UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

So… As for evidence for unicorns, the situation is qualitatively different than the evidence for UFOs. This IS is quite simple really…

You know that my evidence for Unicorns post was a joke right?

...maybe I missed off the at the end

 

[fromdownunder]

Oh, but I have NOT finished producing evidence yet. We are still primarily establishing that UFOs exist.

We are now into over 1735 posts on this thrrad , and not one person has said that UFOs do not exist. Get on with it! You have devoted all these pages to arguing that UFOs exist with everybody, and everybody HAPPENS TO AGREE WITH YOU!

Norm

 

[LissaLysikan]

Well, he has implied that his version of UFO doesn't really mean Unidentified, it means alien. He should start using AFO so we won't have to go through that again.

 

[Rramjet]

Which is why most of us are content with "probably mundane unless you have strong evidence otherwise". It isn't practical or valuable to start considering non-mundane without good reason. Wishful thinking does not qualify as good reason.
I don't say "no, not aliens", I say "probably mundane", because for unknown things I don't have enough information to be certain there are no aliens involved. However I don't have enough to say other "mythical" creatures are not involved either.
So, until you offer MUCH more than you have, we're still at "UFOs exist" and "are probably mundane" (and, of course, aliens are really elves in shiny suits).

Actually, there is a BIG difference between "aliens" and mythical creatures... which is precisely why I included the bit on "unicorns" in my previous post... to show that we CAN distinguish and rule out mythical creatures. THAT part is NOT difficult, we simply base our judgments on the evidence.

BUT - if you claim ANY explanation to be plausible... including "mundane", then you MUST provide evidence for that claim. Merely stating "Oh it could have a mundane explanation" is NOT good enough. We are talking about scientific research here with competing hypotheses. Each hypotheses MUST therefore be supported by the evidence. If one side presents NO evidence for their competing hypothesis (in this case mundane explanations), then the hypothesis is ruled "implausible", and we then consider the hypothesis that DOES have supporting evidence (in this case UFOs and "aliens").

It is that simple..

 

[Rramjet]

You know that my evidence for Unicorns post was a joke right?

...maybe I missed off the at the end

Maybe... but it illustrates my point very well.

 

[GeeMack]

[...] and we then consider the hypothesis that DOES have supporting evidence (in this case UFOs and "aliens").

Well then whenever you're ready, you just go ahead and get started presenting that evidence, will you? Can't imagine what's taking you so long, unless, you know, other than your arguments from ignorance and incredulity, you don't have any.

 

[Rramjet]

We are now into over 1735 posts on this thrrad , and not one person has said that UFOs do not exist. Get on with it! You have devoted all these pages to arguing that UFOs exist with everybody, and everybody HAPPENS TO AGREE WITH YOU!

Norm

No they don't... you seem to have missed that bit.

The debunkers here contend that a UFO is such merely because the observer could not identify it at the time.

That in my opinion is not precise or strong enough a definition for scientific investigation to be conducted (which IS of course EXACTLY why the debunkers push this definition).

MY definition contends that UFOs are such even when we include the knowledge that we have today, and the research that has been conducted after the event.

See the difference. THAT is why there is argument over "UFO" - though the debunkers rarely like to admit it, because it is another weak point in their whole argument.

 

[LissaLysikan]

Nope. "aliens" and "mythical creatures" are in the same box. Since neither one has any evidence of its existence, they cannot be seriously considered as an explanation for something.
The fact that some things are unidentified is no more evidence of aliens than it is evidence of elves in silver suits.
You can't have it both ways - either ALL mythical things are "plausible" or NONE are, until you have evidence.
Your "aliens" explanation has NO MORE evidence than my "elves" explanation - neither one has any evidence other than "there are things that have not been identified".
Your owl-aliens look very much like elves to me, just the artist got the ears a little too big. Or maybe the elf reports didn't convey just how big the ears really were.

Saying "UFOs are evidence of aliens because UFOs are associated with aliens in my mythology" is ... nonsense of a very high order.

