• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
tomi71 said:
Yes. I could argue this endlessly and you could never prove me anything but stories of dreams. Even the brainwaves are only brainwaves. They don´t prove actual experience of things if one just would decide it to be the case and try to argue that endlessly. Or course that wouldn´t be very constructive.

Or maybe I should demand a photograph or a video of someone´s dream? Nope. Photographs and video´s are hardly an evidence in this CGI time. Maybe that brainwave activity shows some anecdotal evidence though and maybe people telling about dreams are actually telling what they´ve experienced. How come this all sounds so familiar?

Should we just trust the papers with ink on it offered by scientists. I wonder why authority is accepted this way but not when authority has experienced non-mundane UFO-cases that are unexplainable, since many believe they are liars.

Anybody could be a liar. There are scientific hoaxes too. Maybe the dream study is too?

Okay, enough with that. I got bored of trying to debunk dreaming. I wonder why debunking is so popular. What ever the truth is about UFOs it´s more fun to keep an open door to non-mundane possiblity instead of finding the fun in ridicule and attacks.

There are too many replies for just one man, like me vs. dozens of opponents. I guess I can´t answer them all, so sorry for that.
Click to expand...

Why are you so close-minded to the possibility that all the explanations for all the different UFO claims are non-mundane? That's a true believer mindset.

The skeptics are open to the possibility that the answer might be mundane. We just aren't gullible enough to believe it without evidence. The creduloids are the ones who are close-minded and won't admit the possibility that the answers might be mundane in their infinite variety.

I'm so glad I'm not close-minded like that.
 
I glanced through so many pages that I saw many interesting points here and there. I wish I had some time to answer at least some of them in the near future.

And no: I don´t have any real evidence about aliens visiting Earth. There however some cases, which raises eyebrows into a possibility to that direction.

But no evidence though. Only speculation, anecdotes and stories. I still think that these kind of argumentative discussions are important both for ufo-proponents and for those that want 100% evidence before making conclusions.

I am happy with both results after all (UFO´s are ET ships at some cases vs. There is mundane phenomena we don´t yet recognize).

After all the mystery remains. Of course I would want someone to drop the curtain and reveal "the secret" if that someone would really exist.

So far I enjoy reading the debate and being sometimes more a believer and sometimes more a sceptic.

I haven´t made up my mind yet (even though sometimes I do feel, that the only explantion is ET, yet then happens something that denies it, for example more info on a subject etc.)

I guess I want to be a speculative guy with some belief and some scepticism depending on the case.

I couldn´t pick up the strongest UFO case still. Maybe they would crack one by one under a strong scrutiny. Maybe. I don´t know.

Interesting though.
 
I still believe that my sighting of "the perfect full moon without craters (very sharp edges, same kind of a white light as full moon) flying really rapidly from left to right in my window [not a reflection; left an image into my retina. I was sober etc. I am not crazy, as far as I know, another witness seeing it as well] was not ET. Why? I don´t know. It didn´t really seem mundane at all. And I´ve never heard of anybody seeing same kind of a phenomena. I can´t give a mundane explanation to it to this day and this happened 1992. I guess only one thing I can say: We don´t know all mundane explanations (or non-mundane for that matter as well :) )

I wonder if something connects all the jref-members: The will to know and understand reality better.

edit: I thought, I already wrote it that the "object" was very sharp edged. Like full moon in a clear sky. This event was one of events that have opened my eyes to wonder the reality. There are others as well but not concerning "ufo" event. I am not going into them except by few words: OBE, regressive hypnosis, clock stopping with full batteries at the time of a friends death, a strange feeling of having conversation with a just passed away friend, which you don´t know has died yesterday.

Surely are all sceptically explained away, but boy does that open your eyes into wild thinking. You know if you´ve been there. I don´t claim anything though. I have no proof of anything. Not even my dreaming.
 
Last edited:
tomi71 said:
I still believe that my sighting of "the perfect full moon without craters (very sharp edges, same kind of a white light as full moon) flying really rapidly from left to right in my window [not a reflection; left an image into my retina. I was sober etc. I am not crazy, as far as I know, another witness seeing it as well] was not ET. Why? I don´t know. It didn´t really seem mundane at all. And I´ve never heard of anybody seeing same kind of a phenomena. I can´t give a mundane explanation to it to this day and this happened 1992. I guess only one thing I can say: We don´t know all mundane explanations (or non-mundane for that matter as well )
Click to expand...


If that is an attempt to argue that there might be some non-mundane explanation for your experience, it is an argument from ignorance.
 
tomi71 said:
Surely are all sceptically explained away, but boy does that open your eyes into wild thinking. You know if you´ve been there. I don´t claim anything though. I have no proof of anything. Not even my dreaming.
Click to expand...
I thought we already explained that we have proof of your dreaming, proof that is apart from the content of some of your posts
:p
 
GeeMack said:
If that is an attempt to argue that there might be some non-mundane explanation for your experience, it is an argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...

I am only saying, that I don´t know what it was. Mundane or not-mundane. If it was an ET ship then it was. The other one in the room said that she saw it flying into an opposite direction 10 minutes later. I don´t know if she told me truth. Not to this day. If yes, then it must be something even stranger.

This is something that happened to me, but I am only telling my story, not trying to prove anything. I am saying this, because it affected my way of seeing the world and life.

I hope you see something like that some day not to prove you anything, but just to show you, that it´s not something to see everyday. I really don´t care what it was. All I know it is a persistent memory in my head as a proof for me that we can see in the sky something we didn´t know existed (whatever that could be: atmospherical electrical phenomenon, ET-ship or whatever.)

I really don´t care because I have no way of knowing. Call me a liar if you want. I don´t care. I have a gut feeling it was not an ET-ship though. I am sure that there are phenomenons in Earth´s atmosphere we don´t know yet.
 
tomi71 said:
edit: I thought, I already wrote it that the "object" was very sharp edged. Like full moon in a clear sky. This event was one of events that have opened my eyes to wonder the reality. There are others as well but not concerning "ufo" event. I am not going into them except by few words: OBE, regressive hypnosis, clock stopping with full batteries at the time of a friends death, a strange feeling of having conversation with a just passed away friend, which you don´t know has died yesterday.

Surely are all sceptically explained away, but boy does that open your eyes into wild thinking. You know if you´ve been there.
Click to expand...


Religion and Philosophy... over there --->.

I don´t claim anything though.
Click to expand...


Good. If you did you'd be expected to offer some objective evidence to support your claim.

I have no proof of anything. Not even my dreaming.
Click to expand...


Then to accept any particular fanciful explanation over any other would be closed minded, not critical thinking, and non-skeptical.
 
Marduk said:
I thought we already explained that we have proof of your dreaming, proof that is apart from the content of some of your posts
:p
Click to expand...

Yeah. I am sure, that you believe people have dreams. Proven or not. I gave this up easily, since it´s common knowledge but I wonder if someone more hard-boiled sceptic than you here was so easily won by that.

It´s so easily to dismiss anything simply by saying that you dismiss it. Even though you wouldn´t. You could simply be playing with words, playing with minds etc.

Who is the judge in these kind of debates. Majority wants to be, but who gives them the judge´s cape. Science? That´s just a bunch of people, who might have their own beliefs in Allah, God, UFOs, atheism etc.

So speaking of science´s name is also controversial.

Maybe it´s just us in the sandbox.
 
tomi71 said:
Yeah. I am sure, that you believe people have dreams. Proven or not. I gave this up easily, since it´s common knowledge but I wonder if someone more hard-boiled sceptic than you here was so easily won by that.
.
Click to expand...

everyone here is a more hard boiled sceptic than me
I'm a critical thinking theist
;)
 
Last edited:
tomi71 said:
I hope you see something like that some day not to prove you anything, but just to show you, that it´s not something to see everyday. I really don´t care what it was. All I know it is a persistent memory in my head as a proof for me that we can see in the sky something we didn´t know existed (whatever that could be: atmospherical electrical phenomenon, ET-ship or whatever.)
Click to expand...


I've been a semi-professional magician for over 40 years. I've seen many, many things that most people would consider completely unexplainable. Because of my involvement in the art of deception, I've also done a somewhat in-depth study in human perception. To do my job requires understanding what makes people believe they see things that aren't real or are other than what they think they see. I don't recall ever hearing a UFO story that couldn't reasonably and plausibly be explained by something commonly known to exist, common human misunderstanding, or the fallibility of human perception.
 
tomi71 said:
I guess I want to be a speculative guy with some belief and some scepticism depending on the case.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want. Don't confuse it with evidence-based conclusions tho.
 
ufology said:
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? Would you just not bother reporting it because you think it wouldn't make any difference ... surely you wouldn't be that idotic ... or maybe you would ... you're acting like you would when you say if the "only evidence is "anecdotal", then you have nothing to worry about". I would think that if the driver knew you had that info, they would have plenty to worry about.

j.r.
Click to expand...

That's a really poor example. Cars exist. Women with blonde hair exist. License plates exist.

If I described the hit and run was caused by a three-headed, green-skinned Neptunian driving a blue spinning saucer levitating down the street, nobody would take me seriously.

The logical fallacies and strawman arguments in this entire thread are rampant.

So, ufology, why didn't you respond to my suggestion that the light you claim traveled 25km in one second was actually 2 different lights? Isn't that a far more reasonable explanation than some unknown technology that breaks the laws of physics?
 
Pixel42 said:
Exactly. The myth of visiting alien spacecraft is based on real events - observations of satellites/birds/unfamiliar aircraft/reflections/flares/lanterns/insects etc etc which the observer doesn't have the necessary information to identify. Your best similar example was fairies being based on observations of unfamiliar insects.

Catch a fairy in a jar so it can be examined in a laboratory and it moves from myth to reality. If and when objective evidence for visiting aliens is found the same will happen; until then they are no more likely to exist than fairies.
Click to expand...


You forgot to mention that some of the real events are actually "real and not visionary or fictitious, that there were objects in the shape of a disc, metallic in appearance, and as big as man-made aircraft. They were characterized by extreme rates of climb [and] maneuverability, general lack of noise, absence of trail, occasional formation flying, and evasive behavior when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, suggesting a controlled craft." - General Nathan Twining Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force - I think he could tell the difference between the above an fairies.

j.r.
 
Here's the difference, in my mind, between a skeptical mindset and a believer's mindset.

When confronted with some transient phenomenon (lights in the sky, things moving by themselves, etc.) the skeptic does not jump to any conclusions about what it is and can usually dismiss such phenomenon with a little bit of critical thinking: "It's most likely an airplane/the wind/atmospheric condition rather than an alien craft/ghost/psychic phenomenon." You know Occam's razor. This is because a skeptic doesn't hold on to "beliefs." Their world view is evidence-based. A skeptic also knows that his own mind can play tricks on him/her so they take that into account as well. It takes extraordinary evidence to overwhelm the already existing evidence.

When a believer sees something like this -"OMG!!! I JUST SAW A UFO/GHOST/PSYCHIC!!! LET ME TELL EVERYONE!!!" and as the immortal REO Speedwagon said, "And their tales grow taller on down the line." They don't need evidence because they've already leapt to a foregone conclusion and THEY SAW IT FOR THEMSELVES! Their world view is belief-based. They may be otherwise perfectly rational, but when it comes to their area of belief, rationality goes out the window.
 
tomi71 said:
It´s so easily to dismiss anything simply by saying that you dismiss it. Even though you wouldn´t. You could simply be playing with words, playing with minds etc.
Click to expand...

Dismiss? Noone is dismissing anything. Askin for evidence is a reasonable thing if you claim to have seen the moon fly by close to earth. Quite contrary to what you say, sceptics here go to great lengths in researcjing the FACTS around each case. I once spent a whole weekend going through old army sources to see if there might have been some blimp activity in a certain area. On another subforum I showed mathemtically that the plane hitting Pentagon in fact did a standard rate turn rather than going in for a steep dive as the truthers claimed. It's kinda frustrating after a while though when the "other" side of the argument simple repeats "but look at this witness statement. It was an impossibly steep dive!"

tomi71 said:
Who is the judge in these kind of debates.
Click to expand...

There's no judge. Evidence is evidence and I'm seeing none of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom