UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[carlitos]

wrong thread, sorry

 

[Paul2]

First, most of my cases are UFO cases, not “alien” cases – and I have repeatedly pointed out in those cases that “aliens” (and especially ETI) cannot be the conclusion.

Could you tell us, succinctly, how you distinguish between "UFO," "alien," and "ETI," as you understand and use the terms?

 

[GeeMack]

First, most of my cases are UFO cases, not “alien” cases – and I have repeatedly pointed out in those cases that “aliens” (and especially ETI) cannot be the conclusion.

Then it seems pretty stupid to bring up that extraneous crap in a thread where your stated purpose is to provide evidence that aliens exist. Especially when you've made almost a thousand posts in this thread and haven't once offered any such evidence. I'm sure you agree.

Oh, and about that theory where UFOs were created by gods to get some mentally ill high school kid to mouth off on an Internet forum... got anything to refute that yet? Because it is, after all, the best evidenced theory presented in this thread so far.

 

[Rramjet]

Could you tell us, succinctly, how you distinguish between "UFO," "alien," and "ETI," as you understand and use the terms?

I seem to remember supplying you with an answer to this not so long ago... nevertheless I suppose a clarification will be of benefit.

We have the sighted object categorisation of:

1) Known (ie; natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)

Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:

1) Mundane (natural, prosaic)
1) ET
2) Interdimensional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
3) Jungian consciousness
5) Conscious energy forms
4) add as you think of one...

NOTE: The difference between “alien” and “ET” (or ETI) is that ET can be seen to be merely a subset of the category possible “aliens”. That is, “alien” does not necessarily mean ET.

I define “alien” as something that operates outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural world. If we take our knowledge of natural world (the mundane or prosaic) and we observe that UFOs (for example) defy gravity, or defy the normal laws of powered flight, or otherwise defy or break the normal laws of physics, chemistry, etc., then, by my definition, they become “alien” (but as noted above, this does not necessarily mean ET).

Of course I have an opinion about where the UFO evidence points (vis. ETI) – but I cannot state categorically that ETI IS the cause of UFO activity. Cases where “alien” beings are observed (eg; the Lonnie Zamora and Father Gill cases and abduction cases like Travis Walton) might seem to indicate ETI, but that is merely an assumption. We simply don’t have enough knowledge about what is really occurring in these cases to come to any categorical conclusions about ET. Of course this is precisely why I believe that a greater (more focused and concerted) research effort should be undertaken than has been forthcoming to date.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I define “alien” as something that operates outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural world...

You're simply using it as a euphemism to describe something that you don't understand based on someone else's anecdote of a misperception or hoax?

You aren't using it to mean nonhuman intelligent beings?

 

[Rramjet]

Another note of clarification.

First:
People should note that the title of this thread is: "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence.". It does NOT read "UFOs: evidence for aliens".

Second:
People should also note (as outlined in my post above) that "aliens" does not necessarily mean ET.

Finally:
There has been some nonsense recently about gods being the answer (in other words a Creationist argument). If the proponents of this position had any evidence for such then they should present it. Not only does this hypothesis fly in the face of skeptical thinking, it also falls into the trap of explaining one unknown with another unknown. This merely pushes the fundamental questions we might have about the phenomenon back another level, but it does NOT answer the questions. In fact it leaves the proponents of the "gods" hypothesis in a worse position than before - because not only do they have to explain UFOs, they must explain "gods" as well!

 

[Nonpareil]

First:
People should note that the title of this thread is: "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence.". It does NOT read "UFOs: evidence for aliens".

Second:
People should also note (as outlined in my post above) that "aliens" does not necessarily mean ET.

Finally:
There has been some nonsense recently about gods being the answer (in other words a Creationist argument). If the proponents of this position had any evidence for such then they should present it. Not only does this hypothesis fly in the face of skeptical thinking, it also falls into the trap of explaining one unknown with another unknown. This merely pushes the fundamental questions we might have about the phenomenon back another level, but it does NOT answer the questions. In fact it leaves the proponents of the "gods" hypothesis in a worse position than before - because not only do they have to explain UFOs, they must explain "gods" as well!

 

[RoboTimbo]

First:
People should note that the title of this thread is: "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence.". It does NOT read "UFOs: evidence for aliens".

LOL, from the OP:

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

...fly in the face of skeptical thinking, it also falls into the trap of explaining one unknown with another unknown.

Really big LOL.

 

[Sledge]

Rramjet, what does "the limits of the natural world" MEAN? You keep using this phrase, explain it.

 

[Stray Cat]

Nothing to see here... move along now...

 

[GeeMack]

First:
People should note that the title of this thread is: "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence.". It does NOT read "UFOs: evidence for aliens".

Well given the opening sentence in your opening post reads...

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

Your denial that this thread is about providing evidence for the existence of aliens makes you a liar, doesn't it?

Take note, SnidelyW, there's your buddy lying again. Now you can continue to suck up to him and defend his complete inability to support his claim, but if you say he isn't a liar, that makes your argument a lie, too.

 

[wollery]

And yet another post of mine completely ignored.

You asked me what questions I had that you hadn't answered. I listed them. You ignored them.

I'm beginning to see a pattern emerge.

 

[GeeMack]

And yet another post of mine completely ignored.

You asked me what questions I had that you hadn't answered. I listed them. You ignored them.

I'm beginning to see a pattern emerge.

Just now beginning to see it?

 

[tsig]

First:
People should note that the title of this thread is: "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence.". It does NOT read "UFOs: evidence for aliens".

Second:
People should also note (as outlined in my post above) that "aliens" does not necessarily mean ET.

Finally:
There has been some nonsense recently about gods being the answer (in other words a Creationist argument). If the proponents of this position had any evidence for such then they should present it. Not only does this hypothesis fly in the face of skeptical thinking, it also falls into the trap of explaining one unknown with another unknown. This merely pushes the fundamental questions we might have about the phenomenon back another level, but it does NOT answer the questions. In fact it leaves the proponents of the "gods" hypothesis in a worse position than before - because not only do they have to explain UFOs, they must explain "gods" as well!

Gods are self explanatory.

 

[GeeMack]

Gods are self explanatory.

Plus gods have the luxury of appearing like anything any UFO ever appeared to be and more. Shape shifting, appearing, vanishing, huge, tiny, circular, flat, triangular, colored lights, blinking, glowing, darkened, windows, no windows, silvery, black, standing still hovering, faster than light, whirring, silent, whatever. Hell a god could appear to be a perfectly normal 747 flying over Peoria and nobody would be any the wiser. Gods have it all. And it's up to Rramjet to refute the "UFOs = gods" theory or admit failure.

 

[Cuddles]

I have repeatedly pointed out in those cases that “aliens” (and especially ETI) cannot be the conclusion.

So you admit to being a liar then?

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”. The following set of links provides just that.

 

[Belgian thought]

So you admit to being a liar then?

Cheers Cuddles! - I was looking for a word for the final 'L'

T edious
R epetitive
O bstinate
L acklustre
L iar

 

[Paul2]

So Rramjet, do I have this right? According to you,

ETI = an intelligent being not of this earth
UFO = a flying object that we have not identified
Alien = something beyond what we know about the natural world

 

[Access Denied]

So you admit to being a liar then?

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 33:3:342-349 (2005)
Pathological Lying Revisted
Charles C. Dike, MD, MRCPsych, MPH, Madelon Baranoski, PhD and Ezra E. H. Griffith, MD
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/3/342

"Many articles have variously defined pseudologia fantastica, but a commonly quoted definition is that put forth by Healy and Healy who described it as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, manifesting over a period of years or even a lifetime, in the absence of definite insanity, feeblemindedness or epilepsy" (Ref. 8, p 1)."​

I wonder if nearly 1,000 posts fits the definitive “extensive” manifestation period?

 

[Rramjet]

A liar?

I have tried all along to distinguish between aliens and "aliens". As has been pointedly noted I DID included the statement in my OP that I would provide evidence for "aliens" (including the quotation marks!), however I was also careful to point out that this did NOT mean ET.

I have also consistently denied there is a direct evidential link between UFOs and ET.

I defined "aliens" as closely as I could to try and make the above distinctions clear, but obviously people here have either chosen to ignore the distinctions or they have willfully misinterpreted them (or in some cases just have not understood it!)

I think the confusion arises in the UFO debunkers mind because they are so wedded to the UFO = ET equation that they simply cannot see past it - and thus their resort to the ad hominem "liar".

So be it. I contend that I am doing precisely what I set out to do and calling me a "liar" does not dissuade me from that task.