UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

I take issue with the more or less constant parroting of Dr Sagan's words, as he stated he was an extraterrestrial 'junkie' from childhood, and indeed devoted much of his life to the pursuit of the understanding of the universe as we know it. I don't believe most people have earned the right to use his words, as I think even he would have them used more responsibly than they have been.

I don't understand the bolded part. What do you think Dr. Sagan meant by his phrase and why do you think he coined it in the first place?

 

[Marduk]

My suggestion would be that all who wish to get sidetracked regarding wormholes, should discuss those on a physics forum.

Marduk, in post #4024, stated;

"the evidence suggests that there are no Aliens within any kind of reasonable distance of our planet, maybe you should increase your math awareness while you're studying logical fallacies"

This statement began the discussion on potential shortcuts a traveller might use to traverse hundreds or perhaps thousands of light years.

The entire discussion regarding wormholes belongs in another thread and only serves to divert attention, in my opinion.

so you are withdrawing your claim that Aliens travel to earth using wormholes then ?

 

[SnidelyW]

SnidelyW, yes or no, do you have any evidence that the thing you saw was some particular thing?

Observational only. It didn't bite me in the butt and leave tooth marks, if that is what you're after.

 

[SnidelyW]

so you are withdrawing your claim that Aliens travel to earth using wormholes then ?

Fallacy of Interrogation.

 

[Marduk]

Observational only. It didn't bite me in the butt and leave tooth marks, if that is what you're after.

did you describe your sighting in a post here anywhere ?

 

[Marduk]

Fallacy of Interrogation.

no it isn't, keep reading up on logical fallacies snideley, you still have some way to go

let me remind you, we were talking about the vast distances being impossible to travel for Aliens to come to earth when you stated

I was inferring that travel across hundreds of light years via wormholes could be made in less than hundreds of years at the speed of light.

its only an interrogation if you are answering direct questions, it doesnt apply when you are making ridiculous unsupported statements based on an argument from ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[Aepervius]

Here is a site containing a database devoted to collating UFO reports and graphing UFO/alien event patterns. Note that 18,552 sightings are listed.

That's nothing, try angel sighting, demon sighting, big foot sighting, faery sighting in google. Or even ghost / spirit sighting. 18K is a paltry.

 

[GeeMack]

Sure- I'll address the issue of arguments and fallacies.

To begin with, I’m not a fan of all the ad hominem arguments from Sledge,

I don't think you understand what an ad hominem argument is. Sledge isn't saying you or Rramjet are wrong because you're stupid, or insane, or ugly, or any such thing. He's saying you're wrong too. That's not an ad hominem. Go read up on it again.

You seem to have exhibited The Argument from Personal Incredulity- "I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true." You have not illustrated an understanding of UFO's, and you definitely have not explained their behaviour, so the above argument applies, according to you.

Rramjet and you are the ones making a claim that requires substantiation, so clearly I'm not making an argument from incredulity. I'm not making a claim. You apparently don't understand what an argument from incredulity is, either. Go read more about it.

Let's move on to Argumentum ad Logicam. This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. It is possible that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions. You do not seem to recognize that.

Nobody is suggesting that your position is false simply because the arguments you use to support it are flawed. Everyone is saying your position has not been demonstrated to be true because neither you nor Rramjet have provided an iota of evidence to support it. So you're wrong again in your understanding of logical fallacies and how they apply to this conversation. You need to do some more studying. Care to go on?

Now let's address your "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true. This isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. (In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.) You appear to be doing the very same thing you accuse me of doing!

Nobody is saying something is false simply because it hasn't been proven true. Everyone is saying that your and Rramjet's claim has not been demonstrated to be true by nature of the fact that no evidence has been offered to support it. You misunderstand the fallacy of argument from ignorance. You're at 100% now. You need to study this stuff some more. But let's try another, shall we?

The arguments discounting all types of UFO evidence is a shining example of a false reductio ad absurdum argument because the skeptics are ignoring evidence other than 'smoking gun' evidence, and also logical inference. I can logically infer a lot of things based on objects that defy physics, for example.

What evidence? No evidence has been discounted because no evidence has been provided. Rramjet's continued demonstrations of ignorance and incredulity are not evidence. So again you're wrong in your understanding of logical fallacies and of the skeptical position. You're not doing very well here, SnidelyW. More reading for you.

The skeptics here have routinely used the Moving Goalpost Argument.
This is a method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists. We have seen this on page after page of posts by skeptics.

