jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
No true Scotsman speaks Latin.
- Status
No true Scotsman speaks Latin.
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
They're going to be resettled in Florida. There should be plenty of room when all the fat people there have been sent off to the food processing centres, hey wait til they try taco bell, theyre gonna wonder why they ever bothered with witjuti grubs and who needs dreamtime when youve got Universal studios
I'm sure they will accept. That sounds like their dream time and more.
SnidelyW
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 486
I have remarked on this before, and will do so again regarding the standards of 'evidence' acceptable to the skeptics.
As they have so delicately defined it in this thread, and as I now understand it, the 'artifacts' seem to be the only 'evidence' acceptable to the skeptic masses.
Unacceptable under all circumstances to skeptics are eyewitness accounts, both single and multiple, photographic evidence (both before and especially after photoshop), video evidence regardless of source (NASA video included), radar evidence, or physical evidence of any type.
Samples of all the above has been presented through various links in this thread, and all have been ridiculed.
Interesting indeed.
Oxford defines 'evidence' as;
evidence
• noun 1 information or signs indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. 2 Law information used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.
By dismissing the above collection of data, the skeptics illustrate that they wish to suspend the traditional definition of the word 'evidence' and promote their own, which appears limited to the use of the word 'artifact'.
What the collective skeptic mind has therefore done in this forum (seemingly the home of the skeptic), by illustrating your ever shrinking definition of 'evidence', (see above) is to essentially move the skeptics to the fringe of the discussion regarding the evolution of the UFO/alien knowledge base.
This banishment to the fringes of information gathering and resultant discussion involves considerable risk, as it becomes almost self perpetuating. The less new information the skeptics are exposed to, the more firmly entrenched they may become with regard to their unwillingness to examine anything other than the 'artifacts' they so desire, and demand to be presented with.
History has shown us that potentates sitting on the throne waiting to be shown 'proof' of ideas and concepts rarely have complete information.
I would posit there are few true 'aha' moments in information gathering. Instead, the slow accumulation of information from various sources slowly building over time will most likely tip the scale of belief in one direction or another.
I think this is where the UFO/Alien situation is today. Over 60 years of modern information collection has been amassed, and patterns have developed regarding shape, size, propulsion, radiation, illumination, flight characteristics, weight, wakes, speed, acceleration, sound, invisibility, weapons, nuclear interest, formation, and time alteration.
So, ridicule, restrict, and discount UFO/Alien evidence as you wish, but the information continues to amass, relentlessly.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
SnidelyW, I had asked for your example of a case that has the best evidence in favor of UFO's being of alien origin. Have you come up with one yet?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
It depends entirely on the quality of the evidence. It has been shown for every single case that has been brought in to this thread that the evidence is weak at best.
Take the Rogue River case for example. We have 4 eyewitnesses observing a small shape a long distance away, who can't agree on a number of points, and describe something that is consistent with a blimp, more than one of which were shown to have been in operation in the general area at the time.
How about White Sands? Despite all the hooplah with which Rramjet argued this case it all boils down to one triangulation measurement, for which we have no error margin.
We have been offered "evidence" in the form of radar readings that are nothing more than faint transitory contacts, two of which are made out to be a high speed UFO, despite the direction between them being contrary to the eyewitness accounts!
I could go on, but the important point isn't whether or not evidence has been offered, but the quality of that evidence.
The quality has been shown to be severely substandard. There's a difference between dismissing evidence because you don't like it and dismissing it because it's actually worthless for drawing any conclusion.
Which says nothing about the quality of the evidence.
Let me relate a little story to you.
Many years ago I had to do jury service in the UK. One of the cases I sat on concerned an alleged burglary. We voted to acquit the accused about 10 seconds after selecting the jury foreman (that was how long it took him to ask for a show of hands from all those voting guilty, and the time he waited to see if anyone raised a hand), not because we were sure that he hadn't done it (we all agreed that he could have done it), but because the prosecution evidence was about as weak as it could possibly be. The prosecution evidence boiled down to, "He was hanging around the area at about the time it happened", something he freely admitted, and the prosecution witnesses gave contradictory statements. And when I say that I don't just mean that they contradicted each other - most of them contradicted themselves as well.
To put it simply, not all evidence is equal.
Not in the least. But the traditional definition of "evidence" (as you seem to want to define it) fails to include the caveat of quality, which is an exceptionally important part of judging whether the evidence is actually capable of supporting the conclusions.
Now you need to consult a dictionary. Look up the word knowledge.
Seriously.
I'm willing to examine any information you have, but be prepared for me, and other skeptics, to examine it in great detail. If you want to support the idea that UFOs are really alien craft then you'd better have high quality evidence, otherwise it'll be torn to shreds.
