• 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:
Genuine constructive skeptics are open minded as you say, but I've met none here.
Click to expand...
You know don't what being open-minded is. You want them so open-minded their brains fall out.

ufology said:
The so-called open mindedness here excludes the possibility that an extraordinary experience could be true
Click to expand...
Not in the slightest. Everyone here, I'd wager, would say that extraordinary experiences could be true. They're just not going to accept someone's word for it, though. Everyone here would readily agree, I think, that 18 one-in-a-million occurrences happen in New York City during some given time period (population: 18 million).

ufology said:
and I've been the target of both ridicule and mockery
Click to expand...
Now that's a problem (unless you said things so outlandish that they deserved to be ridiculed and mocked).
 
ufology said:
You're rebuttal on the "extraordinary claims" issue does not address the issue but dodges it completely.
Click to expand...
No, there is a thread for the discussion of extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence, where Rramjet had his handed to him. Go to that thread.

Regarding your "explanations" ... go ahead and refresh my memory. What were they? I don't actually reacall any explanations for what I saw, just assertions that I didn't actually see what I saw or was somehow mistaken ... those aren't explanations. And of course now you are asserting that I embellished my story, which isn't true either.
Click to expand...
carlitos was kind enough to provide a list. I would add radio control plane(s) to that list. Yes, they are explanations. That you refuse to acknowledge that they are valid explanations says everything we need to know about your belief system. I'm glad that you acknowledge that you being mistaken is one of those explanations. Do you see why anecdotes are unfalsifiable and uselss for validating your extraordinary claim?

Your proclaimations are misrepresentations. I've seen no demonstration explaining or outlining these so-called logical fallacies or uncritical thinking. The mockery has also been obvious ... not so much by you but in the graphical representations, and the high horse I'm talking about is the prevalent attitude that the skeptics are smarter than everyone else and are the only ones who seem to "get" the concepts you are talking about.

j.r.
Click to expand...
I made no proclamations. Why do you get so defensive? The mockery is about your hanging onto your illogical fallacies, your denial in the face of undeniable evidence of your fallible memory, and your uncritical thinking. And, the evidence says that you don't "get" the concepts that we're talking about.
 
ufology said:
Edited by Loss Leader: 
Reference to uncivil attack deleted.
Click to expand...
Phew, lucky I put those rounded corners on it... :eek:

ufology said:
Nice flip-flop
Click to expand...
Thanks... still saving up for the other one.

Flip-Flop.jpg



ufology said:
on what evidence would be required.
Click to expand...
You've already been made aware of the Extraordinary Claim Require Extraordinary Evidence thread... there's another zombie thread you could bring back to life.


ufology said:
Genuine constructive skeptics are open minded as you say, but I've met none here.
Click to expand...
The only closed minded people here are the one's who won't consider mundane possibilities. No one is denying your experience, no one is even saying it conclusively wasn't aliens in flying saucers. It's just that the lack of evidence supporting that particular explanation is the elephant in your room.

ufology said:
The so-called open mindedness here excludes the possibility that an extraordinary experience could be true and I've been the target of both ridicule and mockery, justified nonetheless in the name of science and skepticism,
Click to expand...
Again no, you're misunderstanding, no one excluding the possibility it could be true. It's just much more likely to be false.

ufology said:
and the constructive networking I came to this forum to initiate has been torched and satirized.
Click to expand...
networking is a two way street. I think we understand what you were wanting, what was it you were offering in return?

ufology said:
Mind you some of the satire has been pretty creative, and I'm good natured enough to have had a laugh or two myself. Some of Stray Cat's works are fine additions to skeptic culture, but like I said before, it's worn pretty thin where serious discussion is concerned.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's odd how the less likely serious discussion gets, the more inclined some of us will be to entertain ourselves with some satire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stray Cat said:
The only closed minded people here are the one's who won't consider mundane possibilities. No one is denying your experience, no one is even saying it conclusively wasn't aliens in flying saucers. It's just that the lack of evidence supporting that particular explanation is the elephant in your room dragon in your garage
Click to expand...

ftfy

;)
 
carlitos said:
Re-reading my post, and it still seems reasonably coherent to me. Not my best writing, but hey, whatever.

ufology, above you indicate various beliefs. There is a "wider reality." You know "the truth." You "know what you saw" and you know that it's not of this earth (not mundane).

Please explain how your beliefs are different from the beliefs of claimed witnesses to:

  • Ghosts
  • Virgin of Guadalupe
  • Jesus
  • Werewolves
  • Bigfoot
  • Lady of Fatima
  • Chupacabra
Thank you.
Click to expand...


To be clear about my own sighting. The part about it not being "of this Earth" is not something I'm certain of, only that it was alien to human civilization. An extraterrestrial origin seems reasonable given what we know about the Earth, and what other people have reported, but thinking it's reasonable is different than "believing". Believing implies that you know it to be a fact. I didn't see it come from space or a giant mother ship. It came up from behind a mountain across the lake.

Ghosts: I've experienced the phenomena, but I don't know how to explain it. At one time, I was of the "life after death" persuasion. Now I don't accept that at face value. I suppose it might be connected to the alien phenomenon, but that's pure speculation. Because I've experienced ghost phenomena myself, I think it's reasonable to believe other people have had similar experiences that are equally puzzling.

Virgin of Guadalupe: I have no idea about that one. It's a religious thing, my experience was not.

Jesus: Seems to be a composite character base on myth and religion. I proposed before anyone else I'd read about that the shroud of Turin couldn't be genuine because the cloth it was made from didn't exist at the time Jesus was said to have died. Also, my ( our ) expereience was a real event concerning a sphere of light, not a mythological religious figure.

Werewolves: I thought they were pure horror fiction. What I saw wasn't a creature, and wasn't fictional, and couldn't have been imitated by a man in a suit.

Bigfoot: A couple of my friends claimed to have seen one in the same valley I saw the UFO. Strange animals are possible, naturally and from genetic manipulation, and I believe they saw something. But big hairy man-like animals can also be faked. I proposed the Patterson film was fake back in the early 1990s. To me it was just obvious. Again, I don't know how anyone could fake the UFO I saw.

Lady of Fatima: Another religious thing. What I ( we ) saw was a sphere of light, not an angel or religious figure.

Chupacabra: Another strange animal ... again, I suppose strange animals are possible, but getting an object to move like the object we saw is completely different. I don't know how it could happen naturally or with any known technology at the time.

The above explains my personal perspective reagarding how the various other claims are different from the experience I had. If you're asking how they are more or less scientifically provable. I can't provide empirical proof. I can only provide my personal account. I know what I saw, but you can't, which gives you a reason to doubt, which is fair. Personally I doubt other people's stories too until I've satisfied myself that it is reasonable to believe them ... and again ... "reasonable to believe" is not the same as "believing in" as in having some leap of faith. I simply believe it is likely they are telling the truth as they recall.

Does this help?

j.r.
 
Last edited:
ufology, when Xtian people who believe in the existence of the Virgin Mary and Jesus see lights in the sky that they cannot explain by way of an Earthly origin known to them, they ascribe the lights to a manifestation of their supernatural god/goddess. You ascribe your lights to supernatural alien beings.

Earlier in this thread (or maybe another thread that looks very similar :rolleyes: ) about the miracle of the sun at Fatima. Similarly, a light seen by a peasant in Mexico (Virgin of Guadalupe) was the mother of his god? Those people, they know what they saw! This is what carlitos is getting at in his post to you.

Now, can you see how a person's preconceived notions about the world affects their interpretation of unusual events?
 
ufology said:
To be clear about my own sighting. The part about it not being "of this Earth" is not something I'm certain of, only that it was alien to human civilization. An extraterrestrial origin seems reasonable given what we know about the Earth, and what other people have reported, but thinking it's reasonable is different than "believing". Believing implies that you know it to be a fact. I didn't see it come from space or a giant mother ship. It came up from behind a mountain across the lake.
Click to expand...

This is getting pretty annoying. :mad:

People see something and find it clearly not of this plane, fine.
But why do they instantly jump to the "Extraterrestrial" explanation?

Ok, I know that Asgaard is technically not terra, but still there is no reason to get your panties in a twist over seeing Thor out for a joyride in his chariot.

Sure it is otherworldly, divine etc. but it is not like it is actually something mysterious.
So would you be so kind as to cut out the superstitious bs and just learn to line with theological reality.
 
ufology said:
Nice flip-flop on what evidence would be required.
Click to expand...
What flip-flop?

Genuine constructive skeptics are open minded as you say, but I've met none here. The so-called open mindedness here excludes the possibility that an extraordinary experience could be true
Click to expand...
No, it includes the possibility that people can be mistaken and treats anecdotal evidence as an unsafe basis from which to draw firm conclusions. I don't care what you say you saw.
It could have happened exactly the way you said it did.
You could have been mistaken.
You could have been hallucinating.
You could have been having a lucid dream.
You could be lying about the whole thing.
You could be the victim of a hoax.

Without anything more than your word to go on I have no idea which of the above is true.

and I've been the target of both ridicule and mockery, justified nonetheless in the name of science and skepticism, and the constructive networking I came to this forum to initiate has been torched and satirized.
Click to expand...
If you came here with the intent of initiating constructive networking then why are you so loathe to listen to the criticisms of "the other side". Instead of steadfastly ignoring or dismissing all arguments presented by your opponents why don't you admit, at least, that a large proportion of UFO proponents are engaged in pseudoscience. That isn't the same as admitting that ufology is a pseudoscience. All you have to do is say something along the lines of, "I accept that a lot of ufologists are engaged in pseudoscience, but I don't want to do that, and I want to engage the skeptical community and look for ways that we can move forward."

Mind you some of the satire has been pretty creative, and I'm good natured enough to have had a laugh or two myself. Some of Stray Cat's works are fine additions to skeptic culture, but like I said before, it's worn pretty thin where serious discussion is concerned.
Click to expand...
Some serious discussion would be good, but for that you have to actually address the points your opponents make.
 
wollery said:
All you have to do is say something along the lines of, "I accept that a lot of ufologists are engaged in pseudoscience, but I don't want to do that, and I want to engage the skeptical community and look for ways that we can move forward."

Some serious discussion would be good, but for that you have to actually address the points your opponents make.
Click to expand...

ufology, you could gain a lot of respect if you were to do this.
 
wollery said:
All you have to do is say something along the lines of, "I accept that a lot of ufologists are engaged in pseudoscience, but I don't want to do that, and I want to engage the skeptical community and look for ways that we can move forward."
Click to expand...


I don't have to say anything I don't believe to be true. I have stated that I believe that pseudoscience may be taking place in cases that are attempts at scientific investigation, but to say, "a lot of ufologists" ... I have no direct evidence of that in the form of pseudoscientific reports from "a lot of ufologist" to back up that claim.

I have acknowledged one famous case of quackery ( orgone energy ). So I'm not closed to the idea of genuine science or holding pseudoscience up for what it is when it is appropriate and in context.

I also have hundreds of ufology books by ufologists ( someone who engages in ufology as more than a pastime ), but they aren't presented, promoted or dressed up as science and are destined for the mass market ( not scientists ). So my experience as a ufologist is that most ufologists are simply engaging in informal studies that consist of presenting historical cases.

I've asked for opinions on the scientific project done at Hessdalen, but I've received no clear examples with citations outlining the logic in the context of the scientific reports. I've heard the claim that the project jumped to conclusions, but the conclusions are, "We have not found out what this phenomenon is. That could hardly be expected either. But we know that the phenomenon, whatever it is, can be measured." Again here is the link:

http://www.hessdalen.org/reports/hpreport84.shtml

Mind you, I'm not sure I see in the studies where they call themselves ufologists. They are actual scientists studying an anomolous phenomenon that they have determined is real.

My offer to network with fair minded skeptics remains open.

j.r.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
I have acknowledged one famous case of quackery ( orgone energy ). So I'm not closed to the idea of genuine science or holding pseudoscience up for what it is when it is appropriate and in context.
Click to expand...


Orgone energy is not even related to UFOs as far as I know, though with all the crossover that occurs in these pseudosciences, it's not surprising that some UFOlogist would make that connection somewhere along the way.

Orgone energy is a major part of the loopy theories of Wilhelm Reich, more of a pop-psychology thing than a UFOlogy thing.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
More mockery above and failure to address the actual points made.
Click to expand...


Au contraire. No points have been made, just the umpteenth reiteration of your declaration that your pseudoscience doesn't belong on either side of the skeptics vs knowers/believers divide.

The point of the thread ufology, is to make a determination of who's winning the debate between the two camps.



King of the Americas said:
I 'd like this thread to consist of "who's winning" the debate...

The skeptics/debunkers or those who believe/know they saw 'something' that wasn't a man-made and a human piloted craft.
Click to expand...

As long as all you want to do here is pursue your own agenda (which appears to be legitimising ufology as the study of flying saucer stories, or something) you have little justification in complaining about perceived mockery of your position.
 
John Albert said:
Orgone energy is not even related to UFOs as far as I know, though with all the crossover that occurs in these pseudosciences, it's not surprising that some UFOlogist would make that connection somewhere along the way.
Click to expand...


I can see a connection between homeopathy and ufology too, in that the more vapid and evidence-free a flying saucer story is, the more likely it is to be true.

Perhaps that's why ufology refuses to give examples of other pursuits that he considers to be pseudoscience.
 
Akhenaten said:
I can see a connection between homeopathy and ufology too, in that the more vapid and evidence-free a flying saucer story is, the more likely it is to be true.
Click to expand...


Well that's the classic mark of a true believer, isn't it?

Look at most religions. It seems that the most extraordinary dogmas they promote are the very ones that inspire the greatest faith in their followers.


Akhenaten said:
Perhaps that's why ufology refuses to give examples of other pursuits that he considers to be pseudoscience.
Click to expand...


I think he's just reluctant to commit to making any statement whatsoever, because he feels we're all dishonest arguers and will use anything he says to entrap and ridicule him. It also seems to me that such feelings probably result from an unfamiliarity with the disciplines of informal logic and deductive reasoning, leading to a perception of a skewed playing field where we all know the rules and he doesn't.

What all comes down to, I suppose, is a combination of our attitude in response, and his willingness to accept the proper practice of critical analysis.
 
Last edited:
John Albert said:
Orgone energy is not even related to UFOs as far as I know, though with all the crossover that occurs in these pseudosciences, it's not surprising that some UFOlogist would make that connection somewhere along the way.

Orgone energy is a major part of the loopy theories of Wilhelm Reich, more of a pop-psychology thing than a UFOlogy thing.
Click to expand...


Here's the quick quote: "He did research on the source of ufo's energy, and discovered a motor force from orgone energy."

http://www.orgone.org/aaintro00.htm

j.r.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom