UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Nonpareil]

I fully understand the quality argument. I respect your narrow definition of quality. I do not agree with it, but understand and respect your point.

Thank you. The next step is to educate yourself on why we dismiss this evidence as invalid or unqualified.

What has appeared to be a trend in this thread is the restrictive definitions placed by skeptics on 'evidence'.

For instance- all eyewitnes accounts are out.

Yes, because eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.

All photo evidence is out.

Not all, though much of it can be dismissed as likely faked. The rest is either misleading, as an earlier conversation involving Stray Cat and a bunch of diagrams showed. Distance is extremely hard to judge in photos. And then there's the small matter that simply having a photo of an unidentified object does not immediately warrant a jump to "alien craft".

All video evidence is out.

Not really. Just the bits that suffer from the above problems with photos. Things can be faked, appearances can be misleading, and having a video of an unknown phenomenon does not automatically warrant a jump to "aliens".

How can the skeptic position be taken as anything other than dismissive and instantly reactionary when sweeping statements like this are made over and over again?

The sweeping statements are hardly sweeping. They dismiss only evidence which is highly questionable. It's only because all the evidence for aliens is questionable that UFOlogists are upset.

Perhaps we should all agree on some sort of standard acceptable to all, and keep watching the sky.

The problem with this is that the only standard acceptable to alien believers is "everything points to aliens".

 

[SnidelyW]

go examine a scientific fact,
anyone will do, try that the sea is made of water
then when you have tried to dismantle that supporting evidence yourself for that verified fact and failed
then you will understand the standard required for factual evidence
at the moment Snidely, I gotta tell you, you appear to have a system malfunction that is allowing "belief" to get in the way of "Blasphemy/understanding/control/disbelief" (delete where applicable)


I think you are also misunderstanding that true sceptics are not opposed to U.F.O's being alien craft at all, we are not anti anything and are not attempting to debunk because we are following some misguided belief. We are all firmly sat on the fence, but we understand what is required to prove something factually, and so far in this thread, its not even been close

I understand the scientific method, the precision of outcome, the replication tests neccessary, and the consistency of findings. I am not being obtuse here, but attempting to illustrate that generalized dismissal of evidence or purported evidence is to no benefit.

At the moment, I am just not ready to dismiss the multitude of eyewitness, photo, video, and other records of the UFO/Alien situation as easily as you are. This is what I was referring to when I stated that perhaps my level of critical thinking was at least as high, if not more than, a skeptic.

 

[Nonpareil]

I understand the scientific method, the precision of outcome, the replication tests neccessary, and the consistency of findings. I am not being obtuse here, but attempting to illustrate that generalized dismissal of evidence or purported evidence is to no benefit.

But you've answered your own objection. The "evidence" presented is not scientifically valid.

At the moment, I am just not ready to dismiss the multitude of eyewitness, photo, video, and other records of the UFO/Alien situation as easily as you are. This is what I was referring to when I stated that perhaps my level of critical thinking was at least as high, if not more than, a skeptic.

Except that this isn't the case. You are not only willing to discuss this material (we are too, by the way, but we expect that once a particular piece of evidence has been shown to be invalid it should be dismissed), but willing to believe all the nonsense claims associated with it. You don't just look at the evidence, you grab the evidence and wave it in the air and shout "HA! VALIDATION!" without considering the fact that the evidence you are touting is horribly questionable.

 

[SnidelyW]

Originally Posted by SnidelyW
I fully understand the quality argument. I respect your narrow definition of quality. I do not agree with it, but understand and respect your point.
Thank you. The next step is to educate yourself on why we dismiss this evidence as invalid or unqualified.

I understand why, and apply many of the same tests as you do. I am less restrictive in my thinking, not because I wish to believe in UFO's/Aliens, but because this is where I believe the preponderance of evidence is leading.


Quote:
What has appeared to be a trend in this thread is the restrictive definitions placed by skeptics on 'evidence'.

For instance- all eyewitnes accounts are out.
Yes, because eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.

I do not agree in the least. Some are awful. Some are poor. Some can be excellent and very accurate. Why would one wish to generalize like that?


Quote:
All photo evidence is out.
Not all, though much of it can be dismissed as likely faked. The rest is either misleading, as an earlier conversation involving Stray Cat and a bunch of diagrams showed. Distance is extremely hard to judge in photos. And then there's the small matter that simply having a photo of an unidentified object does not immediately warrant a jump to "alien craft".

I followed Stray Cats' proficient arguments concerning photo evidence. The issue is that many photos have been heavily analyzed and proven to be legitimate.


Quote:
All video evidence is out.
Not really. Just the bits that suffer from the above problems with photos. Things can be faked, appearances can be misleading, and having a video of an unknown phenomenon does not automatically warrant a jump to "aliens".

I agree faking is prevalent, for numerous reasons. I believe that to dismiss all video evidence is short-sighted.


Quote:
How can the skeptic position be taken as anything other than dismissive and instantly reactionary when sweeping statements like this are made over and over again?
The sweeping statements are hardly sweeping. They dismiss only evidence which is highly questionable. It's only because all the evidence for aliens is questionable that UFOlogists are upset.

I disagree with your statement in its entirety.


Quote:
Perhaps we should all agree on some sort of standard acceptable to all, and keep watching the sky.
The problem with this is that the only standard acceptable to alien believers is "everything points to aliens".

I am of the opposite opinion, in that my first take is the standard points to non alien non ufo explanations, and then we begin to remove what the image or object is not. What is left is UFO/Alien. I might point out that the reason I think of UFO/Alien is the characteristics, patterns and consistency of the physics reported defy thinking of a man made explanation. Humans can generally recognize earthbound physics at work, and the general pattern of observations over the last 60 years has been of non-earthbound physics.

 

[Sledge]

Then your task is simple: show us the evidence you find so convincing.

ETA: At the moment, you're beginning to fall into the classic believer position of criticising everyone else for being close-minded rather than admit the evidence is lacking.

 

[SnidelyW]

But you've answered your own objection. The "evidence" presented is not scientifically valid.



Except that this isn't the case. You are not only willing to discuss this material (we are too, by the way, but we expect that once a particular piece of evidence has been shown to be invalid it should be dismissed), but willing to believe all the nonsense claims associated with it. You don't just look at the evidence, you grab the evidence and wave it in the air and shout "HA! VALIDATION!" without considering the fact that the evidence you are touting is horribly questionable.

Yikes. That seems to be a horrible generalization of my position, and completely untrue. If I have presented myself that way I need to sharpen my posts considerably!

If I may clarify- I am certainly not about to dismiss any evidence completely, as said evidence can illustrate (as it applies to the UFO/Alien discussion), many things. If completely fabricated, it can be evidence of a social trend. If marginal, it may be useful as new techniques are developed for analyzing such data (as in the Mexico City video), and if compelling, it may serve to validate the existence of the UFO/Alien connection.

I would submit the skeptics are at least as demonstrative in their 'dismissal' of case histories. It seems to be human nature to celebrate success, regardless of its form. Not a bad thing.

 

[Nonpareil]

I understand why, and apply many of the same tests as you do. I am less restrictive in my thinking, not because I wish to believe in UFO's/Aliens, but because this is where I believe the preponderance of evidence is leading.

You can say this, but it doesn't make it true. You have shown yourself to be subject to confirmation bias and lacking in understanding of many logical fallacies.

I do not agree in the least. Some are awful. Some are poor. Some can be excellent and very accurate. Why would one wish to generalize like that?

Because it's true. Again, you haven't bothered to do the research. Many of the posters here have provided links to articles explaining why witness accounts are not acceptable as evidence.

I followed Stray Cats' proficient arguments concerning photo evidence. The issue is that many photos have been heavily analyzed and proven to be legitimate.

Legitimate photos, yes, but again, this does not warrant a jump to "aliens". It simply means "unknown".

I agree faking is prevalent, for numerous reasons. I believe that to dismiss all video evidence is short-sighted.

And again, not all evidence is dismissed. Only unreliable evidence is dismissed. What you really want is for all evidence that is accepted to be proof for aliens, when really all we can say is that we don't know what it is.

I disagree with your statement in its entirety.

Why?

I am of the opposite opinion, in that my first take is the standard points to non alien non ufo explanations, and then we begin to remove what the image or object is not. What is left is UFO/Alien.

Yes. But where you go wrong is in jumping from "unidentified" to "alien". Just because we can't tell from the evidence what something is does not mean that the thing in question is alien.
Evidence against a given mundane explanation is not evidence for the alien explanation.

I might point out that the reason I think of UFO/Alien is the characteristics, patterns and consistency of the physics reported defy thinking of a man made explanation. Humans can generally recognize earthbound physics at work, and the general pattern of observations over the last 60 years has been of non-earthbound physics.

And again, witness testimony is horribly unreliable. Photos and videos prove nothing except that we don't know what it is. Jumping from "unknown" to "alien" is a horrible violation of logic.

 

[Nonpareil]

Yikes. That seems to be a horrible generalization of my position, and completely untrue. If I have presented myself that way I need to sharpen my posts considerably!

Then you do, because that is exactly how you come across.

If I may clarify- I am certainly not about to dismiss any evidence completely, as said evidence can illustrate (as it applies to the UFO/Alien discussion), many things. If completely fabricated, it can be evidence of a social trend. If marginal, it may be useful as new techniques are developed for analyzing such data (as in the Mexico City video), and if compelling, it may serve to validate the existence of the UFO/Alien connection.

It may serve to illustrate that something is unknown, but as of yet we have no evidence to justify a jump from "unknown" to "alien". This is the core of the issue, and it is this that you do not seem to understand.

I would submit the skeptics are at least as demonstrative in their 'dismissal' of case histories. It seems to be human nature to celebrate success, regardless of its form. Not a bad thing.

Meh?

 

[Sledge]

Snidely, this thread isn't about whether the "evidence" is indicative of a social phenomenon. If you wish to discuss that, you are in the wrong place. This thread is quite clearly a place for Rramjet to present his evidence that UFOs are in fact alien spacecraft. Any evidence that does not prove that claim can and will be rejected, and rightly so.

 

[SnidelyW]

Then your task is simple: show us the evidence you find so convincing.

That would turn me into a UFO researcher, which I am not. I am not dodging your request, just admitting that if I suddenly became a UFO researcher, it would take some time for me to plow through the case histories. There are others out there with many years of research who can easily do much better.

I will readily admit I was totally taken in by the Mexico City video, and think I learned a valuable lesson about applying those strict standards you skeptics crow about. I happen to think one still needs to be flexible in ones thinking.

 

[Nonpareil]

That would turn me into a UFO researcher, which I am not. I am not dodging your request, just admitting that if I suddenly became a UFO researcher, it would take some time for me to plow through the case histories. There are others out there with many years of research who can easily do much better.

If Rramjet is any indication, no, there aren't.

I will readily admit I was totally taken in by the Mexico City video, and think I learned a valuable lesson about applying those strict standards you skeptics crow about. I happen to think one still needs to be flexible in ones thinking.

A matter on which we agree. But there is a point where "flexible" crosses the line into "gullible".

 

[SnidelyW]

Snidely, this thread isn't about whether the "evidence" is indicative of a social phenomenon. If you wish to discuss that, you are in the wrong place. This thread is quite clearly a place for Rramjet to present his evidence that UFOs are in fact alien spacecraft. Any evidence that does not prove that claim can and will be rejected, and rightly so.

Fair enough- and I didn't think I was addressing the 'social' aspect in the least. I thought it was plain that I was addressing how useful evidence can be, in many ways, even if it is dismissed out of hand by skeptics.

 

[Nonpareil]

Fair enough- and I didn't think I was addressing the 'social' aspect in the least. I thought it was plain that I was addressing how useful evidence can be, in many ways, even if it is dismissed out of hand by skeptics.

Useful in showing how willing some people are to violate the laws of logic to validate their beliefs? Yes. Useful in actually showing those beliefs correct? No.

 

[GeeMack]

I followed Stray Cats' proficient arguments concerning photo evidence. The issue is that many photos have been heavily analyzed and proven to be legitimate.

Okay, how many of those photos have proven to be legitimate photos of aliens and/or alien craft? Oh, and since you can't answer simple yes/no questions this one might throw you, but keep in mind that the answer to a "how many" question should be a number. So here it is again, simple enough that a fourth grade child could understand. Can you, SnidelyW?...

How many of those photos have proven to be legitimate photos of aliens and/or alien craft?

 

[GeeMack]

Fair enough- and I didn't think I was addressing the 'social' aspect in the least. I thought it was plain that I was addressing how useful evidence can be, in many ways, even if it is dismissed out of hand by skeptics.

The "evidence" you're speaking of isn't dismissed out of hand. You'd like to build a case based on ignorance, incredulity, and wishful thinking, but that's not how science works. What you think is evidence isn't.

 

[Sledge]

I'm not entirely clear what you hope to achieve here, Snidely. You want us to remain open-minded and yet can't or won't point us at evidence to remain open-minded about. You hold some belief that UFOs are something more than what the name suggests but won't tell us why. All you seem to be saying is complaining that we're dismissing evidence out of hand. Frankly, you're wrong. Can you point at any piece of evidence presented here that hasn't been addressed? We're up to 84 pages and a lot of that is people repeatedly explaining to Rramjet why the case he's championing at that moment isn't proof of aliens. If anything, these cases have received far more attention than they deserve (Rogue River, for instance).

 

[Belz...]

The sweeping statements are hardly sweeping. They dismiss only evidence which is highly questionable. It's only because all the evidence for aliens is questionable that UFOlogists are upset.

I disagree with your statement in its entirety.

Please provide non-questionable evidence for aliens.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not entirely clear what you hope to achieve here, Snidely. You want us to remain open-minded and yet can't or won't point us at evidence to remain open-minded about.

Well, that's the problem with lots of believers, isn't it ? It's not about being open-minded at all. It's about people agreeing with them.

 

[Sledge]

The sad thing is that I'm sure a lot of us would love to be able to agree with him. Just show us the evidence and we'll be happy.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Are you suggesting that one should never conclude anything on the sheer volume of evidence? For anything, or just the UFO/Alien phenomenon?

I think you know the answer to that question already. One can easily conclude things based on the sheer volume of anecdotal evidence as long as that something is mundane. For example, in a criminal trial, if 20 people say they saw Billy shoot the sheriff, then Billy will likely be convicted. We know people can shoot other people so it isn't a stretch to think that Billy could have shot the sheriff.

We don't know aliens can or are visiting the earth in spaceships even if one definition of alien is 'they've always been here'. This is the difference that UFO proponents always overlook. They want the same quality of evidence to apply to extraordinary claims as it does to mundane claims.

Rramjet will never acknowledge it because this is his religion and he's a true believer. He's serving a useful purpose in educating others, though.