No evidence currently exists. No goalpost moving going on here. I'll ask you these simple yes/no question again to demonstrate this. Do you have any evidence that shows the dent was made in that police car by some particular thing? Do you have any evidence that shows the thing seen at Rogue River was some particular thing? Do you have any evidence that shows the thing you saw was some particular thing? Yes or no, SnidelyW, if you have the guts and the honesty to address that issue head on. And go learn about goalpost moving. You're wrong again.

You went on to demonstrate a handful of other problems in your post, but really if you aren't going to try to learn then why should people try to help you? Maybe we can tackle your other serious misunderstanding of burden of proof, logical fallacies, the scientific method, and evidence if you can show that you're actually willing and able to comprehend this stuff, okay? Baby steps. Come back when you figure out why you're wrong about all the fallacies you mentioned above and we'll go on to the ones in the rest of your post.

 

[Sledge]

I find it amazing we're now up to 102 pages and still having to explain that no is disputing UFOs exist.

 

[Marduk]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for Rule 12.

 

[Sledge]

As a skeptic, I have to point out we have no evidence Rramjet isn't locked up.

 

[Rramjet]

Where’s this Brazil film? Also, you’re ignoring what Astrophotographer pointed out about astronomical objects frequently being described this way.

Here is the film – although if you had been paying attention (some hope!) you would have realised that I have posted this a number of times previously…

(http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5t3s0_ovni-a-niteroi-bresil-30dec-1992_tech)

This is video confirmation of the “starfish” shape of the UFO as tower controller Pirouzi described in the Tehran case (http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

Every single one of the cases you’ve presented so far have absolutely nothing in common… just how many different “aliens” do you think are visiting this little blue ball in the middle of nowhere?

No, that is merely your opinion because you have not looked for commonalities between the cases. Extraordinary speed is one for example. Silent operation is another. No obvious means of propulsion. Metalic appearance… the list could go on, as I say, you are simply NOT applying ANY scientific research to these cases…

More, when one begins to explore UFO reports more widely, other commonalities begin to emerge. Shape for example. The ability to “jump” locations. The types of “beings” involved. Again the list could go on, but the point is that after research it becomes apparent that the range of characteristics contained within UFO reports is actually restricted in typology! THIS is an important discovery. It means that we do NOT have, as you imply, an unlimited number of “aliens visiting” us.

More, I have NEVER claimed that “aliens” were “visiting” us. Maybe they were already here! (but there are other hypotheses as well – interdimensional for example… we just don’t have the data to conclude ET – as the UFO debunkers paradoxically seem to do!)

For those that may be confused, the 30% unexplained figure that Rramjet cited for the Condon Study came from this review that he apparently didn’t read himself…

1968 Statement of the American Insitute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Subcommittee on UFOs

“In reviewing the material accumulated to date, the Subcommittee found an exceedingly low signal-to-noise ratio, as illustrated by the statistics of the Air Force's Project "Bluebook" quoted in the University of Colorado study, which showed 3.3% unidentified observations (253 out of 7741 available at that time (*)). This figure is frequently disputed, but its order of magnitude (5%) appears to be correct, taking all available reports into account. The fact that the Condon study itself arrives at a much higher percentage of unexplained cases - namely, at about 30% (35 out of 117) - is primarily due to the preselection of specific cases for investigation. The precise figure is hard to assess, for the Condon report does not lend itself easily lo this type of analvsis, the same cases being treated often in different sections and under different identifications.

((*) The final figures, according to our information, appear to be 701 out of 12,618 or 5.5%.)”

Yet another example of deliberate deception… UFOlogists always leave out this “minor” detail when criticizing the conclusion of the Condon Study.

The more honest way to judge the Condon Study is they explained 70% of the representative 5% of unexplained "best" cases.

Umm… I think you will find that the rest of the 12, 618 cases you cite were NOT studied by Condon and if they were, there is always the possibility that GREATER than 30% of those cases would turn out to be “unexplained”… so in fact YOU are the one being deliberately (or ignorantly) deceptive.

I stated:
”All I am doing is presenting cases that do not lend themselves to mundane explanation.”

argumentum ad ignorantiam

“It cannot be so, therefore it is not so” ~ Rramjet

Ugh…why am I not surprised that JREF members cannot understand logic!

It is NOT an argument from ignorance to conclude that where NO mundane explanation(s) can be found for the cases I present that they therefore do not lend themselves to mundane explanations. The conclusion logically follows from the premise.

Then your case is refuted thus. We have examined those cases, as you requested, and found no evidence within them. What we found was a bunch of people seeing something and not knowing what it was. Every. Sodding. Time. None of those cases provided evidence of aliens.

“We”?

So you admit that the cases I present represent UFOs. THAT is a good start at least! Now we just have to explore the cases to see if “aliens” are apparent. As you well know, I have NEVER claimed that the cases I have so far presented represent aliens. For example, I HAVE stated that the Tehran case suggests intelligent control of a UFO which in turn allows one to hypothesise “aliens” – but I have NEVER claimed that it is evidence for aliens. In the Father Gill case we have “beings” associated with a UFO. Again I have NEVER claimed this to be direct evidence for “aliens” – merely that it is suggestive of such an interpretation.

Oh, and please drop the idea that you need to prove UFOs exist. As has been explained to you endlessly, no one is disputing that UFOs exist. We are disputing your explanation for them.

Again, I have NEVER claimed to “explain” UFOs. A UFO is just that; Unidentified. What I AM contending is that in the absence of mundane explanations I am free to hypothesise “aliens”.

And what are those "vested interests," Rramjet? Are we all in the employ of the NWO? Or are we just doing it for the lulz?

Are you really contending that the tobacco companies, the oil lobby etc don’t have vested interests… and when it comes to the JREF and UFOs, they have denied UFOs for so long and so strenuously that they DO now have a vested interest in continuing that denial in the face of the evidence. Once a belief system of such a strong character is instituted in JREF members minds, it is well nigh impossible to change. (see Festinger/ cognitive dissonance theory for precisely WHY this is so)

Read the thread. As I said to Snidely, if you feel that any case has not received sufficient analysis, tell us which one and why you think that.

I asked whether You had conducted any such “analysis” – obviously since you did not answer you have not. How about the Father Gill case? I have seen no “exhaustive analysis” from the JREF on that case (nor by the way on the Tehran case).

Because I'm not the one making a claim.

Now it is “I” and before it was “We”! Ha! You shift the goalposts all over the place to suit your own ends! YOU make the claim that my UFO cases are actually mundane objects – then if you make that claim, you need to provide evidence to support your claim!

It HAS been researched. The problem you have is that the research never arrives at the conclusion you want.

Just because YOU have not studied any of the research does not mean that the research has NOT been conducted and that it has not reached conclusions. More: I DO NOT “want” ANY conclusion. I am approaching this in a sceptical, logical and scientific manner and THAT methodology positively precludes ad hoc conclusions. On the other hand YOU are the one working from the pre-conceived conclusion (faith-based belief) that UFOs are ALL misinterpreted mundane objects.

We have determined something: that people are exceptionally poor at identifying objects in the sky.

“We”? (again)… actually I think that you will find that research suggests we are actually VERY good at identifying objects in the sky! If people were SO bad at identifying things in the sky (as you suggest) then we would simply be overwhelmed by UFO reports… we are not.

No. Why would I be? Why would any of us be? Such investigations HAVE happened and found nothing. What is there to be scared of in "nothing"?

“Nothing”? The Battelle Study finds more than 20% of the 3000 cases examined turn out to be “Unknown” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf). The Condon report has a 30% rate of unexplained (http://ncas.org/condon/)… this is NOTHING? You people amaze me sometimes…

What do you mean by "properly investigated"? Apparently getting trained scientists to do it isn't good enough, so I'm presuming you want some UFO and conspiracy nuts to do an investigation. I too have no doubt that they'd find exactly what they want, by the brilliant process of ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

There is a peculiar blindness at work here (fortunately past research by Festinger can tell us why). I am referencing for your benefit “trained scientists” yet you IGNORE their results? WHO precisely is “ignoring the evidence” here? LOL.

I state that there exist entrenched and intractable belief systems on BOTH the UFO debunker and UFO proponent sides of the argument and that BOTH positions do NOT serve to advance our knowledge – and in fact “poison the pool” for serious research and all you can come up with is:

This is pure drivel.

LOL.

Rubbish (can't use the stronger term that is more accurate). I don't have a "faith-based position." You have me confused with you. See, you believe something for which the evidence is lacking. I don't believe in it because the evidence is lacking. That means you hold the faith-based position, unless we are to redefine "faith".

Why can’t you see that your position that all UFO reports represent misidentified mundane object IS a faith-based belief? Is it logical? No – remember the all crows are black fallacy. Is it scientific? No – because you hold an ad hoc position (before any investigation is conducted). What are we left with? Faith-based belief!

Huh, that's two of you who can't explain what he meant by that. Hint for you, Rramjet: don't agree with every single person who seems to support your position. It made you look silly with the fairies stuff and it makes you look silly here.

Just because YOU cannot understand what SnidelyW was referring to does NOT make his statements inexplicable.

SnidelyW stated “"It is simply faulty logic to assume that because an opponent’s reasons are flawed, one’s own reasons are valid. One’s own reasons may be just as flawed as an opponent’s, or even more flawed."

What he meant of course was that YOU should examine your own logical structures and set them in order before criticising other’s. Don’t assume that just because you perceive an opponent’s argument to contain faulty logic, that your own is exemplary.

Yes. They're mentally ill.

Yeah… that’s the answer…anyone who disagrees with your position is “mentally ill”. LOL.

Drivel, off topic, etc

I provided an example of why people mistrust governments and thus are prone to conspiracy theories. Perhaps the example was too esoteric for you. Let us take a more commonly known example, the Manhatten Project. For years the government kept this HUGE endeavour (whole towns for thousands of people were built in secret) and the people only found out about it after the whole thing was concluded. We KNOW governments can do this to us. So people naturally assume that anything could be so treated if the government wanted. Therefore conspiracies abound – because people do not trust (according to MANY historical precedents) what the government tells them) and naturally this includes UFO “cover-up” conspiracies.

Again: every single person here accepts that UFOs exist. We dispute your explanation of them. Please stop banging on about proving UFOs exist as if anyone was suggesting otherwise. You've beaten that poor man down to a single straw.

No, people in the JREF do NOT accept UFOs exist. They contend that UFOs are misinterpreted mundane objects. That is there IS an explanation for them in terrestrial, mundane terms. THIS is NOT what is meant by the term UFO. The “U” in UFO MEANS “unidentified” – nothing more, nothing less.

Since you have no desire to tell me what cases are compelling or what cases were listed is unidentified, then you really are just parroting numbers aren't you? Several of these "unknown" cases were made by single witnesses who had no evidence to support their observations (see cases 12, 14, 17, 22, 39, 44). One involved a red pulsating light seen BELOW treelevel (case 10 - means it really is not an unidentified FLYING object but an unidentified GROUNDED object) in an area where oil wells existed. I could go on but what is the point. More hand waving would occur.

First let me say… (and I will pointedly ignore the “hand waving” idiocy) At last! You are beginning to examine the cases and my statements critically! Thank you for that! That is all have been asking you to do.

(polite snip of interesting discussion which people can access from the above quote…)

You make some pertinent points about the “unexplained” cases in Condon AND the Low memo. Well done! I will need to conduct some more research to explore your contentions – but on the face of it you make some strong points. Why could you not begin in such a manner?

Can you prove these cases are all seeing the same thing? No, because they are all unidentified and by that definition you can not say they are the same thing other than they are simply mysteries with no solution. You might as well include the bermuda triangle, flying dragon reports, fairy reports into your list as well.

Yes, I agree, they are mysteries, but you will concede that they are not necessarily without “solution”. I hypothesise “aliens”, you hypothesise “mundane”. Each must then provide evidence that such solutions are supportable.

Unfortunately, you stray from the skeptical path and into the UFO debunker mindset however when you conflate UFOs and the Bermuda triangle, flying dragons, fairy reports, etc.

These things (while they COULD be UFO related) are actually separate issues. Just because some people may hold concurrent “beliefs” about such things, does NOT mean they can all be lumped into the same basket.

How do you know it wasn't a dragon? Have you ever seen one? Who is to say Dragon's can not appear disc-shaped, glow in the dark, move really fast, and have riders on top. BTW, I thought you said it had no angular speed.

And now you descend into the ridiculous! If you have run out of rational things to say about the subject, then don’t say anything! And if the (Father Gill) craft was stationary – like when it WAS “hovering” - then of course it has no angular speed!

A. Please point out where anyone in this forum EVER stated it was positively a blimp!
B. I contend it was probably an aircraft seen under circumstances like the Catalina Island video and not a blimp (however, I can see that as a possibility)
C. You historical record has NOT ruled out a blimp since you can not place the blimp in another location at the time and we do know the blimp was in Oregon around the date in question.
D. Using eyewitness testimony as proof is not good enough and you know it. It is susceptible to error that cannot be quantified (except by you but you have yet to demonstrate how).