 

[Rramjet]

Well, he has implied that his version of UFO doesn't really mean Unidentified, it means alien. He should start using AFO so we won't have to go through that again.

Again you seem to have either not read or misread my posts on the issue.

See my previous post for an update.

more... UFOs are NOT necessarily "alien".

 

[wollery]

No they don't... you seem to have missed that bit.

The debunkers here contend that a UFO is such merely because the observer could not identify it at the time.

That in my opinion is not precise or strong enough a definition for scientific investigation to be conducted (which IS of course EXACTLY why the debunkers push this definition).

MY definition contends that UFOs are such even when we include the knowledge that we have today, and the research that has been conducted after the event.

See the difference. THAT is why there is argument over "UFO" - though the debunkers rarely like to admit it, because it is another weak point in their whole argument.

So what you're saying is that it's only a UFO if it's still unidentified.

Got it.

No problem, I wholeheartedly concur with that definition.

Now, how does that say "not mundane" or even "alien"?

p.s. Sorry not much time over the weekend, I'll get to your other post when I can, but it might not be for a couple of days.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No they don't... you seem to have missed that bit.

The debunkers here contend that a UFO is such merely because the observer could not identify it at the time.

Thinking human beings contend that it means Unidentified Flying Object.

That in my opinion is not precise or strong enough a definition for scientific investigation to be conducted (which IS of course EXACTLY why the debunkers push this definition).

Certainly everyone has an opinion. Evidence, not so much.

MY definition contends that UFOs are such even when we include the knowledge that we have today, and the research that has been conducted after the event.

Good, then we can stop right here. Your definition is wrong.

See the difference. THAT is why there is argument over "UFO" - though the debunkers rarely like to admit it, because it is another weak point in their whole argument.

There is argument because you are wrong and you are arguing.

 

[Rramjet]

Nope. "aliens" and "mythical creatures" are in the same box. Since neither one has any evidence of its existence, they cannot be seriously considered as an explanation for something.
The fact that some things are unidentified is no more evidence of aliens than it is evidence of elves in silver suits.
You can't have it both ways - either ALL mythical things are "plausible" or NONE are, until you have evidence.
Your "aliens" explanation has NO MORE evidence than my "elves" explanation - neither one has any evidence other than "there are things that have not been identified".
Your owl-aliens look very much like elves to me, just the artist got the ears a little too big. Or maybe the elf reports didn't convey just how big the ears really were.

Saying "UFOs are evidence of aliens because UFOs are associated with aliens in my mythology" is ... nonsense of a very high order.

Just because you DENY the evidence does not mean there is none or that I have not presented it.

If you contend that the Kelly-Hopkinsville "creatures" were "elves" then you MUST provide evidence to support that claim.

Moreover, you seem to be intent on building straw men. If you claim I have stated "UFOs are evidence of aliens because UFOs are associated with aliens in my mythology" then provide EVIDENCE for that claim. Merely stating such nonsense does NOT make it true!

No, you cannot - because you are merely building things based on your faith... which has led you into fallacious claims for which you can provide NO evidence.

I cannot argue with faith based belief systems here because by definition they are not logical, but I CAN and DO point out the logical fallacies that underpin them.

 

[LissaLysikan]

Again you seem to have either not read or misread my posts on the issue.

See my previous post for an update.

more... UFOs are NOT necessarily "alien".

Then we are in agreement - UFOs are unidentified. They might be mundane, they might not be. We don't have enough information to say anything more than that on some of them. Some that were previously UFO have become IFO, some have not.
The ones that are still UFOs do not provide evidence of anything other than there are things we haven't identified.
To get to aliens you will need some evidence of aliens, not of UFOs.

 

[LissaLysikan]

Just because you DENY the evidence does not mean there is none or that I have not presented it.

If you contend that the Kelly-Hopkinsville "creatures" were "elves" then you MUST provide evidence to support that claim.

You haven't provided evidence they were aliens, why should I provide evidence they were elves? If plain assertion is good enough for you, it's good enough for me.

Moreover, you seem to be intent on building straw men. If you claim I have stated "UFOs are evidence of aliens because UFOs are associated with aliens in my mythology" then provide EVIDENCE for that claim. Merely stating such nonsense does NOT make it true!

No, you cannot - because you are merely building things based on your faith... which has led you into fallacious claims for which you can provide NO evidence.

I cannot argue with faith based belief systems here because by definition they are not logical, but I CAN and DO point out the logical fallacies that underpin them.

My faith in ...?
That I demand evidence of strange claims before I accept them does not make my position "faith based". Your insistence that aliens exist without evidence IS faith based. Until you provide evidence that is not identical to my silly evidence of elves you are not supporting your position. So far you haven't - all you have done is assert that your interpretation of things is the only right one, in spite of being shown that it has NO MORE validity than my interpretation. Which is to say - none. It's just guessing and wishful thinking.

 

[SnidelyW]

Comprehensive? Refutation?

​

Pretty much everyone (with a couple notable exceptions who already bought into the wholly unevidenced notion that aliens are behind it) has addressed the issues, or accepted the explanations provided by those who did address them. So if you're inferring that they haven't, that would be another of your many lies. And of course there's that little detail where your "comprehensive refutation" was so poorly presented and/or so lacking in legitimate support that you weren't able to convince a single soul (again, with the exception of the few people whose opinions also depend entirely their ignorance and incredulity). So much for your disdain for legitimate science and the value of your continued argument from ignorance and incredulity, eh?

I think your suppositions stated in the above post are not justified, and have been poorly presented.

In reviewing your posts to attempt to measure the substantive contribution you have made to support your unwarranted assumption, I have noticed your arguments appear to depend on accusations of lies, criticism without accompanying facts to support it, and sweeping generalizations.

Rramjet, using considerable time, effort and patience, has methodically attempted to address as many individual concerns as possible here, and has offered fact based opinion and analysis.

Others, representing the skeptical view, have offered up examples of their own, again, putting time, energy and research into their submissions here.

I think you would do well to polish your own presentations, and offer something more than barely concealed contempt as an actual argument.

 

[LissaLysikan]

Rramjet,

See, you have claimed that ONE set of drawings (so far) support your position of "aliens exist". Except there is another interpretation of those same drawings, and there is no way to choose between yours and mine. You cannot appeal to "evidence of aliens" being better than "evidence of elves" because you haven't presented any more evidence of aliens than the very one in dispute.
What makes your "aliens" interpretation of better value than my elves? The reputed characteristics of the owl-creatures apply equally well to either one.

 

[Rramjet]

So what you're saying is that it's only a UFO if it's still unidentified.

Got it.

No problem, I wholeheartedly concur with that definition.

Now, how does that say "not mundane" or even "alien"?

p.s. Sorry not much time over the weekend, I'll get to your other post when I can, but it might not be for a couple of days.

Thanks Wollery - and I commend you for your rationality.

You ask a good question.

"Not mundane" because the evidence simply makes ANY mundane explanation we can think of implausible. For example one only has to look at the description of the UFO)s) involved in the Iranian case. Eg; Shape shifting, changing colours, splitting apart and re-joining, fleeing and chasing behaviour, able to affect the environment around it... the list could go on... but the point is that no-one I know has been able to come up with a plausible mundane explanation that covers ALL of the description of the UFO. If you CAN do so, then please do.

So now that "mundane" is ruled out... what are we left with? We have ostensibly intelligent behaviour in response to the military jets, we have "technical" ability completely outside the bounds of any known earthly technology, and we have a "plausible" explanation (aliens) available... so why don't we use that as a starting hypothesis and go from there. I am NOT saying that is the hypothesis we WILL end up with after thorough research has been conducted... just that - as with all research programs - we HAVE to start somewhere...

AND THIS is what the debunkers fear most... scientific research into the subject... because they KNOW that scientifc methodology CAN be applied to the study of UFOs - and THAT threatens the very core of their belief system. Thus they will try anything they can - including resort to logical and scientific fallacies to PREVENT such research even beginning.

I, on the other hand, AM NOT afraid of properly constituted scientific exploration. What does that tell you? AND also which is precisely WHY I admire your approach Wollery... you seem to understand that IF there is NO truth to UFOs/aliens, then rational scientific investigation SHOULD be able to show it - by disputing the evidence and showing it to be either false or misleading or simply the conclusions of UFO alien are mistaken because there are other plausible, mundane explanations that can be demonstrated to cover the situation.

I look forward to your reply.

 

[fromdownunder]

No they don't... you seem to have missed that bit.

No, I have not missed anything. Find me one post where anybody here has said anything remotely resembling that there is no such thing as a UFO and I will accept your point. But you have no point. That's the problem.

One post will do - but you cannot do it!

Norm

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet,

See, you have claimed that ONE set of drawings (so far) support your position of "aliens exist". Except there is another interpretation of those same drawings, and there is no way to choose between yours and mine. You cannot appeal to "evidence of aliens" being better than "evidence of elves" because you haven't presented any more evidence of aliens than the very one in dispute.
What makes your "aliens" interpretation of better value than my elves? The reputed characteristics of the owl-creatures apply equally well to either one.

I then suggest you carefully read the following post again and THEN argue - if you can - where my contentions are either in error or mistaken. The post refutes the ideas you keep repeating and you merely stating that your contentions are correct (and building straw men), without addressing the issues I raised in reply does NOT make your contentions true -merely unfounded, (i.e., faith based) assertion.

It really is not at all that simple Lissa.

To explicate faeries I first need to point out some differences between (for example other “mythical" creatures) unicorns and UFOs and then move on to faeries.

So… As for evidence for unicorns, the situation is qualitatively different than the evidence for UFOs. This IS is quite simple really…

1. There are NO repeated sightings of unicorns, in fact unicorns are NEVER reported. UFOs are reported every day.
2. There are no verified photos of unicorns – yet we have literally thousands of photos and video footage of UFOs (including radar confirmation).
3. We have no reliable, qualified expert witnesses - with sworn testimony - testifying to the existence of unicorns – yet we have precisely that for UFOs.
4. We have no physical trace evidence for unicorns – yet we have that for UFOs.

So you can easily see that we have a wealth of current, verified, reliable evidence for UFOs, but we have NO such evidence for unicorns.

So, hat is all pretty straightforward. But now…“Elves and faeries”.

That depends on your definition of elves and faeries.
An interesting comparison with aliens can be found here: (http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/UFOs/past.html). There are many other hypotheses relating elves and faeries to UFOs. Here for example is another: (http://www.mysterious-america.net/syncronicityufos.html) or here: (http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/UFOs/ufofairies.htm)

Now I DO NOT endorse ANY of the above websites or their contentions. I merely use them to make a point that your conception of “faeries” may be a little too simplistic to warrant your claim that I dismiss them but accept UFOs.

I DO dismiss things such as “unicorns” for very good reason. But “faeries”…? That is a different matter altogether. We simply must apply the rules of evidence to ALL contentions equally. Only then may we determine what is extant and what is mythical. And as you have just witnessed – the task is by NO means an easy one. SOME things we can rule out… others….

 

[Rramjet]

No, I have not missed anything. Find me one post where anybody here has said anything remotely resembling that there is no such thing as a UFO and I will accept your point. But you have no point. That's the problem.

One post will do - but you cannot do it!

Norm

Norm, you ask a question impossible to answer, because it has no meaning in the context. Perhaps you should have read my reply post to you more carefully. There is a difference between a "debunker's" definition of a UFO and mine and THAT is where the contention (for some) is. I include the post below so you may understand that UFO to some people has a different meaning than it does to others.

No they don't... you seem to have missed that bit.

The debunkers here contend that a UFO is such merely because the observer could not identify it at the time.

That in my opinion is not precise or strong enough a definition for scientific investigation to be conducted (which IS of course EXACTLY why the debunkers push this definition).

MY definition contends that UFOs are such even when we include the knowledge that we have today, and the research that has been conducted after the event.

See the difference. THAT is why there is argument over "UFO" - though the debunkers rarely like to admit it, because it is another weak point in their whole argument.

You see my point?