Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

As a pedantic git I feel that I must point out that it is not unreasonable to believe that aliens exist. In fact it is entirely reasonable.

It is, however, unreasonable to believe that they are constantly buzzing around earth in interstellar craft in such a way that only a few individuals at a time see them.

Correct. I meant "it's exactly as unreasonable to believe Bigfoot exists as it is to believe aliens exist" within the realm of our existence.

 

[ufology]

As a pedantic git I feel that I must point out that it is not unreasonable to believe that aliens exist. In fact it is entirely reasonable.

It is, however, unreasonable to believe that they are constantly buzzing around earth in interstellar craft in such a way that only a few individuals at a time see them.

The situation seems a bit different than the above. Historically most UFO reports have turned out to be something other than UFOs, and I tend to think it's the same, if not worse these days. So I suspect there are actually very few UFOs, if any, at any given time "buzzing around" Earth, and even fewer if the ships are interstellar as you suggest. Another problem is the quality of the reporting. So many reports these days are little better than a Tweet. They're the kind of thing Blue Book would have thrown out as insufficient data. But these days anyone can report anything so there is far more noise. But here is a better quality report from a commercial jet pilot. NARCAP-TR15 1996.

 

[wollery]

The situation seems a bit different than the above. Historically most UFO reports have turned out to be something other than UFOs, and I tend to think it's the same, if not worse these days. So I suspect there are actually very few UFOs, if any, at any given time "buzzing around" Earth, and even fewer if the ships are interstellar as you suggest. Another problem is the quality of the reporting.

This is the sort of redefinition and conflation that people have been telling you continuously is both silly and a hindrance to reasonable debate. You use the term UFO correctly in the first highlighted part, but then use it to mean "Alien Craft" in the next two.
A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. Everyone knows that.
There are thousands (possibly tens or hundreds of thousands) of UFOs, a proportion of which produce UFO reports. A small proportion of these might just possibly be alien craft.

If you mean alien craft then say "Alien Craft".

Stop this ridiculous redefining conflation that serves only to muddy the debate, annoy your opponents and make your arguments look silly.

So many reports these days are little better than a Tweet. They're the kind of thing Blue Book would have thrown out as insufficient data. But these days anyone can report anything so there is far more noise. But here is a better quality report from a commercial jet pilot.

NARCAP-TR15 1996.

If you want people to consider a UFO report it would be a good idea to provide an actual link, instead of just a report reference number.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Patronizing tone?

Yes. When somebody asks a direct question it is patronising to pretend words with established meanings are variable, and then to tell them to go do their own research. Rude, patronizing, and unhelpful.

You mean like your crack about my book suggestion?

Please quote this "crack".

As for your question: You're moving the goalposts to avoid validating my point.

Nope. I am directly responding to the statement you made.

The issue you're chiming in on is why I find it more reasonable to believe in UFOs ( alien craft ) than I do Bigfoot, not is there any material evidence sufficient to demonstrate the reality of one or the other.

No. The only issue I have asked you about is your claim that several countries have had official UFO investigations. I want to know how many of those countries have established the existence of alien vessels and where one might read the evidence.

To sum up, I find information from independent trained specialists valuable and there is more of that for UFOs than there is for Bigfoot.

Riiiiiiiiight. You seem to have missed the bit where you answered which of the countries you listed had established the existence of alien craft and where one might read the evidence.

By the way, as these are official investigations, to clarify, the evidence will not be books. They will be the studies, the reports, the documentary evidence.

So to sum up:
I have not mentioned bigfoot. I expect actual answers. I do not appreciate a patronising response that I should go read a book. And you have not yet addressed or answered my question.

I will now assume the answer is "zero, none of them," and all your guff is some elaborate ruse to avoid answering.

 

[23_Tauri]

The situation seems a bit different than the above. Historically most UFO reports have turned out to be something other than UFOs, ....

Err.... can you give us an example of where a UFO report has turned out to be positively identified as a UFO (alien craft).

and I tend to think it's the same, if not worse these days. So I suspect there are actually very few UFOs, if any, at any given time "buzzing around" Earth, and even fewer if the ships are interstellar as you suggest. Another problem is the quality of the reporting. So many reports these days are little better than a Tweet. They're the kind of thing Blue Book would have thrown out as insufficient data. But these days anyone can report anything so there is far more noise. But here is a better quality report from a commercial jet pilot.

NARCAP-TR15 1996.

Sorry, you're link's not working. That report, did it positively identify - without a shadow of a doubt - that the object was an alien craft?

 

[zooterkin]

The situation seems a bit different than the above. Historically most UFO reports have turned out to be something other than UFOs, and I tend to think it's the same, if not worse these days.

Still having trouble with what the 'U' stands for? Once it's identified, yes, it turns out to be something other than Unidentified. How many have turned out to be extraterrestrial spaceships?

So I suspect there are actually very few UFOs, if any, at any given time "buzzing around" Earth, and even fewer if the ships are interstellar as you suggest.

Now you're getting it. Do you have reason to believe there are any spaceships buzzing around earth? And what do you mean by apparently attributing the idea of interstellar aliens to wollery? If that's not what you're talking about, then what do you think the UFOs are?


ETA: Moderation leads to duplication of responses.

 

[Akhenaten]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]The situation seems a bit different than the above. Historically most UFO reports have turned out to be something other than UFOs, and I tend to think it's the same, if not worse these days.[/SIZE] [COLOR=blue][U][/U][/COLOR][/FONT]

Again with this nonsense?

It's already been pointed out to you at least once that you're using two different meanings for UFO within a single sentence.

<snip>

You would also know that I readily accept that most UFO reports turn out to be something other than UFOs.

I can't imagine why you would think this would make sense the way it's written.

UFO reports remain UFO reports, no matter what happens after they're made. They don't 'turn out' to be anything else.

The subjects of those reports may turn out to be all manner of things (although they never turn out to be flying saucers) but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

This haphazard conflation of terms coupled with a penchant for using non-standard definitions is at the heart of the difficulty you are experiencing in getting people to understand what you're talking about.

Honestly, sometimes I feel as though my posts are invisible.

 

[dafydd]

I'm still waiting to hear how the aliens discovered that we were here.

 

[RoboTimbo]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]The situation seems a bit different than the above. Historically most UFO reports have turned out to be something other than UFOs,

Correct, once a UFO turns out to be something, it is no longer Unidentified. Do you have a link to where any have turned out to be an Alien Space Ship?

and I tend to think it's the same, if not worse these days. So I suspect there are actually very few UFOs, if any, at any given time "buzzing around" Earth, and even fewer if the ships are interstellar as you suggest.

Nowhere did he suggest any Unidentied Flying Object has been an interstellar craft, you simply made that up. Please stop dishonestly putting words in other peoples' mouths.

Another problem is the quality of the reporting. So many reports these days are little better than a Tweet. They're the kind of thing Blue Book would have thrown out as insufficient data. But these days anyone can report anything so there is far more noise. But here is a better quality report from a commercial jet pilot.[no parse][/SIZE] NARCAP-TR15 1996.[/FONT][/no parse]

Why do you think one anecdote is better than another? Is an anecdote from military personnel (trained observers) backed up by FLIR data a high quality report?

 

[Astrophotographer]

The situation seems a bit different than the above. Historically most UFO reports have turned out to be something other than UFOs, and I tend to think it's the same, if not worse these days. So I suspect there are actually very few UFOs, if any, at any given time "buzzing around" Earth, and even fewer if the ships are interstellar as you suggest. Another problem is the quality of the reporting. So many reports these days are little better than a Tweet. They're the kind of thing Blue Book would have thrown out as insufficient data. But these days anyone can report anything so there is far more noise. But here is a better quality report from a commercial jet pilot. NARCAP-TR15 1996.

So, we have some pilots, who saw some lights in the sky for about 10 seconds disappear. No radar with no visual confirmation by other aircraft. We don't even have an exact time of observation from what I could read regarding this case. I also believe the report was made years later so we have memory issues involved as well. If you want to discuss this case or present it as evidence, I suggest you have something with a little more meat to it. Time would be best. All we have is that it happened a few hours after midnight! Hard to pinpoint any source based on this information.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I believe this is the case he is referring to:

http://www.narcap.org/files/narcap_UC_MainText_9-27-96.pdf

 

[wollery]

Yeah, that appears to be the one.

One flight officer's uncorroborated story from a few years after the alleged incident. We have no name, no identity for the other two officers on the flight deck, and no correspondence from them.

Yeah, really high quality report there.

 

[ufology]

So, we have some pilots, who saw some lights in the sky for about 10 seconds disappear. No radar with no visual confirmation by other aircraft. We don't even have an exact time of observation from what I could read regarding this case. I also believe the report was made years later so we have memory issues involved as well. If you want to discuss this case or present it as evidence, I suggest you have something with a little more meat to it. Time would be best. All we have is that it happened a few hours after midnight! Hard to pinpoint any source based on this information.