And that's the problem. If we take each case individually then they all fall apart. There isn't one case that we've seen in this thread that demonstrates high quality evidence. Not one case stands on its own merits. And yet you, Rramjet, and KotA seem to want to argue that a lot of poor evidence adds up to strong evidence.
Sorry, that isn't how it works.
At the risk of sounding trite, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Really?
Some UFOs are cigar shaped, some are triangular, some are saucers. Some are huge, some are tiny. Some appear individually, some in twos or threes, and some seem to come in swarms. Some jam radar, some turn invisible. Some appear over nuclear test sites, while some appear over cities, or the countryside well away from nuclear sites. Some are silent, some are noisy. Some fly in formation and some don't.
I see no pattern in any of it.
But maybe you can see something I can't, so please, tell me about this pattern.
Look up "information" in the dictionary.
Actually, while you're at it, look up "data", "pattern" and "evolution".
If you have any high quality evidence then please present it, but stop whinging about "skeptics" dismissing evidence out of hand. We've done nothing of the sort. What we have done is to carefully examine the evidence, and found it to be severely wanting.
Last edited:
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 338
You chose to ignore the evidence to the contrary, specifically…
1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable and inconsistent, especially in cases involving multiple witnesses. (e.g. Rogue River and Stephenville and ask any criminal investigator if you don’t believe me and then ask yourself how you would feel about being convicted of murder based on eyewitness testimony alone)
2. Show me just one photo or video of what you believe couldn’t be anything other than an actual alien spaceship.
3. All NASA “UFO” videos and “anomalous” photographs that I’m aware of have been shown to have perfectly logical prosaic explanations.
4. There is zero unambiguous radar evidence that I’m aware of.
5. There is zero unambiguous physical evidence that I’m aware of.
Furthermore, I see no credible reason or evidence for any scientific or governmental authority or institution to reject or suppress any demonstrably unambiguous evidence of “aliens”.
I’m pretty sure if anything or anyone is being ridiculed here it is the unwillingness or inability of the “true believers” to consider any alternative explanations for a particular case other than “aliens”… the very antithesis of an “open mind”.
You’re right, and the pattern that emerges shows aliens and the design of their spaceships have consistently changed over time and most closely follow (post hoc) those found in popular science fiction or otherwise have entirely Earthly origins…
(see the “psychosocial hypothesis” for example)
P.S. It has been duly noted that you continue to ignore answering direct questions from myself and others.
ETA: What wollery said.
Last edited:
SnidelyW
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 486
I am aquainted with several that I have been impressed with, but I am not a UFO researcher of note, and would not present myself as one. Several posters here have decades of experience in examination of case histories.
I am reluctant now to step into anything which concerns 'evidence' as I believe I have presented my ideas above illustrating the chasm in defining the word as it relates to the UFO/Alien subject, and I think the definition dog will begin to chase its tail once again.
I respect critical thinking and the steps which are taken to separate the 'woo' from the legitimate. I understand the neccessity of validating data, vetting sources and the satisfaction of knowing that what is left on the plate has credibility. However, my view is that if those controls are too strict, potentially valid info may be tossed as being invalid.
One of the main issues, as I see it, is a more rigourous examination of the raw data at the collection point, whether it be from an individual, or other source. Only by ensuring initial credibility can we, as collective examiners, be assured we have a starting point we can trust.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
you realise of course then that this is a complete reversal of your last post ?
SnidelyW
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 486
I answer what my time at the forum allows. I make no distinction between posts. I am here as an adjunct to understanding, not to preach.
Assuming I am 'continuing to ignore' is both disrespectful and incorrect.
I'll need some time for a cogent reply to your assertions above. Please do not assume anything.
SnidelyW
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 486
I'll need some time for a decent response, but your characterization about me 'whining' is incorrect.
I thought this was a place for discussion, exchange of ideas and to some degree, enlightenment. I have conducted myself accordingly.
What has occurred is dismissal of entire categories of evidence, which I listed in my post above.
For you to now represent skeptics by stating the evidence was of some arbitrary 'substandard' level is another change of the playing rules, so to speak.
more later.
SnidelyW
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 486
if youre not answering direct questions then preaching is exactly what youre doing, thats no assumption
I am not urging compliance with anything, or delivering a sermon!
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
I am not urging compliance with anything, or delivering a sermon!
thats a complete lie and you know it, youre hardly neutral
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
It seemed like whinging to me, but I apologise.
Well, you've largely ignored most questions put to you, so for the discussion and exchange of ideas part, no you haven't.
Nope. Each case has been taken on its merits. Each piece of evidence has been discussed separately. The fact that not one piece of evidence has been found to have merit does not mean that they were rejected en masse.
As I said, each piece of evidence was discussed, and shown to be substandard.
In many cases the evidence was contradictory. In other cases it was nothing more than anecdotal.
There's been no change in the rules. The rules are simple. Present evidence, and it will be examined. If the evidence is of a high quality it will be very difficult for anyone to find fault. If it is of low quality it will be easy to find fault. That's all there is to it.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
What we really have here is you being incorrect by claiming you're not being ignorant, and you being disrespectful by being ignorant. The fact that you're continuing to ignore isn't an assumption. It's supported by evidence. I've asked you repeatedly to address the issue in this link, and all it requires is a simple yes or no answer. How about you answer that simple question now, unless of course you'd rather prove once again that you're disrespectful, incorrect, and ignorant.
It's worth remembering where this thread actually started. Rramjet has explicitly said that he doesn't think there is a single case that provides strong evidence for UFOs being aliens, but that the large number of cases with very little evidence to support them suggests that they are. It was him that started this thread as a place where he would supposedly show us this mass of bad quality evidence.
So Snidely's complaints are really nonsensical. Even the UFO proponent who started this thread doesn't believe he has any good evidence. Skeptics aren't dismissing his evidence out of hand, we're simply agreeing with him that it is, in fact, bad quality. The only place we differ is in the conclusions we draw from seeing a pile of poor quality evidence. If Snidely disagrees with the way the evidence is dealt with, perhaps he should take it up with Rramjet, rather than trying to pin blame on the nasty skeptics?
Are you afraid of being made fun of? You are an anonymous internet poster, it is not like we will tell the wife and kids you are stupid. Many of us here have crossed over from the dark side. We used to believe a lot of silly things, but we were shown the light of reason and came to accept critical thinking as the only way to figure things out.
Post links to what you are impressed with and see what others think. No one is asking you to be a "UFO researcher of note", just a person willing to learn.
ETA: Unless you really are Snidely Whiplash, then we will tell Mutley, Dudley, Penelope, and all your friends/arch enemies what a goof you are!
Last edited:
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Nobody is stating there is "no evidence" for UFOs. However, what UFO proponents seem to misunderstand is that the evidence presented is just not good enough. They state, here is the evidence as if it were proof. They then jump over to conclusion that UFOs are demonstrated to be alien in nature/somebody else/under intelligent control. While it is not a scientific description, the book Crimnal Investigations: A basic perspective (by Paul Weston and Kenneth Wells) discusses the issues surrounding evidence:
Investigators must learn the difference between evidence and facts to avoid confusion in evaluating evidence in its role as proof. Evidence is not synonymous with fact. Evidence may be ambiguous—that is, subject different interpretations. It may be false—exaggerated, planted, or perjured. It may be modified by forgetfulness, inattention, or silence. On the other hand, a fact is the truth (insofar as the truth can be determined by the triers-of-fact in a criminal trial). A fact (in this sense of the term) is the effect of evidence, and it is dependent upon evidence. A fact is established from a very personal evaluation of the evidence presented in a particular case by the trier-of-fact. Evidence may tend to prove a fact, or may be sufficiently strong to compel a conclusion of fact, or may be just strong enough to create a reasonable doubt. (Pages 16-17)
The "triers-of-fact" in this case is the scientific community, which has very high standards of evidence. If you want to chase "will of the whisps" based on this evidence, there is nothing wrong with that. However, stating the these phantoms are something extraordinary and unknown to science is pure guesswork.
Investigators must learn the difference between evidence and facts to avoid confusion in evaluating evidence in its role as proof. Evidence is not synonymous with fact. Evidence may be ambiguous—that is, subject different interpretations. It may be false—exaggerated, planted, or perjured. It may be modified by forgetfulness, inattention, or silence. On the other hand, a fact is the truth (insofar as the truth can be determined by the triers-of-fact in a criminal trial). A fact (in this sense of the term) is the effect of evidence, and it is dependent upon evidence. A fact is established from a very personal evaluation of the evidence presented in a particular case by the trier-of-fact. Evidence may tend to prove a fact, or may be sufficiently strong to compel a conclusion of fact, or may be just strong enough to create a reasonable doubt. (Pages 16-17)
The "triers-of-fact" in this case is the scientific community, which has very high standards of evidence. If you want to chase "will of the whisps" based on this evidence, there is nothing wrong with that. However, stating the these phantoms are something extraordinary and unknown to science is pure guesswork.
Last edited:
- Status