UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rramjet said:
This "sighting reports evolve over time" objection to UFO reports is spurious.

When someone relates a report (especially in such a forum such as this) they leave out certain details - perhaps as irrelevent to the point - or perhaps simply not remembered at the time of writing. On further questioning, those details get "fleshed out" and thus the report "evolves".

The REAL objection in this regard would be if the report contained major inconsistancies over time. That is something related at the begginning was inconsitent with what is being told now. Are there any such? (and I don't mean nitpicking minor or irrelevant detail...)
Click to expand...


What I'm talking about, Rramjet, is this:

ufology said:
I haven't had the site itself since 1989. 1989 is when I started USI. I had the sighting in 1974. I've only made mention of the sighting in the past on the site, but the smaller details asked for here have not been included. I think they are good questions and that it wouldn't hurt to update my description with some of them. After all they are being asked by skeptics so it could make a good example of the way skeptics probe for explanations.
Click to expand...

In other words, a record that's more than 20 years old of events that are supposed to have happened nearly 40 years ago is going to be updated as a result of a discussion that started last week.

Naturally you won't see any possibility of errors creeping into the report when it 'evolves' in this way but I think that other, less credulous readers might.
 
ufology said:
In the haste and informal setting of the discussion forum, I quoted the wrong name for the album the songs we were listening to were on, and made a bad on the fly metric conversion or typo or something that created a discrepancy my vertical height estimate. I had no explanation for the lack of a sonic boom and was reluctatnt to speculate. But was asked to speculate anyway, and was of course attacked out of context for that.

The reason the story has evolved here on the thread is because ( as was mentioned several times now ), I was asked specific questions and plastering the whole sighting down as a response would not have been appropriate. I still stand by and defer to the info on my website. With some of the new Google Earth tools I may be able to provide even more detail, but of course then I'll be accused of "changing my story".
Click to expand...


This is your own story, about something that you allege personally happened to you, yet you can't keep the details straight.

Am I correct in assuming you are now willing to concede that anecdotal evidence is unreliable for purposes of determining anything specific about objective reality?
 
John Albert said:
This is your own story, about something that you allege personally happened to you, yet you can't keep the details straight.

Am I correct in assuming you are now willing to concede that anecdotal evidence is unreliable for purposes of determining anything specific about objective reality?
Click to expand...


Everything has a margin of error, including science, and science has made plenty of mistakes, so it's not perfect. Therefore I conceed that science, although a valuable tool when done correctly isn't always perfect.

I do not conceed that anecdotal evidence cannot be used to determine anything specific. To do so would be prejudicial and demonstrate bias.

As for being so certain about what constitutes "reality", science has no "objective" proof of "reality". Ultimately everything we believe to be true is filtered through our brain and turned into astract bio-neural representations of whatever existence itself actually is, and even that process isn't fully understood.

j.r.
 
ufology said:
As for being so certain about what constitutes "reality", science has no "objective" proof of "reality". Ultimately everything we believe to be true is filtered through our brain and turned into astract bio-neural representations of whatever existence itself actually is, and even that process isn't fully understood.

j.r.
Click to expand...


This is from a bloke trying to claim that he's not involved in pseudoscience?
 
Akhenaten said:
This is from a bloke trying to claim that he's not involved in pseudoscience?
Click to expand...


If you think I'm wrong show us where science has proven the nature of the reality, and the proof of how we are conscious of it.

j.r.
 
Sounds like it's about time for you to lay off that joint for awhile. Maybe have a little orange juice and then go dunk your face in a sink full of ice water.
 
ufology said:
...show us where science has proven the nature of the reality, and the proof of how we are conscious of it.
Click to expand...


"Proving the nature of reality" is the entirety of what science is about.

"Trying to pass fantasy off as facts" is what pseudoscience is about.
 
Akhenaten said:
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't believe in UFOs - yet they have not "gone away"...

And no amount of wishful thinking on your part is going to make the possiblity of ET go away either.
 
Rramjet said:
Akhenaten said:
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Click to expand...


Clearly you don't believe in UFOs - yet they have not "gone away"...
Click to expand...


I've seen dozens of UFOs, if not hundreds, and I expect to see many more. What's belief got to do with it?


Rramjet said:
And no amount of wishful thinking on your part is going to make the possiblity of ET go away either.
Click to expand...


I'd say the possibility of ETs existing is quite high.
 
Turgor said:
What I meant was that I am not able to do the field equations to see if there is any situation where only a single object gets accelerated, and not everything near it too. Which inside the atmosphere would instead of silencing a sonic boom, cause a lot of extra noise. As well as strong gales etc. But thanks for the highschool physics refresher.
Click to expand...

:D

Ufology has wildly underestimated his audience since arriving at JREF. He has had this pointed out to him previously, but it seems it didn't sink in.

If I'd had a physics teacher at high school who had used that sort of word salad garbage in lessons I would not have even scraped my exams.
 
Rramjet said:
And frankly Jocce, that you would even make such attempts at falsifying the official records leaves us wondering whether we can trust anything you might have to say.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that what you wanted to say was that it makes YOU wonder if you can trust anything I might have to say. I've presented sources that show blimp activity in the area during the relevant time period and I'm not going to repeat myself. I also don't care the least if you trust me or not. What is clear is that you ignore any evidence that goes against your religious belief in "alien" ships flying around on earth.
 
Rramjet said:
...Other readers will realise that the draftsman (for irrefutably that is what he was) drew two sophisticated representations of the object, including as much detail about the object as he could, in order that the viewer might understand what the object looked like and how it moved. Your sketches on outline do nothing to represent the object to the viewers – indeed it positively misrepresents the observed object – containing a flat top and bottom and having the vertical edge of the “fin” sloping the wrong way. Your drawings are a misrepresentation – in other words yet another attempt to obfuscate the evidence in the case.
Click to expand...
I suggest you reread my post. The AIR report with the diagrram is the statement by the NON-draftsman Deahy.
We know what you were doing – attempting once again to obfuscate the evidence.
Click to expand...
Pot.Kettle.Black.
That statement is a lie. The AFOSI report lists his occupation as a draftsman.

Then of course Ehocking points out

So there was a typo in Dr Maccabee’s report and Mr B should have been Mr D in that instance. Who cares – The AFOSI report lists his occupation as a draftsman.
Click to expand...
No it does not.

If you actually READ my post and the AIR reports I link to, you will see that the statement with the diagram is Deahy's - who was not a draftsman.
 
Rramjet said:
This "sighting reports evolve over time" objection to UFO reports is spurious.

When someone relates a report (especially in such a forum such as this) they leave out certain details - perhaps as irrelevent to the point - or perhaps simply not remembered at the time of writing. On further questioning, those details get "fleshed out" and thus the report "evolves".

The REAL objection in this regard would be if the report contained major inconsistancies over time. That is something related at the begginning was inconsitent with what is being told now. Are there any such? (and I don't mean nitpicking minor or irrelevant detail...)
Click to expand...
Yes. Many. And ufology has been ignoring the posts I made listing them.
 
Jocce said:
I'm sure that what you wanted to say was that it makes YOU wonder if you can trust anything I might have to say.
Click to expand...


He's been asked numerous times who's included in this mysterious group known as 'we' but so far he's kept the secret to himself.

My guess is it's just an acronym for 'waffle experts'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom