• 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.
ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...


You forgot to mention that what people believe they've seen isn't necessarily what they actually saw. You forgot to mention that sometimes their descriptions are wildly different from reality. And you forgot to mention that being an officer in the US Air Force doesn't preclude the possibility of being insane, being a UFOlien believer himself, being wrong, or even being misquoted or dishonestly quoted out of context. But I guess when one is vigilant in their belief, leaving out a few pieces and parts of the critical thinking process is to be expected.
 
GregInAustin said:
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?
Click to expand...


There is no strawman ... in fact the above post is the actual strawman, because we are only dealing with the context of the value of eywitness information, not a mockery of the topic so as to make the point appear meaningless. The fact is that eyewitness information has value.

j.r.
 
ufology said:
There is no strawman ... in fact the above post is the actual strawman, because we are only dealing with the context of the value of eywitness information, not a mockery of the topic so as to make the point appear meaningless. The fact is that eyewitness information has value.

j.r.
Click to expand...

If you're trying to sneak anecdotes into the Research or Evidence part of this woeful thread, you must remember:

The null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​
Anecdotes are worthless (meaning they have no value) for falsifying the null hypothesis because anecdotes are themselves unfalsifiable. Unless you're a pseudoscientist engaged in pseudoscience.

That's what has been happening with this entire thread of No Evidence for UFOs (being PseudoAliens). If you have any evidence, we'll be happy to look at it.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...


Oh goodness, the General Twining memo, which is so selectively misrepresented by UFOlogists everywhere. Twining had only reports and very few, if any, facts when his group wrote this memo. Additionally, you ignored/left out some specific quotes:

There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors...

and

h. Due consideration must be given the following:-

(1) The possibility that these objects are of domestic origin - the product of some high security project not known to AC/AS-2 or this Command.

(2) The lack of physical evidence in the shape of crash recovered exhibits which would undeniably prove the existence of these subjects.

(3) The possibility that some foreign nation has a form of propulsion possibly nuclear, which is outside of our domestic knowledge.

This memo was written after the first sightings occurred in 1947 based on what was reported. There were no real formal investigations of the incidents. Some were looked at by local AF but it was cursory at best.

All Twining was describing was what was reported and requested that a group be formed to investigate this. Twining was not going to get "Pearl Harbored" and he wanted to make sure these flying saucers, whatever they turned out to be, were not ignored (like all the indicators before December 7th). A study might be important for the defense of the US. As a result of this memo, Project SIGN was born (eventually to become Grudge and then Bluebook). Trying to make it appear that Twining had "inside information" and was hinting at "the truth" about the saucers is wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...

Argument from authority.

I think I'm just going to name off the logical fallacy as they are used here. Or better yet, just link to the list of the top 20:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

:cool:
 
ufology said:
There is no strawman ... in fact the above post is the actual strawman, because we are only dealing with the context of the value of eywitness information, not a mockery of the topic so as to make the point appear meaningless. The fact is that eyewitness information has value.

j.r.
Click to expand...

But an eyewitness account that says a giant purple monster with 10 legs and sharp teeth caused an vehicular accident has no value. Can you truly not see this? Or would you have the police put out an APB for such a monster?

This is the same thing as an eyewitness account claiming to see an alien spacecraft. It has no value because it goes against everything we scientifically know to be true. Is it within the realm of possibility? Sure, I'll grant you that much. But it's so far outside the realm of probability, given what we know about physics, the reliability of witnesses and human perception, etc. as to be virtually impossible. To demonstrate that it is, indeed, an alien craft, we need much more evidence than your story.
 
GregInAustin said:
Argument from authority.

I think I'm just going to name off the logical fallacy as they are used here. Or better yet, just link to the list of the top 20:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

:cool:
Click to expand...


Well an argument from authority is better than an argument from no authority ... which is what the skeptics here consistently offer. Simply stating "agument from authority" doesn't negate its value without evidence showing how it does ... so show us how the USAF Chief of Staff couldn't tell the difference between fairies and and a structured metallic flying object of unknown origin.

j.r.
 
xjx388 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am sure that this depends on "how difficult the phenomenon is to put into a normal standards". This black and white thinking isn´t solving anything. I might sometimes consider myself into a believer (of anecdotal evidence that support ET-hypothesis) but still when I did see that flying "moon" I have not yet jump into any conclusions of ET, which I think many of even you might have done even though you consider yourself rational, sceptical minds.

I bet that no one can predict how one feels, when really seeing something totally unorthrodox and strange.

I hope you do.
 
ufology said:
Well an argument from authority is better than an argument from no authority ... which is what the skeptics here consistently offer. Simply stating "agument from authority" doesn't negate its value without evidence showing how it does ... so show us how the USAF Chief of Staff couldn't tell the difference between fairies and and a structured metallic flying object of unknown origin.

j.r.
Click to expand...

A pity you didn't read Astrophotographer's post.
 
ufology said:
Well an argument from authority is better than an argument from no authority ... which is what the skeptics here consistently offer. Simply stating "agument from authority" doesn't negate its value without evidence showing how it does ... so show us how the USAF Chief of Staff couldn't tell the difference between fairies and and a structured metallic flying object of unknown origin.

j.r.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that the USAF Chief of Staff actually witnessed one of these "structured metallic flying objects?"

And your defense of "argument from authority" is awesome. We should just stop using logic because you say so. LOL.
 
ufology said:
Well an argument from authority is better than an argument from no authority ... which is what the skeptics here consistently offer. Simply stating "agument from authority" doesn't negate its value without evidence showing how it does ... so show us how the USAF Chief of Staff couldn't tell the difference between fairies and and a structured metallic flying object of unknown origin.
Click to expand...


It has been suggested that you aren't even reading the considered and well composed replies people are making in this thread. Your posting above is more evidence to support that notion. Astrophotographer made a clear, articulate post just above, Post #10505, where he made specific, documented points that do indeed negate the value of your purported support... with evidence. The vigorous and persistent dishonesty and ignorance in your arguments is a glaring testament to the ridiculously flimsy position the alien believers desperately cling to.
 
tomi71 said:
Alien believers. Why to use such words? You believe the whole universe is without life?
Click to expand...

There is as yet no evidence that life exists on other worlds. We may feel safe to assume that it must, but so far, we can't say it does.
 
tomi71 said:
Alien believers. Why to use such words? You believe the whole universe is without life?
Click to expand...


I use such words because ufology and those who participate in the pseudoscience of "ufology" believe UFOs are alien craft visiting Earth. From ufology's alien believers club, the USI pseudoscience web site...

Our aim is to illuminate the truth by presenting accurate, objective, and verifiable information that can be enjoyed by all our visitors. To achieve this goal, content from multiple sources is distilled into concise articles for a general audience. This methodology greatly contributes to accuracy and economy because cross checking facts and eliminating redundant data are a natural part of the distillation process.

[...]

USI recognizes the physical existence of UFOs as outlined in the official USAF definition and concurs with the Estimate Of The Situation reached by Project Sign to the extent that some UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin. Most importantly, USI stands with all those people who honestly know from the evidence of their own conscious and unimpaired senses, that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom