "I thought I heard something" or "what's that funny smell?"

UFOs undeniably exist.

. . .they still inspire us to look beyond our present constraints and imagine what it's like to live in a universe with other life ...

All kinds of things, including UFOs, have been inspiring such thoughts for millenia, and yet you want to pretend that it's only been going on for the last 60 years, which is to say: approximately during your lifetime.

Naturally this won't strike you as being the least bit egocentric.

. . . and that can nurture creativity and motivate us to get involved in projects like SETI or astrobiology or write books or make films or learn to build websites or even just participate in forum discussions ...

Or it can lead to people eating pudding and apple sauce laced with arsenic and cyanide while hoping their souls will be picked up by the space ship trailing comet Hale-Bopp.

It's a continuum, folo, with people like Dr Sagan at one end and the whackos from Heaven's Gate at the other. Where we see ourselves on that scale is always goiong to be subjective but I'll bet you Melbourne to a rusty rabbit trap that you aren't where you think you are on the curve.

. . . yes indeed ufology is cool and it's open to believers and skeptics alike

Skeptical ufologists?

​

 

[mike3]

That is a lie.

He believes it.

 

[Akhenaten]

Maybe you missed the part where I said ufology is open to both skeptics and believers alike.

I didn't. I thought it was hilarious.

Nobody has to join the Raelians or some UFO church or believe UFOs are extraterrestrial visitors.

True, but at least the organised, codified forms of delusion have some internal consistency going for them. The independents are all over the place like a dog's breakfast.

And I'm sure that the show you were watching was also watched by people interested in UFOs.

Are you never going to understand that as long as you insist on typing "UFOs" when you really mean "alien flying saucers" it's going to be one step forward/two steps back for as long as you're here?

I watch a lot of science shows myself. Love the stuff. Perhaps your need to demonize ufology has blinded you to the added layer of interest it can bring or how it can inspire people who are otherwise uninterested in science to take a more serious look at it.

Poppycock.

Taking isolated bits of genuine scientific knowledge and stitching them together into a psedoscientific ragdoll of ideas that one might use to explain a fantasy world of Omgaliens and Volksblimps is the antithesis of taking a more serious look at science.

 

[Akhenaten]

That is a lie.

He believes it.

Lying to ourselves is more deeply ingrained than lying to others.

- Fyodor Dostoyevsky​