UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Aepervius]

Rramjet is making the mistake of throwing lots of little bits of poo against the wall and hoping to create a Picasso.

Also known as JAQing off , if you extend the definition from CT to many other Woo.

 

[GeeMack]

Just to ensure my position is clear:

My understanding from the discussion here is that pretty much nothing less than a chunk of extraterrestrial toilet seat will satisfy skeptics that UFO's exist.

Fair enough. I respect your position. What I have some difficulty with is, if that is truly the position, why would skeptics care if I claim the light I saw in the sky chasing that Iranian F-4 was a UFO?

If it hasn't been identified, and if it was in fact a flying object, it's a UFO.

It seems as though we're at different ends of the evidence spectrum, with me believing that shreds of information, put together, create an entire picture, much like aircraft debris is collected after a crash, and rebuilt in a hangar, constructing the aircraft.

Only when all the pieces are assembled can small tidbits of information take on added importance, not initially apparent upon collection.

More pieces of non-evidence do not provide more support than a less non-evidence. But if you have a way to integrate all the non-evidence available and make it become evidence, the world of science would love to hear your explanation.

 

[Belz...]

My understanding from the discussion here is that pretty much nothing less than a chunk of extraterrestrial toilet seat will satisfy skeptics that UFO's exist.

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Fair enough. I respect your position. What I have some difficulty with is, if that is truly the position, why would skeptics care if I claim the light I saw in the sky chasing that Iranian F-4 was a UFO?

Because "unidentified" is not very interesting.

 

[SnidelyW]

One can't start considering everything to be probable based on insufficient evidence. In order to get anywhere you need SOLID evidence, which is all we're asking, here.

Which brings us full circle to my call for an accepted 'standard' of evidence which seemingly cannot be agreed on, unless it is the aforementioned chunk of 'alien craft toilet seat'.

So far in this discusion skeptics have refused to accept photos, video, eyewitness accounts, audio recordings, and the printed page as evidence.

It seems we're back to the toilet seat.

 

[Stray Cat]

Stray Cat I don't expect nor desire to get into a discussion of theoretical particle physics,

Phew... that's a relief then... my only source for information that I can only just understand is wikipedia

only to make the point that tachyons are thought to exist, but their actual existence has not yet been proven. That has certainly not prevented physicists from searching for them, and that is where I think the comparison can be drawn.

Which brings us back to what Rramjet was saying earlier about using scientific methods in UFOlogy. Physicists use strict scientific process to further their knowledge, the system works. UFOlogists don't, they are still making exactly the same mistakes they made over 50 years ago and still thrashing around in the dark.

I cannot speak for Rramjet, but being ready to accept the existence of 'alien' craft, and by looking at case studies where events suggest the existence of alien craft are a natural extension of mankinds eagerness to explore the unknown.

Indeed, which is why I spend a great deal of time myself looking for verifiable evidence of alien craft... But concluding that they are here at this point in time is putting the cart before the horse.

As in the search for 'proof' of tachyons, my view is that one should not be vilified for searching for what is suspected, in hopes of proving it correct. That may take centuries, and indeed, as in the 'flat earth' concept, milennia, to finally disprove.

The main difference is that Physics clearly admits it is a purely hypothetical particle. It doesn't design websites and sell sensationalist books and videos to people whilst trying to convince them it is already proven.

Perhaps the 'proof' the skeptics demand of the existence of an extraterrestrial civilization is an impossible task, but those people bold enough to lead the way through the fragments of information should be assisted, not condemned.

They should not be assisted in making the same mistakes all their peers have made and continue to make. They should be encouraged to take a more scientific and critical approach to research. Which is hopefully what is being pointed out in this thread (even if Rramjet does not see it, hopefully other reads will take notice of it)

Do we risk repeating the mistakes learned from the Salem witch hunt of 1692?

What lessons did we learn from Salem?
Certainly here in the UK, the Witchcraft act was not repealed until 1951.
The last person being flung in prison for her beliefs being in 1944.

But no one is suggesting Rramjet is burned at the stake, only that he provides the evidence that he claims to have.

 

[SnidelyW]

...snip...
More pieces of non-evidence do not provide more support than a less non-evidence. But if you have a way to integrate all the non-evidence available and make it become evidence, the world of science would love to hear your explanation.

See my post on tachyons to justify the search and subsequent lab work to integrate all the 'non-evidence' concerning tachyons and make it become evidence.

I have no knowledge of a massive single minded data base devoted to collecting all known information from UFO's and related events world wide and attempting to link the info into something cohesive. Perhaps a reader of this forum is working on that as we write.

 

[Aepervius]

See my post on tachyons to justify the search and subsequent lab work to integrate all the 'non-evidence' concerning tachyons and make it become evidence.

The main difference is : at NO POINT before the evidence is provided, the tachyon become more than theoretical existing or non existing. Heck even today physicist are trying to falsify relativity, quanten physic, and other basic physic stuff. That is the main difference. *ALL* UFO=Alien people I see keep having as premise "Alien do exists and visits us" then they collect anecdote and tell : see here is the proof, where in reality all those are UNKNOWN, and are not evidence of anything, except that we cannot identify what happened for many many reason.

 

[LissaLysikan]

But no one is suggesting Rramjet is burned at the stake, only that he provides the evidence that he claims to have.

<hastily withdraws her petition>

 

[SnidelyW]

Yes, Stray Cat all excellent points, and I largely AGREE. I have some areas of concern, especially concerning the application of the scientific method. Perhaps the examination of UFO's should be considered an art?

With you being from the U.K., you may find these amusing; I think there is some relevance;

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.
Benjamin Disraeli

The pursuit of science leads only to the insoluble.
Benjamin Disraeli

The wisdom of the wise and the experience of the ages are perpetuated by quotations.
Benjamin Disraeli

 

[SnidelyW]

The main difference is : at NO POINT before the evidence is provided, the tachyon become more than theoretical existing or non existing. Heck even today physicist are trying to falsify relativity, quanten physic, and other basic physic stuff. That is the main difference. *ALL* UFO=Alien people I see keep having as premise "Alien do exists and visits us" then they collect anecdote and tell : see here is the proof, where in reality all those are UNKNOWN, and are not evidence of anything, except that we cannot identify what happened for many many reason.

Don't the skeptics feel that aliens ARE theoretical?

 

[AWPrime]

From the inordinate, unusual, and gravity defying flight characteristics of UFO's

The quote above isn't true.



I would like to ask you, do you think that the concept of stealth would be extra-ordinary before the first stealth bomber was revealed or an unknown mundane?

 

[GeeMack]

I have no knowledge of a massive single minded data base devoted to collecting all known information from UFO's and related events world wide and attempting to link the info into something cohesive. Perhaps a reader of this forum is working on that as we write.

And as I said before, nothing is stopping you. It's a big task. You'd better get started.

 

[SnidelyW]

The quote above isn't true.



I would like to ask you, do you think that the concept of stealth would be extra-ordinary before the first stealth bomber was revealed or an unknown mundane?

I fully allow the concept of 'stealth technology'. However, I deem it virtually impossible to have been at that stage of development in the mid-70's. Even if it was, putting a pilot over Iran in unproven, experimental technology would not be likely. Given Francis Powers experience in the U-2 only a decade or so before, one would think that mistake would not be repeated.

 

[Stray Cat]

Yes, Stray Cat all excellent points, and I largely AGREE. I have some areas of concern, especially concerning the application of the scientific method. Perhaps the examination of UFO's should be considered an art?

It already is an art though Snidely... think of it as an interactive play, where the witnesses, researchers and UFO followers all have their unique part to play. It is mostly a drama theater played in front of a large audience.

"Where's the alien?"
"It's behind you!"
"Oh no it isn't!"
"Oh yes it is!"
"Oh no it isn't!"
"Oh yes it is!"

And in the rare cases where we get to see behind the curtain, it is not a wizard, but a man pulling levers.

 

[LissaLysikan]

The problem being that there is no firm data that would lend itself to a database project, other than just collecting the existence of the reports. Without some standard for the data acquisition there isn't a way to make a useful schema that would do any more than allow us to say "wow, we got a bunch of reports".

 

[AWPrime]

I fully allow the concept of 'stealth technology'. However, I deem it virtually impossible to have been at that stage of development in the mid-70's. Even if it was, putting a pilot over Iran in unproven, experimental technology would not be likely. Given Francis Powers experience in the U-2 only a decade or so before, one would think that mistake would not be repeated.

You're dodging the question. I just have to put it more bluntly.

For many years stealth technology was completely unknown to the public. If Rramjet lived in that time period he would have concluded that it was Alien. And I was asking if that would be the same thing for you.

 

[Jocce]

I have also presented this case:

Brazilian UFO Night (19 May 1986)
(http://www.ufo.com.br/documentos/nig...Translated.pdf)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/brazilianairforceadmits.html)
(http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9299893.php)
(http://www.cohenufo.org/BrazilianUFO...tsReleased.htm)
(http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0909/declassified.php)

Sure, why not another case. Why don't you start by presenting the evidence in this case so we can have a look at it.

 

[Stray Cat]

The problem being that there is no firm data that would lend itself to a database project, other than just collecting the existence of the reports. Without some standard for the data acquisition there isn't a way to make a useful schema that would do any more than allow us to say "wow, we got a bunch of reports".

Agreed... and then to make far reaching conclusions that a conical shaped object seen traveling slowly over Italy was also of the same origin as a spherical object seen traveling at hi speed over Russia, or a black dot making un heard of maneuvers in the sky above Mexico had the same origin as a Ball of Light seen in Wiltshire. Secretive aliens who make the fundamental mistake of putting their lights on whilst on their secret missions, how in an attempt to study and avoid us, abduct only the 'slightly odd' and forget to wipe their memory of the event clean, but who can apparently in some cases make their victims have no memory at all. Who apparently implant devices into their abductees (mostly in the bottom of their feet) but these devices on the rare occasion that they have been examined are such hi-tech that we don't understand what they do and that they look for all the world like any bit of rogue material that was trodden on.

Hence my Unicorn reasoning on the previous page.

 

[SnidelyW]

Stray Cat, I am looking at this another way now because of your comments. Perhaps the difficulty in coming together over the UFO phenomena is the way we see science and scientific knowledge. Let me quote;

"Rationality is an essential instrument in humanity’s quest for knowledge, yet the practical pursuit of knowledge often ignores or violates fundamental principles of rational inquiry or overlooks the inherent limitations in the use of rationality as an instrument of knowledge."

Would you say that people who believe in the existence of aliens are entitled to use rationality as a basis for establishing evidence? Eg. Well that seems logical, so I can use it.

 

[SnidelyW]

You're dodging the question. I just have to put it more bluntly.

For many years stealth technology was completely unknown to the public. If Rramjet lived in that time period he would have concluded that it was Alien. And I was asking if that would be the same thing for you.

In the Iranian case, the object had lights so bright it could be seen at a range of tens of miles ( I'll have to reference the case for exact figures)

All the 'stealth tech' that I know discourages the use of reeeeeeeeeeely bright lights to avoid being observed.