• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree completely

You seem to forget: "We know what it was not." and that is the concept UFO denialists seem to forget all the time. Example n:o 1. A zoologist walks in a forest and sees a new species. He then reports it. Let´s say the zoologist is a very good scientist in his genre and he knows all the species that live in forest. He can certainly tell that the species he saw was NOT a bear. It was not a lion. It was not a snake etc.

Then he draws the conclusion that the species was NOT something he (or biology in general) knew. The species was unknown yes, but he still can tell what the species was NOT.

See the difference between different kind of unknowns.

Another example: The forest is very dark and he only hears a sound of something. This time he can´t say whether it was a lion, a bear etc. This time the species is truly unknown because he can´t identify any of it´s characteristics. He can´t even be sure if it was a species at all or something else: maybe it was a noise from a nearby town etc. This apply to many UFO cases but there are UFO cases which resemble example n:o 1 where there are good characteristics to analyze and say: Yes it was unknown object, but only in a sense that we need a new category because we know what it was NOT (an aeroplane, Venus-planet etc.)

There really is a difference between unknowns. If you accept this, then you must accept that some UFO´s really don´t fit into any known category thus being not mundane.

If you do not accept this study then it´s a whole different story.
 
You seem to forget: "We know what it was not." and that is the concept UFO denialists seem to forget all the time. Example n:o 1. A zoologist walks in a forest and sees a new species. He then reports it. Let´s say the zoologist is a very good scientist in his genre and he knows all the species that live in forest. He can certainly tell that the species he saw was NOT a bear. It was not a lion. It was not a snake etc.

Then he draws the conclusion that the species was NOT something he (or biology in general) knew. The species was unknown yes, but he still can tell what the species was NOT.

See the difference between different kind of unknowns.
How well does it work when someone describes a brief glimpse they got of a flash of movement they saw in the forest and described it to the zoologist? Or took a blurry picture of a brown blob shape?

Another example: The forest is very dark and he only hears a sound of something. This time he can´t say whether it was a lion, a bear etc. This time the species is truly unknown because he can´t identify any of it´s characteristics. He can´t even be sure if it was a species at all or something else: maybe it was a noise from a nearby town etc. This apply to many UFO cases but there are UFO cases which resemble example n:o 1 where there are good characteristics to analyze and say: Yes it was unknown object, but only in a sense that we need a new category because we know what it was NOT (an aeroplane, Venus-planet etc.)
In this case, the zoologist will claim that it is a new species until someone else can prove to the zoologist's satisfaction that it isn't, if it follows the trend of the UFOlogists in this thread (this is known as shifting the burden of proof). I don't believe that real scientists do this, only UFOlogist scientists.

There really is a difference between unknowns. If you accept this, then you must accept that some UFO´s really don´t fit into any known category thus being not mundane.
Yes, there can be differences between unknowns. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise, however. You are falling for the Rramjet defense: If you can't think of a solution, it must be "aliens", by which we find out that he really did mean ET all along.

If you do not accept this study then it´s a whole different story.
If you posted a link to a study, I must have missed it.
 
As for the "unexplained UFOs must equal aliens" discussion in this thread and the complete lack of evidence supporting that position (keeping in mind that the proponents' arguments from incredulity and ignorance are not evidence), your comment seems only tangentially related. And considering it further, it actually contradicts the basic claim of this thread, which is that some UFOs defy mundane explanation (to the incredulous) and are therefore alien craft.

Maybe you'd like to start a new thread outlining your conjecture. You'd be expected to describe the not-tangible evidence you have that any sort of psi effect exists in reality. And explore the reasons you believe something might exist even while there is, as you've admitted, no tangible evidence of its existence.

I havn't actually read the whole thread because I havn't got the time - it's probably the size of a small book! I just thought I'd jump in the fray coz it looked fun.

I think the patterns (I like that word don't I?) are tangible, especially when my own experiences seem to be in accord with them.
 
I agree with Ramjet, I don't think they're extra-terrestial.
Then you DON'T agree with Rramjet:

He stated:
"At least ET fits with the available evidence"​

Despite his earlier protests that he doesn't believe UFOs are ET piloted craft, he really does, as he finally admitted.

I think the patterns (I like that word don't I?) are tangible, especially when my own experiences seem to be in accord with them.
Can you demonstrate where we can also see these tangible patterns?
 
I havn't actually read the whole thread because I havn't got the time - it's probably the size of a small book! I just thought I'd jump in the fray coz it looked fun.

I think the patterns (I like that word don't I?) are tangible, especially when my own experiences seem to be in accord with them.


But your claim has nothing to do with space aliens and the OP's still unsupported claim that research and evidence would support the existence of those aliens. He believes, based on nothing more than a large body (of more precisely, a small body very often repeated) of arguments from incredulity and ignorance, that if a mundane explanation for a UFO has not been provided, one which he personally accepts, then the explanation is the UFO is alien craft.