My point was that despite the deficiencies you mention, it's still much better than a 140 character tweet from an anonymous source of unknown ability. You'll also notice that the report came from NARCAP, and that they use the term UAP ( Unidentified Aerial Phenomena ), which is more ambiguous than UFO and includes the possibility of natural or manmade objects.

 

[ufology]

Still having trouble with what the 'U' stands for? Once it's identified, yes, it turns out to be something other than Unidentified. How many have turned out to be extraterrestrial spaceships?


Now you're getting it. Do you have reason to believe there are any spaceships buzzing around earth? And what do you mean by apparently attributing the idea of interstellar aliens to wollery? If that's not what you're talking about, then what do you think the UFOs are?


ETA: Moderation leads to duplication of responses.

I don't have any problem with what the "U" in unidentified stands for. I have a problem with those who remove it from the context of UFO for the purpose of promoting an inaccurate and/or biased understanding of the word.

What do I think UFOs are? This article covers that along with the word's history and the common mistakes people ( particularly skeptics ) make when interpreting what the word means.

 

[RoboTimbo]

[font=Arial][size=3]My point was that despite the deficiencies you mention, it's still much better than a 140 character tweet from an anonymous source of unknown ability. You'll also notice that the report came from NARCAP, and that they use the term UAP ( Unidentified Aerial Phenomena ), which is more ambiguous than UFO and includes the possibility of natural or manmade objects.[/size][/font]

No UFOs have ever been later identified as natural or manmade objects? How many have been positively identified as Alien Space Ships? A link would be super.

Speaking of which, you didn't answer my other question either: Is a report by multiple military personnel (trained observers), confirmed by electronic methods (FLIR) a high quality report or not?

 

[wollery]

My point was that despite the deficiencies you mention, it's still much better than a 140 character tweet from an anonymous source of unknown ability. You'll also notice that the report came from NARCAP, and that they use the term UAP ( Unidentified Aerial Phenomena ), which is more ambiguous than UFO and includes the possibility of natural or manmade objects.

I think you'll find that UFO includes those possibilities too.

 

[Akhenaten]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]I don't have any problem with what the "U" in unidentified stands for. I have a problem with those who remove it from the context of UFO for the purpose of promoting an inaccurate and/or biased understanding of the word. [/SIZE][/FONT]

But that's exactly what you're doing yourself. You're trying to pretend that the U doesn't stand for anything at all and that UFO isn't an acronym but a word meaning 'flying saucer'. The U in UFO stands for 'unidentified' and you have no justification whatsoever for ignoring that and inserting your own ( completely fanciful ) assessment of what they are.

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]What do I think UFOs are? This [/SIZE][/FONT][URL="http://ufopages.com/Reference/BD/UFO-01a.htm"][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][COLOR=blue][U]article[/U][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3] covers that along with the word's history and the common mistakes people ( particularly skeptics ) make when interpreting what the word means.[/SIZE][/FONT]

A link to your own website is hardly likely to serve as independent corroboration of what you're trying to claim here, now is it?

 

[Akhenaten]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]My point was that despite the deficiencies you mention, it's still much better than a 140 character tweet from an anonymous source of unknown ability.

No, it's not. Both objects are equally unidentified in every respect. Neither is better unidentified than the other.

You'll also notice that the report came from NARCAP, and that they use the term UAP ( Unidentified Aerial Phenomena ), which is more ambiguous than UFO and includes the possibility of natural or manmade objects.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Your implication that the acronym 'UFO' does not include the possibility of natural or manmade objects is erroneous, obfuscatory and has the appearance of being intentionally misleading.

The null hypothesis ( obviously ) is that all UFOs are natural or manmade objects, since those are the only two choices available.

 

[ufology]

I think you'll find that UFO includes those possibilities too.

Actually the word itself is unambiguous in its intended meaning. It is used to convey the idea of an alien craft. Do all UFO reports turn out to be UFOs? No. Does the information in some UFO reports lead some people to the conclusion that the the object seen cannot be reasonably explained as anything other than a UFO? Yes. Is that evidence sufficient to scientifically prove the material existence of UFOs? No. Is that evidence accompanied by other similar reports sufficient to make it reasonable to believe UFOs are real. That all depends on what you consider "reasonable", and some people are more reasonable than others.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I would still like an answer to my questions:
Which of the official investigations by the countries listed by ufology established the existence of alien vessels? Where may I peruse the evidence?