A: Oh come on! Comments of “It was a blimp. Get over it!”? are not categorical claims? Please…
B: Rogue River was an aircraft? How do you explain the circular shape, like a “coin” or a “pancake”?
C: Yes, there was One Goodyear blimp about 200 miles away at the time in Salem, but it was NOT being used for extended cross-country scenic flights – according to the historical records, such flights DID exist, but they were discontinued BEFORE the Rogue River sighting.
D: Eyewitness testimony as evidence yes. As proof no. People are NOT as prone to error as you make out. They are actually very good at discerning and identifying objects in the sky.

To reject the blimp or aircraft hypothesis without positive proof that it is "implausible" is unscientific. If you were a REAL scientist, you would understand this.

I reject “blimp” as implausible on the evidence but this is different from saying it was impossible. As for “aircraft, No sound, and disk shaped – are a bit of a clue here as to why I might reject THAT particular explanation. The witnesses used binoculars… I base my assessments on the evidence and that IS “scientific” - not on wild supposition.

I snipped your father Gill commentary because you have yet to answer my original question. How did you scientifically analyze the case? Tell me what these values were based on the testimony. BTW, witnesses have reported stars and planets to UFO investigators as having large angular sizes as well (see Hendry) so that argument fails right away.

Oh come on, Father Gill provides a precise and accurate description of the “craft” and describes “beings” waving from the “deck” on top of it. He describes how the craft disappeared in seconds across the bay. I already stated that the things you require, while they may be interesting, are NOT what needs explication here. It is the sighting description itself. You are merely (again) trying to obfuscate the issue.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Why can’t you see that your position that all UFO reports represent misidentified mundane object IS a faith-based belief?

And why can't you understand that that's not the skeptics' position?. You continue with your mis-representations in order to make your [weak] point.

 

[Sledge]

“We”?

So you admit that the cases I present represent UFOs. THAT is a good start at least! Now we just have to explore the cases to see if “aliens” are apparent.

Again, no one here has ever disputed the existance of UFOs. We dispute your explanation for them. I'd say that is a good start, but as it's taken 102 pages for you to understand this, it really isn't.

As you well know, I have NEVER claimed that the cases I have so far presented represent aliens.

Do you remember this?

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”. The following set of links provides just that. It is a collection of reports, case studies and general documentary information.

If what you have posted does not represent aliens, it has nothing to do with proving your case. Please stop wasting our time and stick to the point.

For example, I HAVE stated that the Tehran case suggests intelligent control of a UFO which in turn allows one to hypothesise “aliens” – but I have NEVER claimed that it is evidence for aliens.

No. It does not allow us to hypothesise aliens. For that to happen, we would have to be able to rule out every other possible explanation. You've given us no grounds to do that.

In the Father Gill case we have “beings” associated with a UFO. Again I have NEVER claimed this to be direct evidence for “aliens” – merely that it is suggestive of such an interpretation.

And so is irrelevant to this thread. You stated you would present evidence, no suggestions.

Again, I have NEVER claimed to “explain” UFOs.

Really?

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

A UFO is just that; Unidentified. What I AM contending is that in the absence of mundane explanations I am free to hypothesise “aliens”.

And yet we have mundane explanations. And frankly, I don't care what you want to hypothesise. You stated you would present evidence, not hypotheses.

Are you really contending that the tobacco companies, the oil lobby etc don’t have vested interests…

Don't care. Stick to the point. Evidence for aliens. Where is it?

and when it comes to the JREF and UFOs, they have denied UFOs for so long and so strenuously that they DO now have a vested interest in continuing that denial in the face of the evidence. Once a belief system of such a strong character is instituted in JREF members minds, it is well nigh impossible to change. (see Festinger/ cognitive dissonance theory for precisely WHY this is so)

And where is this evidence? Present it.

I asked whether You had conducted any such “analysis” – obviously since you did not answer you have not.

Yes, that's about the level of logic we've come to expect from you.

How about the Father Gill case? I have seen no “exhaustive analysis” from the JREF on that case (nor by the way on the Tehran case).

I asked you if the Father Gill case contained evidence of aliens. You said "In the Father Gill case we have “beings” associated with a UFO. Again I have NEVER claimed this to be direct evidence for “aliens” – merely that it is suggestive of such an interpretation." It is therefore irrelevant to this thread as you yourself admit it contains no evidence. How can we analyse evidence that even you admit doesn't exist?

Now it is “I” and before it was “We”! Ha! You shift the goalposts all over the place to suit your own ends!

You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.

YOU make the claim that my UFO cases are actually mundane objects – then if you make that claim, you need to provide evidence to support your claim!

What claim has been made? It is contended that UFOs are probably mundane objects that the viewer has not correctly identified. Do you understand WHY we say that? It's very simple, AND IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU BEFORE. It is more likely that an unknown object is something we know exists than something that we don't know exists. For you to claim that the explanation of alien spaceship is as likely as that of weather balloon (for instance), you have to show that alien spaceships exist. We know weather balloons exist, we know people have misidentified them in the past. This makes them a more likely explanation.

Just because YOU have not studied any of the research does not mean that the research has NOT been conducted and that it has not reached conclusions.

That has nothing to do with what I said. Pay more attention.

More: I DO NOT “want” ANY conclusion. I am approaching this in a sceptical, logical and scientific manner and THAT methodology positively precludes ad hoc conclusions.

No you're not. You don't even know what the words mean.

On the other hand YOU are the one working from the pre-conceived conclusion (faith-based belief) that UFOs are ALL misinterpreted mundane objects.

No. Again, until you can prove that alien spaceships exist, you can't insist that they're a likely explanation for UFO sightings. Try and understand that. A sceptical, logical and scientific person shouldn't need to be told this.

“We”? (again)… actually I think that you will find that research suggests we are actually VERY good at identifying objects in the sky! If people were SO bad at identifying things in the sky (as you suggest) then we would simply be overwhelmed by UFO reports… we are not.

“Nothing”? The Battelle Study finds more than 20% of the 3000 cases examined turn out to be “Unknown” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf). The Condon report has a 30% rate of unexplained (http://ncas.org/condon/)… this is NOTHING? You people amaze me sometimes…

"Unidentifed" does not mean "alien spaceship." It means "unidentified." Which means they found nothing.

There is a peculiar blindness at work here (fortunately past research by Festinger can tell us why).

Have you considered wearing glasses?

I am referencing for your benefit “trained scientists” yet you IGNORE their results? WHO precisely is “ignoring the evidence” here? LOL.

That'll be you. Again.

I state that there exist entrenched and intractable belief systems on BOTH the UFO debunker and UFO proponent sides of the argument and that BOTH positions do NOT serve to advance our knowledge – and in fact “poison the pool” for serious research and all you can come up with is:

LOL.

Please, keep "LOL"ing. I'm sure it's how all the best scientists communicate their ideas. By the way, what were your credentials again?

Why can’t you see that your position that all UFO reports represent misidentified mundane object IS a faith-based belief?

Why haven't you stopped beating your wife?

Is it logical? No – remember the all crows are black fallacy. Is it scientific? No – because you hold an ad hoc position (before any investigation is conducted). What are we left with? Faith-based belief!

You keep using these phrases. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

Just because YOU cannot understand what SnidelyW was referring to does NOT make his statements inexplicable.

So explain what he means.

SnidelyW stated “"It is simply faulty logic to assume that because an opponent’s reasons are flawed, one’s own reasons are valid. One’s own reasons may be just as flawed as an opponent’s, or even more flawed."

What he meant of course was that YOU should examine your own logical structures and set them in order before criticising other’s. Don’t assume that just because you perceive an opponent’s argument to contain faulty logic, that your own is exemplary.

My logic is fine. Yours is bat guano insane.

Yeah… that’s the answer…anyone who disagrees with your position is “mentally ill”. LOL.

No, conspiracy theorists are mentally ill in my opinion. How did you extrapolate "anyone who disagrees with me is mentally ill" from that?

I provided an example of why people mistrust governments and thus are prone to conspiracy theories. Perhaps the example was too esoteric for you. Let us take a more commonly known example, the Manhatten Project. For years the government kept this HUGE endeavour (whole towns for thousands of people were built in secret) and the people only found out about it after the whole thing was concluded. We KNOW governments can do this to us. So people naturally assume that anything could be so treated if the government wanted. Therefore conspiracies abound – because people do not trust (according to MANY historical precedents) what the government tells them) and naturally this includes UFO “cover-up” conspiracies.

If you want to rant about conspiracy theories, there's a forum for that. Word of advice: if you cite the Manhattan Project as an example, you'll get your arse handed to you in the ensuing discussion. Now please stick to the topic and provide your evidence of aliens.

No, people in the JREF do NOT accept UFOs exist.

Yes they do.

They contend that UFOs are misinterpreted mundane objects.

Correct. And until/unless those objects are identified, they are called "Unidentified Flying Objects" or "UFOs" for short.

That is there IS an explanation for them in terrestrial, mundane terms. THIS is NOT what is meant by the term UFO. The “U” in UFO MEANS “unidentified” – nothing more, nothing less.

Well done, you understand what the term "UFO" means. It's only taken you 102 pages to grasp what we've been telling you. Now, where's your evidence of aliens?

 

[GeeMack]

Observational only. It didn't bite me in the butt and leave tooth marks, if that is what you're after.

It's not really. What I'm after, and what any kid with fifth grade reading comprehension skills would realize, is a yes or no answer to a very simple question. You continue to demonstrate that your reading comprehension skills are far below that of an average fifth grader. Or perhaps you're embarrassed to answer. Or maybe you don't have what it takes to be honest. Or it's possible you don't have the guts to simply state a simple answer to a simple question. Your waffling and evasiveness is noted. However, somehow I think that given enough opportunities you actually can muster an answer to this. So let's try again, shall, we?

Regarding that thing you claim you saw that apparently intrigued you enough to get you or keep you interested in UFOs and/or aliens all these years, yes or no, do you have any evidence that the thing you saw was some particular thing? The answer should be formed as such...

No, there is no evidence that the thing I saw was some particular thing.

... or ...​

Yes, there is evidence that the thing I saw was some particular thing.​

See. Nothing to it. Any eleven year old kid could do it. Can you, SnidelyW?

 

[wollery]

Here is a site containing a database devoted to collating UFO reports and graphing UFO/alien event patterns. Note that 18,552 sightings are listed.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060903041412/http://www.larryhatch.net/index.html

This is a list of the statistics displays

http://web.archive.org/web/20060813141923/www.larryhatch.net/STATMENU.html



The excerpt below has been taken from the site;

*U* is a serious 20 year UFO research effort to catalog, map, and do statistics on UFO reports worldwide. Dates range from recent to ancient times. Foo fighters, ghost rockets, flying saucers, disks, cones, domes, wheels, spheres, probes, deltoids, flying triangles, cylinders, boomerang, lens and related shapes, landings, robots and even humanoid occupants are reported. Sighting waves from 1947, 1950, 1952, 1954, 1973 etc. are mapped and graphed.

Discovered hoaxes and misidentified mundane events are weeded out. Fireballs, night-lights and similar phenomena with low information content are passed over.
*U* does not catalog miracles, chupacabras, bigfoot, crop circles, folklore, ghosts, paranormal, new-age nor Fortean events unless clearly UFO related.
Cult and contactee tales are extremely suspect. Still, a surprising 18,552 UFO / OVNI sightings are listed, from a large set of reference sources.

None of this proves or disproves the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), alien abductions, time travel, extra space dimensions or even wilder theories.
This website shows UFO maps and graphs hoping that real patterns or clues may emerge, UFO evidence if not proof, some genuine ufology at least.

I don't have much time right now to look through all of that, particularly as it's rather slow to load, but I will look at it and get back to you.

However, I notice that you snipped the rest of my post, which addressed a lot of your arguments. Any particular reason for that?

 

[Akhenaten]

My suggestion would be that all who wish to get sidetracked regarding wormholes, should discuss those on a physics forum.

Marduk, in post #4024, stated;

"the evidence suggests that there are no Aliens within any kind of reasonable distance of our planet, maybe you should increase your math awareness while you're studying logical fallacies"

This statement began the discussion on potential shortcuts a traveller might use to traverse hundreds or perhaps thousands of light years.

The entire discussion regarding wormholes belongs in another thread and only serves to divert attention, in my opinion.

Fair call.

 

[tsig]

I was inferring reality.

O great lord of the two tongues.. i mean two lands I have nominated you for the pith.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip all those other people>

Oi! Where's mine?

O great lord of the two tongues.. i mean two lands I have nominated you for the pith.

I very thank you.

 

[tsig]

Observational only. It didn't bite me in the butt and leave tooth marks, if that is what you're after.

Shame. If it did you would have the only real tangible evidence.