UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Access Denied]

…the thing what I ____ I saw 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.

Fixed. Now pick one to fill in the blank...

1. what I ____ I saw

a. claim (without evidence)
b. thought (for some unknown reason)
c. believe (without reason)

[this is a test of your intellectual honesty]

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..

That should tell you something, specifically that you’re undoubtedly wrong. Why?

[summarizing all the arguments that have already been made here]

1. Misperceptions (e.g. optical illusions), delusions, fabrications, and confabulations are conventional, natural and manmade and can’t be ruled out without evidence to the contrary.

2. The reported characteristics violate the laws of physics* that apply to the putative “object” and there’s no rational reason to believe they’re capable of being broken by anyone, anytime, anywhere.

* Several general properties of physical laws have been identified (see Davies (1992) and Feynman (1965) as noted, although each of the characterizations are not necessarily original to them). Physical laws are:

• True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
• Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies, 1992:82)
• Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
• Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
• Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below),
• Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
• Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman, 1965:59)
• Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time. (Feynman)
• Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)

More informally, what makes you believe alien spaceships would even appear that way? Why wouldn't they behave more or less like our own transatmospheric vehicles? Thinking even further outside of the box you’re trapped in, if they actually were capable of breaking the laws of physics, why not (pun intended) a flying cube?

 

[tomi71]

Some thought about the discussion here etc.

It´s interesting how the sceptics movement have taken the status as to make the rules in conversation about UFOs. They say that they don´t have to prove anything even if they make a claim. For instance when the claim is that all UFOs have a mundane explanation and anectodal evidence indicates that this is not the case (like in many many cases presented here (and more)). Why the null hypothesis should be "all UFO cases have mundane explanation" as the science "thinks" that life (and probably even intelligent life) is very probable in the vast universe.

That´s not a fair balance in discussion. I am sure many would think it unfair even if scientific. I am not sure about how science would benefit for that kind of thinking though. If science in history would have thought so close-minded, we would have never gone to space because the loud debunking society would have ridiculed even the idea of a space travel (and actually they first did many decades until more open minded scientists proved them wrong.)

The null hypothesis can´t stand in the light of huge weight of anecdotal evidence (or UFO-raports, reliable eyewitness testimony, multiple sightings of an object behaving like "nothing of this Earth."

Maybe it however is a the good point to get forward but if many (MANY!) cases seem to indicate otherwise why couldn´t it be challenged?

The reality at least seems to challenge sceptics community all the time.

In the historical perspective these kind of null hypothesis have again and again proven wrong. For certainly there has been a period when null hypothesis was that earth is flat or that human can never fly or that carriage can´t move without a horse etc.

I wonder how easily some people can dismiss so much evidence being anecdotal or not as being just rubbish, since there are strong cases too even though they can be only hear-say. I think that an example of some of those stronger cases are the cases where pilot(s) have seen something maneuvering near their plane (sometimes almost hitting them) and there are taped conversations about these incidents with ground control plus radar confirming it. In some of these kind of cases there are also eyewitnesses on the ground also confirming that there really was something (=UFO, not ET necessarily, but an object that took maneuvers impossible to man-made-machines. Could be atmospherical phenomena even though there is at least an illusion of a intelligent sort of flying maneuvers. I think that this could be an illusionary thought though about the intelligence.)

I am not even speaking about ET´s here but mundanity of object(s). I am sure that some electrical atmospherical phenomena (possibly unknown yet) could explain some phenomena for example yet I wonder why it seems that even before anybody would try to solve this phenomena they are stuck in the ET-hypothesis and ridicule. Thus not seeing the forest for the trees.

I am sure that many scientist would honestly admit that all UFO cases can´t be explained by mundane standards and yet they would also say that it´s not an evidence about ET. I wonder why the sceptics don´t even accept that. Certainly they´ve shown that they have no explanation and have tried to make it a rule that they never have to prove anything. All they have to do is repeat the same mantra over and over again neglecting all the raports about UFOs, all the anecdotal evidence or even the evidence, which has more reliability on it (like government raports about UFOs, pilot´s taped recordings and conversations with ground control about UFO-phenomena they are experiencing or UFO cases which have caused physical trauma to a person who´s experienced it: radioactive burns for example (or maybe you think they´ve caused it purposedly in order to create a hoax. Actually it should be more plausible, since you think that everything is more plausible than non-mundanity UFO)

 

[Marduk]

Some thought about the discussion here etc.

It´s interesting how the sceptics movement have taken the status as to make the rules in conversation about UFOs. They say that they don´t have to prove anything even if they make a claim. For instance when the claim is that all UFOs have a mundane explanation and anectodal evidence indicates that this is not the case (like in many many cases presented here (and more)). Why the null hypothesis should be "all UFO cases have mundane explanation" as the science "thinks" that life (and probably even intelligent life) is very probable in the vast universe.

That´s not a fair balance in discussion. I am sure many would think it unfair even if scientific. I am not sure about how science would benefit for that kind of thinking though. If science in history would have thought so close-minded, we would have never gone to space because the loud debunking society would have ridiculed even the idea of a space travel (and actually they first did many decades until more open minded scientists proved them wrong.)

The null hypothesis can´t stand in the light of huge weight of anecdotal evidence (or UFO-raports, reliable eyewitness testimony, multiple sightings of an object behaving like "nothing of this Earth."

Maybe it however is a the good point to get forward but if many (MANY!) cases seem to indicate otherwise why couldn´t it be challenged?

The reality at least seems to challenge sceptics community all the time.

In the historical perspective these kind of null hypothesis have again and again proven wrong. For certainly there has been a period when null hypothesis was that earth is flat or that human can never fly or that carriage can´t move without a horse etc.

I wonder how easily some people can dismiss so much evidence being anecdotal or not as being just rubbish, since there are strong cases too even though they can be only hear-say. I think that an example of some of those stronger cases are the cases where pilot(s) have seen something maneuvering near their plane (sometimes almost hitting them) and there are taped conversations about these incidents with ground control plus radar confirming it. In some of these kind of cases there are also eyewitnesses on the ground also confirming that there really was something (=UFO, not ET necessarily, but an object that took maneuvers impossible to man-made-machines. Could be atmospherical phenomena even though there is at least an illusion of a intelligent sort of flying maneuvers. I think that this could be an illusionary thought though about the intelligence.)

I am not even speaking about ET´s here but mundanity of object(s). I am sure that some electrical atmospherical phenomena (possibly unknown yet) could explain some phenomena for example yet I wonder why it seems that even before anybody would try to solve this phenomena they are stuck in the ET-hypothesis and ridicule. Thus not seeing the forest for the trees.

I am sure that many scientist would honestly admit that all UFO cases can´t be explained by mundane standards and yet they would also say that it´s not an evidence about ET. I wonder why the sceptics don´t even accept that. Certainly they´ve shown that they have no explanation and have tried to make it a rule that they never have to prove anything. All they have to do is repeat the same mantra over and over again neglecting all the raports about UFOs, all the anecdotal evidence or even the evidence, which has more reliability on it (like government raports about UFOs, pilot´s taped recordings and conversations with ground control about UFO-phenomena they are experiencing or UFO cases which have caused physical trauma to a person who´s experienced it: radioactive burns for example (or maybe you think they´ve caused it purposedly in order to create a hoax. Actually it should be more plausible, since you think that everything is more plausible than non-mundanity UFO)

awesome, so off you go, please list the strong cases (preferably not the ones that have been shown to be credulous already).

Perhaps you can start with verified radiation burns ?

 

[ufology]

do you know what a straw man is ?

so the police take that evidence and they look for corroborating data, the car would be dented, the listed driver would have no alibi, that evidence is what the conviction would be based on.

your actual equivalent would be that they find the driver has a solid alibi, the car isn't damaged and the man is convicted anyway, that would be exactly like the ufology that you propose, all talk and no trousers

you can't think for a minute that perhaps, the car was stolen by a blonde haired woman completely invalidates your information can you


without corroboration anecdotal evidence is not good enough to prove anything
get that through your head will you, your inability or unwillingness to accept simple facts is making you seem unhinged and won't change anyones opinion in the real world
and, I have to say, reading your posts with their mind numbingly repeated fallacies, special pleading, pseudoscience and dishonest tactics is getting tedious

So you still think your anecdotal eyewitness report of a hit and run as was described by my example wouldn't be of significant value?

And there is no "strawman" going on here ... you brought up the issue of eyewitness evidence with respect to the law. My example is exactly that.

j.r.

 

[tomi71]

There are a lot of discussion when you google: ufo radiation burns. At least there seems to be anecdotes about them. When I read about them many years ago I thought that it´s kind of an physical evidence about the radioactivity around UFO phenomena (not still ET). Of course I can´t remember the cases any more. But if you are really interested maybe you can help yourself. I am sure that whichever case I would brought to the table you could easily dismiss it, since I have a gut feeling you´ve already decided to.

 

[Marduk]

So you still think your anecdotal eyewitness report of a hit and run as was described by my example wouldn't be of significant value?

