• 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:
OK Akhenaten ... You call mockery and ridicule educational? What I've been through here is more like cyber-bullying boot camp. One of these days such tactics are going to offend the wrong person and it won't seem like such a "hoot" then.

j.r.
Click to expand...


In your haste you appear to have overlooked part of my post. To save you some scrolling, here it is again:


Akhenaten said:
The null hypothesis is that UFOs have mundane explanations and if the believers wish to overturn that hypothesis then they'll be needing to produce some evidence.

Got any, ufology?
Click to expand...
 
The Evidence thread has been educational in many ways, at least for me.

Not only have I learned a lot of interesting things about astronomy, ornithology, cognitive psychology, artificial satellites, advertising aircraft, cephalopod trolling, and military surveillance technology (FLIR!), but it's a fascinating object-lesson to illustrate the extraordinary mental contortions a true believer will go through to defend a completely unfounded belief.

I always laugh whenever some creduloid charges that skeptics operate within a boring and restrictive definition of reality, failing to see the bigger picture that comes when you open your mind to their possibilities not known to science. But their viewpoint usually extends only so far their particular brand of woo, and different woos seem to appeal to different personality types. For example, ask a UFOlogist what he thinks of reiki, astrology, or intelligent design, and he'll probably identify those things as fantasy, even while swearing up and down that UFOs are real and they come from beyond the sky. Likewise, ask a religious fundamentalist what they think of UFOs or Bullshido claims, and you'll probably get an answer that they're heretical, sinful lies or else misidentified visitations of angels.

Even the most deluded pseudoscientists are capable of critically examining those woos that they haven't personally subscribed to. So what is it that makes some people prone to believe these things, and is there any way to influence them to think critically about everything, including their own pet beliefs?
 
ufology said:
OK Akhenaten ... You call mockery and ridicule educational? What I've been through here is more like cyber-bullying boot camp. One of these days such tactics are going to offend the wrong person and it won't seem like such a "hoot" then.

j.r.
Click to expand...

The green men will get him if he don't look out?
 
ufology said:
To Bad GeeMack ... but just because it's not directed at anyone in particular, but a whole group of people, doesn't make it OK ... and it definitely doesn't make it "educational".

j.r.
Click to expand...

Am I detecting a flounce coming?
 
ufology said:
One of these days such tactics are going to offend the wrong person and it won't seem like such a "hoot" then.
Click to expand...


You better watch this kind of talk. Statements like that sound uncomfortably close to threats.

Maybe you need to step away from the keyboard for awhile, go out and get some of this nice summer air. Scan the skies for a UFO or something, and come back after you've regained your composure.
 
John Albert said:
You better watch this kind of talk. Statements like that sound uncomfortably close to threats.

Maybe you need to step away from the keyboard for awhile, go out and get some of this nice summer air. Scan the skies for a UFO or something, and come back after you've regained your composure.
Click to expand...


There is no threat in the statement I made at all. I'm an old guy who's been through plenty, but not everyone who comes here is as resilient. Merely seeing it on the forum archive is bad enough, but there are also plenty of younger people who could be considerably hurt by the tactics. Keep it up and someday it will backfire. Take it as friendly advice.

j.r.
 
ufology said:
there is no threat in the statement i made at all. I'm an old guy who's been through plenty, but not everyone who comes here is as resilient. Merely seeing it on the forum archive is bad enough, but there are also plenty of younger people who could be considerably hurt by the tactics. Keep it up and someday it will backfire. Take it as friendly advice.

J.r.
Click to expand...

yanal
;)

53 is old now ??
I will never believe that, no matter what evidence is presented
:p
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
There is no threat in the statement I made at all. I'm an old guy who's been through plenty, but not everyone who comes here is as resilient. Merely seeing it on the forum archive is bad enough, but there are also plenty of younger people who could be considerably hurt by the tactics. Keep it up and someday it will backfire. Take it as friendly advice.
Click to expand...


We're trying to get people to question themselves and their beliefs. When somebody stubbornly refuses to apply reason and won't accept or answer any challenges to their arguments, then what is there to do? Humor is the appropriate response to absurdity.

Ridicule might shame them into responding, or at least influence possible "fence-sitters" not to follow the same thorny path of unreason.
 
Last edited:
Zombie thread! Zombies!

ufology said:
Win ... lose ... how do we decide? There is no way to present meaningful evidence on this forum. It's all just words or pictures on a screen that in and of themselves prove nothing. The skeptics have a particular mindset that short of being taken on a mothership cruise will never convince them that some UFOs are alien craft, and even then they'd probably find a way to doubt it.
Click to expand...
This is what we call a strawman; when you ascribe to others a position they do not hold in order to argue against it. Nobody has suggested that the only thing that will convince a sceptic is a mothership cruise (except you); what will falsify the null hypothesis - that all UFO sightings have mundane explanations - is evidence. Not claims, not anecdotes of half remembered and unprovable sightings fifty years ago, but evidence.
ufology said:
On the other end of the spectrum are the witnesses who know from firsthand experience that some UFOs are alien craft. Because the skeptics refuse to consider anecdotal evidence, the gulf between the believers and the skeptics will remain in place until those mothership cruises I mentioned become readily available. Until then nobody can win this debate.
Click to expand...
They may believe that they have seen alien craft, but they cannot know it unless they have supporting evidence. Knowledge and belief are not the same things and it is important to understand the difference.

ufology said:
Perhaps some progress could be made if some of the more open minded skeptics were to agree to evaluate individual cases to determine how reasonable they are. That is the reason I came to the JREF forum, but to date no such skeptics have come forward to offer any genuine and constructive help in this regard. Rather, my efforts have evoked far more mockery and ridicule than anything else. It's been highly adversarial and a real disappointment.
Click to expand...
There's a whole thread for that, I think it's called UFOs: The Research, the Evidence, you may have noticed it in this very forum. None of the cases posted so far have defied plausible explanations but if you have such a case, go ahead and post it. Anecdotes, which may be hoaxed/confabulated/embellished/misremembered, will not be taken at face value without supporting evidence.
 
Last edited:
Zombie-Thread-Poster.jpg
 
John Albert said:
Even the most deluded pseudoscientists are capable of critically examining those woos that they haven't personally subscribed to. So what is it that makes some people prone to believe these things, and is there any way to influence them to think critically about everything, including their own pet beliefs?
Click to expand...


Well Johnny ... like I said before, for me, it's because not only have I seen an alien UFO, so have a lot of other people. And your presumption that we all can't think critically about our own experiences is prejudicial. You mentioned in your posts that you learned some things about satellites ... did you notice the tether missions I proposed as a possible explaination for Ramjet's ( now MIA ) personal sighting?

I don't believe every UFO report represents an alien craft, nor do I believe a lot of things. In fact, I don't really "believe in" anything, other than what is the most reasonable thing given the evidence at hand, but unlike scientific skeptics, I do consider anecdotal information to be valuable. That doesn't mean I believe every story I hear. It just means that I think there are reports for which a significant amount of valuable information is reasonable to believe. By contrast the scientific skeptic throws this all out, which is fine in the context of scientific skepticism, but as mentioned in previous posts, there is a wider reality beyond what goes on in the laboratory.

j.r.
 
John Albert said:
Even the most deluded pseudoscientists are capable of critically examining those woos that they haven't personally subscribed to. So what is it that makes some people prone to believe these things, and is there any way to influence them to think critically about everything, including their own pet beliefs?
Click to expand...
ufology said:
Well Johnny ... like I said before, for me, it's because not only have I seen an alien UFO, so have a lot of other people. And your presumption that we all can't think critically about our own experiences is prejudicial. You mentioned in your posts that you learned some things about satellites ... did you notice the tether missions I proposed as a possible explaination for Ramjet's ( now MIA ) personal sighting?

I don't believe every UFO report represents an alien craft, nor do I believe a lot of things. In fact, I don't really "believe in" anything, other than what is the most reasonable thing given the evidence at hand, but unlike scientific skeptics, I do consider anecdotal information to be valuable. That doesn't mean I believe every story I hear. It just means that I think there are reports for which a significant amount of valuable information is reasonable to believe. By contrast the scientific skeptic throws this all out, which is fine in the context of scientific skepticism, but as mentioned in previous posts, there is a wider reality beyond what goes on in the laboratory.

j.r.
Click to expand...


Pseudoscientist says what?!?
 
ufology said:
Well Johnny ... like I said before, for me, it's because not only have I seen an alien UFO,
Click to expand...
********. Complete, utter, ********. You have no *********** idea what you are talking about.

ufology said:
so have a lot of other people.
Click to expand...
No.
ufology said:
And your presumption that we all can't think critically
Click to expand...
:dl:


ufology said:
about our own experiences is prejudicial. You mentioned in your posts that you learned some things about satellites ... did you notice the tether missions I proposed as a possible explaination for Ramjet's ( now MIA ) personal sighting?
Click to expand...
OK.

ufology said:
I don't believe every UFO report represents an alien craft, nor do I believe a lot of things. In fact, I don't really "believe in" anything,
Click to expand...
Except for your belief that a reflection of a light that you think you saw 30 years ago while listening to Led Zeppelin II or maybe Houses was a God Damn *********** Alien Piloted Spaceship. Yeah, we're all buying that. LOL.

ufology said:
other than what is the most reasonable thing given the evidence at hand,
Click to expand...
Assuming that "I saw a reflection / cop lights / not sure / satellite / oil rig fire / swamp gas" = OMG Aliens is not the most reasonable thing. Just FYI.

ufology said:
but unlike scientific skeptics, I do consider anecdotal information to be valuable.
Click to expand...
That's because it's not falsifiable, and can therefore be used by pseudoscientists to support their silly theories.

ufology said:
That doesn't mean I believe every story I hear. It just means that I think there are reports for which a significant amount of valuable information
Click to expand...
no.

ufology said:
is reasonable to believe. By contrast the scientific skeptic throws this all out, which is fine in the context of scientific skepticism, but as mentioned in previous posts, there is a wider reality beyond what goes on in the laboratory.

j.r.
Click to expand...
No idea what strawman you are burning here. I'm in my TV room watching sports. Wider reality is all around me. No aliens are present.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
********. Complete, utter, ********. You have no *********** idea what you are talking about.

No.
OK.

Except for your belief that a reflection of a light that you think you saw 30 years ago while listening to Led Zeppelin II or maybe Houses was a God Damn *********** Alien Piloted Spaceship. Yeah, we're all buying that. LOL.

Assuming that "I saw a reflection / cop lights / not sure / satellite / oil rig fire / swamp gas" = OMG Aliens is not the most reasonable thing. Just FYI.

That's because it's not falsifiable, and can therefore be used by pseudoscientists to support their silly theories.

no.


No idea what strawman you are burning here. I'm in my TV room watching sports. Wider reality is all around me. No aliens are present.
Click to expand...


Well the above doesn't seem really coherent ... I'm not really sure there is anything meaningful to comment on. And all those asterisks ... my my. Well let's see ... I'm a knower and a believer and the above poster is what exactly ... mad at me? Why? I dunno ... maybe because he can't convince me I didn't see what I saw. People who know and believe are never going to buy into your "mundane" paradigm. We know the truth. We don't need skeptics or the government or some psychoanalyst to explain to us that we don't really know what we know and didn't see what we saw.

j.r.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom