UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Paul2]

Corbin, a big reason why testimony is unreliable that hasn't been mentioned yet (I think), in addition to the chance that it is just plain mistaken, is that, for our UFO cases, there is no way to replicate the conditions of the testimony so that we can actually check, and not estimate, how reliable the testimony is.

If someone reports about an occurrence that we can't duplicate, there is no way to actually find out if the report is correct or not. Even if multiple witnesses attest to the same thing, they can still all be wrong and there's no way to actually check it. You might guess that more witnesses are more reliable, but how much? There's no way to tell for a specific case that can't be duplicated. It's still a guess. Multiple witnesses attesting to the same story have been wrong plenty of times.

Science is founded on replication. This allows us to prod and poke and challenge a claim to see if it really holds up. If there's no chance of replication, we can't examine it in a fundamental way. That's why a report that is not able to be duplicated is of minimal value, if any at all.

Do you see the difference between conditions that can be replicated and therefore fully examined, and conditions that can't be replicated and we only have guesswork and estimates to rely on in terms of how we examine whether the report of those conditions is correct or not?

Of course, this is even more important if the claim is an extraordinary one, but that's a whole 'nother thread ballgame.

 

[ufology]

It ultimately came down to being presented with the huge discrepancies in your story after exclaiming how infallible your memory was of the event.
Great way to lose the respect of those you're trying to convince eh?

The above quote is pure exaggeration. The discrepancies here on the site are minor and irrellevant to the core data and made in the context of an informal discussion. What I saw, regadless of the name of the album that was playing on the stereo, or whether or not it rose vertically 200 meters or so many feet, the idea was to get across that the thing was an object that could instantly deccellerate and accellerate to and from a dead stop, perform precise maneuvers, and that when it departed it travelled over 25Km in 1 ( one ) second. There is nothing conventional, natural or manmade that I or anyone else I've ever met knows about that explains how an object ( a glowing sphere of light ) could do that.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

The above quote is pure exaggeration. The discrepancies here on the site are minor and irrellevant to the core data and made in the context of an informal discussion. What I saw, regadless of the name of the album that was playing on the stereo, or whether or not it rose vertically 200 meters or so many feet, the idea was to get across that the thing was an object that could instantly deccellerate and accellerate to and from a dead stop, perform precise maneuvers, and that when it departed it travelled over 25Km in 1 ( one ) second. There is nothing conventional, natural or manmade that I or anyone else I've ever met knows about that explains how an object ( a glowing sphere of light ) could do that.

j.r.

Since there's no evidence that it even happened at all, I wouldn't sweat the discrepancies too much.

 

[GeeMack]

The above quote is pure exaggeration. The discrepancies here on the site are minor and irrellevant to the core data and made in the context of an informal discussion. What I saw, regadless of the name of the album that was playing on the stereo, or whether or not it rose vertically 200 meters or so many feet, the idea was to get across that the thing was an object that could instantly deccellerate and accellerate to and from a dead stop, perform precise maneuvers, and that when it departed it travelled over 25Km in 1 ( one ) second. There is nothing conventional, natural or manmade that I or anyone else I've ever met knows about that explains how an object ( a glowing sphere of light ) could do that.

It's an anecdote of an alleged sighting, at best an argument from incredulity, and at worst, a complete fabrication. We have definite proof right in this thread that one alien believer is willing to lie as an argument to back the anecdote of his alleged sighting. Is there any reason to accept anyone else's similar anecdotes as being any more truthful?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above quote is pure exaggeration. The discrepancies here on the site are minor and irrellevant to the core data and made in the context of an informal discussion. What I saw, regadless of the name of the album that was playing on the stereo, or whether or not it rose vertically 200 meters or so many feet, the idea was to get across that the thing was an object that could instantly deccellerate and accellerate to and from a dead stop, perform precise maneuvers, and that when it departed it travelled over 25Km in 1 ( one ) second. There is nothing conventional, natural or manmade that I or anyone else I've ever met knows about that explains how an object ( a glowing sphere of light ) could do that.

j.r.

No, it is nothing of the kind. It exactly illustrates how your memory is fallible. The idea was not to get across some impression of your claim of an alleged sighting, it was to show how fallible memory is about such events, even when you can go back and cross check the details.

Your claim was that your memory was infallible in the details of your claim of an alleged sighting and it was shown that it isn't. You were asked for specific details and those details changed over time. Was it so many feet or 200 meters or 1/3 the height of the mountain?

You've played your part superbly.

 

[ufology]

No, it is nothing of the kind. It exactly illustrates how your memory is fallible. The idea was not to get across some impression of your claim of an alleged sighting, it was to show how fallible memory is about such events, even when you can go back and cross check the details.

Your claim was that your memory was infallible in the details of your claim of an alleged sighting and it was shown that it isn't. You were asked for specific details and those details changed over time. Was it so many feet or 200 meters or 1/3 the height of the mountain?

You've played your part superbly.

I've dealt with the minor discrepancies already ... now you deal with this part ... the part that you keep ignoring ... the part where there aren't any discrepancies:

"What I saw, regadless of the name of the album that was playing on the stereo, or whether or not it rose vertically 200 meters or so many feet, the idea was to get across that the thing was an object that could instantly deccellerate and accellerate to and from a dead stop, perform precise maneuvers, and that when it departed it travelled over 25Km in 1 ( one ) second. There is nothing conventional, natural or manmade that I or anyone else I've ever met knows about that explains how an object ( a glowing sphere of light ) could do that."

j.r.

 

[Resume]

The above quote is pure exaggeration. The discrepancies here on the site are minor and irrellevant to the core data and made in the context of an informal discussion. What I saw, regadless of the name of the album that was playing on the stereo, or whether or not it rose vertically 200 meters or so many feet, the idea was to get across that the thing was an object that could instantly deccellerate and accellerate to and from a dead stop, perform precise maneuvers, and that when it departed it travelled over 25Km in 1 ( one ) second. There is nothing conventional, natural or manmade that I or anyone else I've ever met knows about that explains how an object ( a glowing sphere of light ) could do that.

j.r.

So many anecdotes, so little physical evidence.

 

[ufology]

So many anecdotes, so little physical evidence.

Anecdotes are evidence, not empirical evodence, but still evidence, and in my case, it was firsthand, and therefore not an anecdotal. It's only anecdotal to the reader here who is getting it from a firsthand source.

j.r

 

[Akhenaten]

I've dealt with the minor discrepancies already ... now you deal with this part ... the part that you keep ignoring ... the part where there aren't any discrepancies:

"What I saw, regadless of the name of the album that was playing on the stereo, or whether or not it rose vertically 200 meters or so many feet, the idea was to get across that the thing was an object that could instantly deccellerate and accellerate to and from a dead stop, perform precise maneuvers, and that when it departed it travelled over 25Km in 1 ( one ) second. There is nothing conventional, natural or manmade that I or anyone else I've ever met knows about that explains how an object ( a glowing sphere of light ) could do that."

j.r.

What's to deall with? It didn't happen, simplle as that.

Or have you suddenlly recalllled that you have some evidence that you forgot to tellll us about earllier.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've dealt with the minor discrepancies already ...

You can't deal with the discrepancies. They're there. You memory is fallible. Point proven.

now you deal with this part ... the part that you keep ignoring ... the part where there aren't any discrepancies:

"What I saw, regadless of the name of the album that was playing on the stereo, or whether or not it rose vertically 200 meters or so many feet, the idea was to get across that the thing was an object that could instantly deccellerate and accellerate to and from a dead stop, perform precise maneuvers, and that when it departed it travelled over 25Km in 1 ( one ) second. There is nothing conventional, natural or manmade that I or anyone else I've ever met knows about that explains how an object ( a glowing sphere of light ) could do that."

j.r.

The null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

It doesn't matter what the mundane origin is. I don't need to come up with a explanation. You do. You are claiming that it's something non-mundane. Well show that it is. You have the burden of proof.

Anecdotes are unfalsifiable. It was extermely easy to show how wrong you were with your memory. How do you plan on showing that your anecdote is somehow accurate now? You can't.

What plausible non-mundane expalnation have you thought of?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Anecdotes are evidence, not empirical evodence, but still evidence, and in my case, it was firsthand, and therefore not an anecdotal. It's only anecdotal to the reader here who is getting it from a firsthand source.

j.r

No, your anecdote is a claim for which we have no evidence.

 

[Paul2]

I've dealt with the minor discrepancies already ... now you deal with this part ... the part that you keep ignoring ... the part where there aren't any discrepancies:

[anecdote follows]

You could be mistaken in any number of ways and not know it. Your memory as well as your sight can play tricks on you.

Elizabeth Loftus did an experiment in which she casually introduced elements of a car accident that were not there and witnesses, after hearing thosse elements slyly introduced, adopted them into their stories. When she told them what they did, some of them swore up and down that the non-existent element was truly there.

I'm not saying that happened in your case, it is just an example of how memory can still be fallible even when you're sure it's not.

I can never forget how I *knew* for sure that the White album was the last one the Beatles recorded, and when I saw evidence to the contrary I could not believe it.

The problem is, how do we know if that's happened or not in your case? By whether you say even more loudly that what you remember is what happened? That move is already proven wrong.

ETA: You could be remembering correctly, or not. We have no way of knowing, and in particular, your protests that you are remembering correctly don't help at all. That's why reports and anecdotes are so difficult to use.

 

[Akhenaten]

Anecdotes are evidence, not empirical evodence, but still evidence, and in my case, it was firsthand, and therefore not an anecdotal. It's only anecdotal to the reader here who is getting it from a firsthand source.

j.r

What your little flying saucer story is, ufology, is an extraordinary claim. Regardless of how you attempt to redefine 'anecdotes' they'll never amount to the extraordinary evidence you'll require to support it.

 

[ufology]

What's to deall with? It didn't happen, simplle as that.

Or have you suddenlly recalllled that you have some evidence that you forgot to tellll us about earllier.

OK ... now we're getting someplace. Except that it did happen ... and the skeptic above can only deal with it by rejection of the data.

It would be fair enough to say, "In my personal opinion I simply don't believe the story". I would have no problem with that. People can choose to deny the experiences of other people all they want. But after a while it becomes obvious that continued disbelief in the existence of the UFO phenomena is unreasonable. Even other skeptics here acknowledge that UFOs are real.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

OK ... now we're getting someplace. Except that it did happen ... and the skeptic above can only deal with it by rejection of the data.

You should find out if an individual self-identifies as a skeptic first.

It would be fair enough to say, "In my personal opinion I simply don't believe the story". I would have no problem with that. People can choose to deny the experiences of other people all they want.

j.r.

No, it would be fair enough to say, "I have no way of falsifying your anecdote so I won't be using it as evidence for your claim. Do you have evidence for your claim?" I may also say, "Cool story, bro."

 

[Akhenaten]

OK ... now we're getting someplace. Except that it did happen ... and the skeptic above can only deal with it by rejection of the data.

You don't have any data to reject.

It would be fair enough to say, "In my personal opinion I simply don't believe the story".

It's fair to say "Didn't happen" because that's where the evidence leads.

I would have no problem with that. People can choose to deny the experiences of other people all they want.

And the people with the flying saucer stories can like it or lump it. You want to be believed? Produce some evidence.

But after a while it becomes obvious that continued disbelief in the existence of the UFO phenomena is unreasonable. Even other skeptics here acknowledge that UFOs are real.

j.r.

I think you'll find that all skeptics acknowledge that UFOs are real.

The phenomena of certain people pretending that UFOs are ETs/aliens is real.

The big problem for the believers is that the longed-for flying saucers and the fantasized ET/aliens aren't at all real.

 

[Akhenaten]

You should find out if an individual self-identifies as a skeptic first.

Thanks. I keep forgetting to address that particular incorrect assumption that he's leapt to.

I'll get it next time it comes around.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Thanks. I keep forgetting to address that particular incorrect assumption that he's leapt to.

I'll get it next time it comes around.

He probably remembered you calling yourself a skeptic.

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[Resume]

Anecdotes are evidence, not empirical evodence, but still evidence, and in my case, it was firsthand, and therefore not an anecdotal. It's only anecdotal to the reader here who is getting it from a firsthand source.

j.r

Physical evidence. Got any?