And there is no "strawman" going on here ... you brought up the issue of eyewitness evidence with respect to the law. My example is exactly that.

j.r.

your example just shows
1. that you know nothing about criminal prosecution
2. you know nothing about evidence gathering
3. that you create straw men to support yourself
4. that you consistently have issues dealing with reality

laughable really but there you go

 

[Jocce]

OK ... let's imagine a crime then ... let's say a hit and run, and let's say you saw it happen and describe the car anecdotally as a blue Honda with the Kansas license plate KIG 435, driven by a middle aged woman with blonde hair. Are you seriosly going to say that your evidence won't be taken seriously by the police or the court?

The police would then check if there is a car with that license plate, if it actually is a blue Honda, where it was at the time of the crime, who was driving it, if that was a middle aged woman with blonde hair...etc. If those claims by the witness can be verified by FACTS, the police have a case.

 

[Marduk]

There are a lot of discussion when you google: ufo radiation burns. At least there seems to be anecdotes about them. When I read about them many years ago I thought that it´s kind of an physical evidence about the radioactivity around UFO phenomena (not still ET). Of course I can´t remember the cases any more. But if you are really interested maybe you can help yourself. I am sure that whichever case I would brought to the table you could easily dismiss it, since I have a gut feeling you´ve already decided to.

right so basically youre all talk
I guess this is because you googled "ufo radiation burns" and found out its unsupportable, youre not for instance going to say "Ellesworth AFB" are you

If something was as credible as you claimed, it would not be able to be dismissed, wether or not I had decided anything

also, basing your "belief" on something you read years ago is hearsay, which is worse than anecdotal, well done for bringing this discussion to a new low

 

[tomi71]

Anecdotal evidence is very useful in criminal investigation like eye-witness testimony (sometimes however used very badly), asking questions about the incident.

Of course it´s not 100% correct all the time, but sometimes it is.

Maybe in anecdotal cases about UFO´s the testimonies are sometimes correct too.

Or are you really saying that they are always wrong. That is a huge claim, which of course you don´t have to prove, because you have decided the rules.

 

[tomi71]

right so basically youre all talk
I guess this is because you googled "ufo radiation burns" and found out its unsupportable, youre not for instance going to say "Ellesworth AFB" are you

If something was as credible as you claimed, it would not be able to be dismissed, wether or not I had decided anything

also, basing your "belief" on something you read years ago is hearsay, which is worse than anecdotal, well done for bringing this discussion to a new low

Yes, I am all talk here. Nothing more. Just like you.

 

[Access Denied]

The null hypothesis can´t stand in the light of huge weight of anecdotal evidence (or UFO-raports, reliable eyewitness testimony, multiple sightings of an object behaving like "nothing of this Earth."

The true enigma of Project BLUE BOOK in a nutshell: Can 701 people out of how many billions on the planet be wrong?

Hmm…

THE UFO CURSE (on UFOlogists)

"No matter how long you live, you will never know any more about UFOs than you know today. You will never know any more about what UFOs really are, or where they come from. You will never know any more about what the U.S. Government really knows about UFOs than you know today. As you lie on your own death-bed you will be as mystified about UFOs as you are today. And you will remember this curse."

-PJK​

 

[Marduk]

Yes, I am all talk here. Nothing more. Just like you.

uhuh, I am not the one here claiming that radiation burns have been reported in UFO cases
you are
care to support it or not ?
that was the whole point of your diatribe wasn't it, that there is credible evidence
yet when asked to show it we get, nothing, nada, zilch
thats a pretty pathetic argument you got there


oh look, Stray Cat,

Hi Tomi71 - Welcome to the forum.

Are you next going to demonstrate a lack of understanding about Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence too?

I wonder if anybody would believe in such an evidence. Probably not.

If it was extraordinarily compelling enough to outweigh the evidence to it's contrary, yes, I'm sure people would HAVE to believe it... Got any?

Nope.

so since then, when you admitted you haven't got any evidence, you changed your mind

so wheres the evidence Tomi
put up or shut up

 

[ufology]

The police would then check if there is a car with that license plate, if it actually is a blue Honda, where it was at the time of the crime, who was driving it, if that was a middle aged woman with blonde hair...etc. If those claims by the witness can be verified by FACTS, the police have a case.

So are you saying that the eyewitness testimony is valuable or not then? Does it mean that if the police can't verify the eyewitness testimony, it never happened?

j.r.

 

[tomi71]

I am more like discussing here in a friendly manner. Not trying to proof you anything. I am sure if you needed proof you could obtain it yourself. You can always bring the mundanity card into the table if you want to make a claim instead of just leaning back and waiting for other people do your job.

 

[Marduk]

I am more like discussing here in a friendly manner. Not trying to proof you anything. I am sure if you needed proof you could obtain it yourself. You can always bring the mundanity card into the table if you want to make a claim instead of just leaning back and waiting for other people do your job.

you made these claims

The null hypothesis can´t stand in the light of huge weight of anecdotal evidence (or UFO-raports, reliable eyewitness testimony, multiple sightings of an object behaving like "nothing of this Earth."


I think that an example of some of those stronger cases are the cases where pilot(s) have seen something maneuvering near their plane (sometimes almost hitting them) and there are taped conversations about these incidents with ground control plus radar confirming it. In some of these kind of cases there are also eyewitnesses on the ground also confirming that there really was something (=UFO, not ET necessarily, but an object that took maneuvers impossible to man-made-machines.


(like government raports about UFOs, pilot´s taped recordings and conversations with ground control about UFO-phenomena they are experiencing or UFO cases which have caused physical trauma to a person who´s experienced it: radioactive burns for example

now support them, I've asked you to do this several times and every time you have been evasive, how is being evasive friendly ?

 

[ufology]

I am more like discussing here in a friendly manner. Not trying to proof you anything. I am sure if you needed proof you could obtain it yourself. You can always bring the mundanity card into the table if you want to make a claim instead of just leaning back and waiting for other people do your job.

Hey there Tomi ... thanks for your input there.

I suppose radiation burns could qualify as empirical evidence that is measurable, but then again all they prove is radiation exposure, not that a UFO had anything to do with it. We still need that mothershp cruise agency to prove it to this crowd.

BTW: It's nice to see someone else take a less adversarial approach here.


j.r.

 

[Marduk]

Hey there Tomi ... thanks for your input there.

I suppose radiation burns could qualify as empirical evidence that is measurable, but then again all they prove is radiation exposure, not that a UFO had anything to do with it. We still need that mothershp cruise agency to prove it to this crowd.

BTW: It's nice to see someone else take a less adversarial approach here.


j.r.

ok, great, now we're getting somewhere
please show evidence of radiation exposure ?

 

[Jocce]

It´s interesting how the sceptics movement have taken the status as to make the rules in conversation about UFOs. They say that they don´t have to prove anything even if they make a claim.

Anyone claiming to have THE explanation for a UFO report must provide evidence for it.

For instance when the claim is that all UFOs have a mundane explanation and anectodal evidence indicates that this is not the case (like in many many cases presented here (and more)). Why the null hypothesis should be "all UFO cases have mundane explanation" as the science "thinks" that life (and probably even intelligent life) is very probable in the vast universe.

1. Because it's a hypothesis that can easily be disproven.
2. Anecdotal evidence is crap, they are claims.
3. A high probability of life in the universe does not equal a high probability that they fly around on earth.

That´s not a fair balance in discussion. I am sure many would think it unfair even if scientific.

It's not unfair. Everyone who claims to have a definate explanation for a case, weather it's blimp, illusion, satellite or aliens has the burden of proof. Ufologists here seem to insist that some cases defy mundane explanations and people here are suggesting plausible (but not proven) mundane explanations that they sems to (dis)miss for unknown reasons.

I am not sure about how science would benefit for that kind of thinking though. If science in history would have thought so close-minded, we would have never gone to space because the loud debunking society would have ridiculed even the idea of a space travel (and actually they first did many decades until more open minded scientists proved them wrong.)

The difference being that those scientists were able to present verifiable evidence that they were right.

The null hypothesis can´t stand in the light of huge weight of anecdotal evidence (or UFO-raports, reliable eyewitness testimony, multiple sightings of an object behaving like "nothing of this Earth."

Anecdotes are claims, not evidence. If lots of anecdotes was evidence that UFO's are "alien" then ghosts, faith healing, homeopathy, santa clause, gremlins, devils and magic powers would be true also. (Hint: they are not)

Maybe it however is a the good point to get forward but if many (MANY!) cases seem to indicate otherwise why couldn´t it be challenged?

Every case falls apart when examined critically. You got nothing.

The reality at least seems to challenge sceptics community all the time.

What?

In the historical perspective these kind of null hypothesis have again and again proven wrong. For certainly there has been a period when null hypothesis was that earth is flat or that human can never fly or that carriage can´t move without a horse etc.

Yes, that's the point of formulating a null hypothes. To be disproven is it's only function so you're basically arguing that the evidence shows that a null hypothesis is a reliable scientific tool.

I wonder how easily some people can dismiss so much evidence being anecdotal or not as being just rubbish, since there are strong cases too even though they can be only hear-say.

Only the gullible accept claims without evidence.

I think that an example of some of those stronger cases are the cases where pilot(s) have seen something maneuvering near their plane (sometimes almost hitting them) and there are taped conversations about these incidents with ground control plus radar confirming it.

Ah, you mean like oil well fires? Haven't you followed the discussion in this thread?

In some of these kind of cases there are also eyewitnesses on the ground also confirming that there really was something (=UFO, not ET necessarily, but an object that took maneuvers impossible to man-made-machines.

Eywitnesses does not describe objective characteristics. they retell their subjective experience and relate how the "object" appeared to behave and look. Not the same thing.

Could be atmospherical phenomena even though there is at least an illusion of a intelligent sort of flying maneuvers.

Yes, could be atmospherical phenomena and a whole range of other things. I'm glad you see that.

I am not even speaking about ET´s here but mundanity of object(s). I am sure that some electrical atmospherical phenomena (possibly unknown yet) could explain some phenomena for example yet I wonder why it seems that even before anybody would try to solve this phenomena they are stuck in the ET-hypothesis and ridicule. Thus not seeing the forest for the trees.

Only Rramjet is talking about ET's.

I am sure that many scientist would honestly admit that all UFO cases can´t be explained by mundane standards and yet they would also say that it´s not an evidence about ET.

Most scientists would happily agree that some cases can't be explained. That doesn't make those"alien". It's just that there is not enough reliable data to arrive at a reliable indentification.

I wonder why the sceptics don´t even accept that. Certainly they´ve shown that they have no explanation and have tried to make it a rule that they never have to prove anything.

If I claim the UFO is a weather baloon, it would be up to me to provide evidence for that claim.

If I claim the UFO is "alien", it would be up to me to provide evidence for that claim.

If I claim the UFO defies mundane explanation, it would be up to me to provide evidence for that claim. In this case the claimant has set himself up to prove a negative and it's perfectly legitimate to point out possible mundane explanations that he/she has missed.

All they have to do is repeat the same mantra over and over again neglecting all the raports about UFOs, all the anecdotal evidence

Anecdotal evidence=claim
Claims without evidence can be summarily dismissed.

the evidence, which has more reliability on it (like government raports about UFOs, pilot´s taped recordings and conversations with ground control about UFO-phenomena they are experiencing or UFO cases which have caused physical trauma to a person who´s experienced it: radioactive burns for example (or maybe you think they´ve caused it purposedly in order to create a hoax. Actually it should be more plausible, since you think that everything is more plausible than non-mundanity UFO)

Claims, claims and claims again. Anecdotes are not evidence.

 

[Jocce]

There are a lot of discussion when you google: ufo radiation burns. At least there seems to be anecdotes about them. When I read about them many years ago I thought that it´s kind of an physical evidence about the radioactivity around UFO phenomena (not still ET). Of course I can´t remember the cases any more. But if you are really interested maybe you can help yourself. I am sure that whichever case I would brought to the table you could easily dismiss it, since I have a gut feeling you´ve already decided to.

I have a gut feeling that you would present only claims (anecdotes) without evidence.

 

[tomi71]

If we all hadn´t dreams and if it wasn´t widely accepted phenomena and basic knowledge. Lot´s of if´s, okay but here is my point:

How could we ever prove it? How could anybody prove that he saw something while unconscious?

A little thought game. If only one man in Earth could dream (see dreams) how could he get other people to believe what he says. Even though it would be true (in this thought game, we know it to be true since we are making now the rules for that thought game). It would be only stories, anecdotal storis, even after EEG diagrams many would still doubt how can "Henry the dreamer", see things and even more peculiarly: even experience things while still only in his comfort bed eyes closed.

And even if there were thousands of people like Henry the dreamer, many would doubt it, since there could be no way of proving the dreaming.

What I am trying to say here is that sometimes things can occur (and be in existence) even without 100% way of showing the evidence.

It´s okay to doubt. I am not saying that it isn´t. It´s okay to doubt also that we know everything already or that science is always right or that everybody experiencing "wild things" is hoaxer, crazy, seeing something else he/she is telling etc.

You must admit that there can´t be so many stories, anecdotes etc. about UFO-phenomena if there isn´t something non-mundane behind it.

If not, where is the mundane explanations? Oh yes, you invented your rules of not needing to tell. How convenient is that! You could still try of course just for the sports of it. Just to end the topic and claim your victory. Why not? There shouldn´t be need of these kind of discussions, since you have the answers. If however you don´t have the answers I wonder why many of you behave arrogantly as if having it.

Where is the intelligent speculation from sceptics community´s side. Lot´s of nasty humour here though. That kind of creativity could serve better somewhere else.