Your claim is that UFOs are some kind of psi effect. That's off topic for this thread. So I repeat...

Maybe you'd like to start a new thread outlining your conjecture. You'd be expected to describe the not-tangible evidence you have that any sort of psi effect exists in reality. And explore the reasons you believe something might exist even while there is, as you've admitted, no tangible evidence of its existence.​
 
I’m sure a good book would do so better than I ever could. I just had a look at my bookshelf but I’ve gotten rid of my UFO books. One that, if I recall rightly, discussed very articulately commonalities between reported experiences and the subsequent emergence of distinct patterns, and the implications of this, was the Abduction book by John Mack.
 
Just share your experience with us!

OK. I’m interested in your critique:

When I was very young, I think probably about 4 or 5 years old, I had a dream. I won’t go into the details of it apart from the points pertinent to this discussion:

1) It involved a gathering of children, very conveniently on a stretch of grass right outside my family home. The children were watching;

2)Huge spaceships floating overhead, covered in multi-coloured lights that shone brighter than bright – the light seemed to have a qualitative difference to normal light, which is hard to explain. Anyway, I guess my main point here is the giant spaceships covered with lots of bright lights. I think there were two or three such spaceships – there was definitely more than one. They drifted slowly towards the gathering until they were straight above us.

3)An exhilarating, profound feeling of this being “more-real-than real”. At least, that’s the best way I can describe it, although it’s hardly adequate. My understanding is that a lot of abduction and UFO experiences are accompanied by similar profound feelings of heightened reality (?). I put a question mark in there because surely it’s impossible to compare subjective feelings directly. I’m sorry if it’s corny to include a feeling in this list, but it was really this aspect that sets it well apart from any other dream or experience I’ve ever had, and led to the dream having an immediate and profound impact on my life and thinking. I probably wouldn’t have remembered it at all otherwise.

I’ve never considered it anything more than a dream, but I think it would be unwise of me to disregard the striking parallels of these elements to many abduction and UFO accounts, especially as they happened all in the one dream. For me at least if adds credibility to those reports.

I’ve also had a couple of experiences I consider paranormal but don’t have anything to do with UFOs. Someone’s suggested I start another thread about psi phenomena, and I might do so as I’m keen to discuss them, but right now I havn’t got the time. It’s time to stop procrastinating and do all the things I need to do this weekend.
 
I’ve never considered it anything more than a dream, but I think it would be unwise of me to disregard the striking parallels of these elements to many abduction and UFO accounts, especially as they happened all in the one dream. For me at least if adds credibility to those reports.
Why doesn't it add credibility to the idea that some people imagine the same things, rather than those things being real?

The crucial difference is that, with dreams and accounts, there's no way to properly verify that the things represented are real in and of themselves (beyond the reality of the *experience* of those things in a dream, or beyond merely the interpretation of an experience as a real abduction, etc).
 
Why doesn't it add credibility to the idea that some people imagine the same things, rather than those things being real?

I think it does that too, especially with these things having the media and internet exposure they do now.

What occurs to me is that it’s extremely unusual content for a dream for me to have had as a small child. Never mind anyone else! This was the late 70s in the UK, well away from any major city where there might have been even a smidgeon of culture, sophistication, or healthy curiosity about anything (watch British sitcoms from the 70s and you’ll have a good idea of what I mean – and they tend to be set in big cities).

If the ideas came from a media source I could have shared with someone else, I don’t know what that source was. The only thing I can think of would be that it might have been around the time of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, which featured spaceships covered in lights, but there are reasons why I think that’s unlikely, including that I don’t think I’d have had any exposure to it. I was very excited by the Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica movies, but the spaceships in those were completely different (which – hmmmm – is an interesting pattern – why are UFO reports usually ofsimple, smooth, almost low-tech looking craft, rather than the hi-tech, complex designs, that usually feature in science fiction. What an interesting pattern which I believe is on topic for this thread – I’ll immediately post that in another panel – however I digress), and those spaceships had very little in common with the dream.

One possibility is that it was some sort of psychologically symbolic dream shared by lots of other people. I think that’s possible, but the idea of latent-and-very-specific archetypal spaceships seems to raise a lot of questions in itself for any good skeptic. It occurs to me that the symbolism in dreams is in the narratives rather than the objects and characters, which are idiosyncratic and only have symbolic value in the context of what they mean to the dreamer. It seems strange enough that my mind would have thought of such spaceships at all, and a remarkable coincidence that they have so much in common with UFO reports, including and especially that intense feeling of exhileration. I can remember a couple of other childhood dreams because they featured weird and memorable things, and in each of those cases I can relate the imagery to aspects of my life at the time, whereas with the UFO dream I can’t.

Sorry for my ramble of an answer and long paragraphs (I’m enjoying this). I hope it makes sense. In summary, I certainly do think that other people could/would/can/do imagine the same things, but where these things are specific and don’t seem to share a common source or reason a pattern worthy of study emerges.


The crucial difference is that, with dreams and accounts, there's no way to properly verify that the things represented are real in and of themselves (beyond the reality of the *experience* of those things in a dream, or beyond merely the interpretation of an experience as a real abduction, etc).


There might be ways to find out if other people think they experienced anything similar in the same place at the same time. I’ve been like the police and withheld a couple of juicy details in case I ever want to follow it up. I should say I’d be utterly astonished if anyone did!
 
Then you DON'T agree with Rramjet:

He stated:
"At least ET fits with the available evidence"​

Despite his earlier protests that he doesn't believe UFOs are ET piloted craft, he really does, as he finally admitted.


Can you demonstrate where we can also see these tangible patterns?

I’ve thought of one pattern with UFOs. Correct me if I’m wrong, but UFO reports usually describe smooth, sleek, symmetrical and almost low-tech looking objects, rather than the very irregular, graceless, muscular, and high-tech designs that sci-fi movie spaceships tend towards.
 
I believe in UFOs. I think the patterns are there in the plurality of anecdotes. I've had one very odd and very vivid experience that was consistent with certain elements in a lot of abduction stories. I won't go into it here, but it's my own anecdote to add to that plurality and pattern. I agree with Ramjet, I don't think they're extra-terrestial. I think they're some sort of psi effect. And if they are a psi phenomena, I think the closest you could get to tangible evidence would be a pattern.

I'll try again. Do you have any evidence of the existence of this 'psi'?
 
I’ve thought of one pattern with UFOs. Correct me if I’m wrong, but UFO reports usually describe smooth, sleek, symmetrical and almost low-tech looking objects, rather than the very irregular, graceless, muscular, and high-tech designs that sci-fi movie spaceships tend towards.

Reported sightings run the gamut, from blimp shaped objects to oil rigs. I can't detect any pattern. Can you demonstrate the pattern that you are seeing?
 
I believe in UFOs. I think the patterns are there in the plurality of anecdotes. I've had one very odd and very vivid experience that was consistent with certain elements in a lot of abduction stories. I won't go into it here, but it's my own anecdote to add to that plurality and pattern. I agree with Ramjet, I don't think they're extra-terrestial. I think they're some sort of psi effect. And if they are a psi phenomena, I think the closest you could get to tangible evidence would be a pattern.


You've made a handful of replies now, and it seems you're completely ignoring the issue you brought up here about UFOs being "some sort of psi effect". Can you start a thread to explain why you believe that, and provide some objective evidence to support the idea? Some objective evidence that "some sort of psi effect" even exists might be a good place to start.
 
I’ve thought of one pattern with UFOs. Correct me if I’m wrong, but UFO reports usually describe smooth, sleek, symmetrical and almost low-tech looking objects, rather than the very irregular, graceless, muscular, and high-tech designs that sci-fi movie spaceships tend towards.

Actually , no. IIRC the history of sighting match parallel the film which were shown at the time. There was a nice web page showing left picture of film, and when they were shown, and right the picture of UFO abductee and showing that actually they evolved parallel. And at some point there were also reporting of non-sleek UFO.
 
Reported sightings run the gamut, from blimp shaped objects to oil rigs. I can't detect any pattern. Can you demonstrate the pattern that you are seeing?

Hi RoboTimbo

I don’t recall any oil rigs or Millenium Falcons from when I was reading lots of UFO books, but I stand to be corrected on this.

I did a bit of googling and tried to post a link that I thought was good about patterns within UFO sightings, but I’m not allowed to post anything here until I’ve made 15 posts. Anyway, on that page it says;

‘Most UFOs are symmetrical objects, typically with smooth and featureless surface ("no seams, no rivets, no weld marks")’

I think that’s pretty much the specific point I was trying to make in my previous post.

I’ll post the link up when I can.
 
Actually , no. IIRC the history of sighting match parallel the film which were shown at the time. There was a nice web page showing left picture of film, and when they were shown, and right the picture of UFO abductee and showing that actually they evolved parallel. And at some point there were also reporting of non-sleek UFO.

I’d love to see it! My basic understanding is that UFO descriptions have changed over time, roughly in accordance with what people might expect UFOs or high-tech machines to look like, which I’m sure would be very influenced by movies and suchlike. I think before UFOs, people used to report seeing fairies and goblins and things like that.

I might be completely wrong about this but: I seem to recall reading somewhere (and it might have been a very dodgy website or even dodgier book) that until the 30s (??? – or thereabouts, that’s my guess) sightings of fairies were reported quite often. As UFO reports increased in number, so the fairy sightings decreased in proportion, until there were almost none. Poor fairies!

Daffydd – do you see where I’m heading with this?
 
It is quite difficult to find the web page , I am still searching but in the mean time ehre is from a british report :

The British Ministry of Defense released 4,000 pages of documents detailing hundreds of UFO sightings between 1981 and 1996. A summary of the documents by UFO expert David Clarke comes as no surprise to scientists and skeptics: many of the sightings coincide with the release of popular sci-fi movies or television shows.

http://www.universetoday.com/37713/report-ufo-sightings-coincide-with-popular-sci-fi-films-tv/

http://www.sillybeliefs.com/aliens.html#heading-1m

scoll to "Examples of cultural tracking"

Let's start with one of the most common images relating to aliens — the flying saucer. This term was coined in the US in June, 1947 following a UFO sighting by Kenneth Arnold. Within weeks thousands of people were reporting their own sightings of flying saucer shaped craft. This term was invented by a newspaper reporter and appeared to describe the disk shape of the craft, even though UFO Arnold Arnold claimed the objects he saw were actually shaped like boomerangs. Arnold merely said their flight pattern resembled a flat stone or saucer skipping across a lake. People then claimed to see saucer shaped craft because the newspaper told them this is what alien craft would look like. Their descriptions were matching the false newspaper report and not Arnold's actual sighting. No more boomerang craft were ever sighted, just saucer shaped ones.

Prior to 1947 alien craft weren't saucer shaped, or boomerang shaped either. One of the first waves of 'UFO' sightings occurred in the US in 1896-97. Tens of thousands of witnesses reported seeing dirigible-shaped craft, or what we now call airships. Most were propeller driven and had gondolas hanging beneath them. (SNIP)While many of these UFOs or airships were believed to have been built by humans inventors, some were seen as extraterrestrial, and more often than not these human-like aliens seemed to have come from Mars. Of course we now know that airships and propellers could never work in the vacuum of outer space and that human-like aliens couldn't live on Mars but Average Joe Citizen didn't know that then. It seemed perfectly reasonable to them.

So were they really abducted? No. It's been shown that many of the abduction details provided by Betty match those found in the 1953 movie Invaders from Mars, which Betty had seen. Likewise Barney's description under hypnosis of the new aliens matched the new aliens shown 12 days previously on the sci-fi TV series The Outer Limits, which again they had both watched. Also Betty claiming to have had a pregnancy test is particularly strange since she had already had a hysterectomy. Surely advanced aliens skilled in genetics and human reproduction would know that a woman without a uterus can't be pregnant? Was this imagined test her mind expressing regret at the loss of her fertility?

I dunno how much can quote before breaking forum rules but the web page is interresting especially for all the cultural reference comaptred to the sighting and abduction...
 
Hi RoboTimbo

I don’t recall any oil rigs or Millenium Falcons from when I was reading lots of UFO books, but I stand to be corrected on this.

I did a bit of googling and tried to post a link that I thought was good about patterns within UFO sightings, but I’m not allowed to post anything here until I’ve made 15 posts. Anyway, on that page it says;

‘Most UFOs are symmetrical objects, typically with smooth and featureless surface ("no seams, no rivets, no weld marks")’

I think that’s pretty much the specific point I was trying to make in my previous post.

I’ll post the link up when I can.

Hiya, LordofTruth! And if I neglected to welcome you earlier, welcome!

The oil rig was a reference to the sighting at Campeche, which has been such a thorn in the side of UFOlogists because it has to do with trained military observers misperceiving something which was also picked up on their FLIR system. There was a congruence of credible observers and independent verification from an objective system in a military setting. At least one UFOlogist would never acknowledge the implications of that because he didn't want to understand the implications.

The blimp reference was to Rogue River. Another seemingly credible sighting with multiple eye-witnesses who described a blimp pretty well. When it was presented as one of Rramjet's iron-clad cases here, some of the less credulous minded did some actual research and found that blimps were stationed in proximity to the area. The more credulous minded would never acknowledge that a blimp was the likely explanation.

Not sure what your Millenium Falcon reference is to. This thread has been more about the psychology of UFOlogists and believers than anything else. I find it to be a fascinating glimple into the thought processes that cause someone to, basically, fool themselves to support a belief system like that.

Hurry up and get those 15 posts under your belt so you can start posting links!
 
Betty´s description was different in hypnosis than what she remembers seeing in her dreams. The hypnosis description of aliens was nothing like in the tv-show. This is a common misunderstanding that pops up over and over again. I recommend to read with google books about the book captured! that describes the event. Debunker claim about the similarities only occur when Betty described her dream but as said: the aliens in hypnosis were different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom