UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

That air force general that you cited wrote a CYA memo based on second and third-hand information. So you are full of crap in claiming that the "intelligent, well-informed" general knew a thing based on his "unimpaired senses." That's dishonest. But you know that. Liar.

Aw c'mon ... no need to get all nasty above there. In the military there is a chain of command. These reports come up through that chain of command, as the same reports they started out as when the pilots chasing the objects landed and wrote them. There is nothing dishonest about it.

j.r.

 

[carlitos]

Lies:

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.

You implied that the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force saw these UFOs. You implied that he could "tell the difference." You lied. Sorry, calling you a liar is not "nasty" at all. Liar.

 

[ufology]

Lies:
You implied that the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force saw these UFOs. You implied that he could "tell the difference." You lied. Sorry, calling you a liar is not "nasty" at all. Liar.

The above is a misrepresentation ... I said ( to paraphrase ) that I think the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force could tell the difference between what he considered to be real metallic objects shaped like flying saucers, and fairies ... and the context had been that it was implied that there is no more reason to believe in fairies than UFOs. Who is this poster above ... the attack dog for the nasties whose job it is to go around taking the opponent's posts out of context and twisting them into a character assasination? Someone kindly put him back in his cage.

j.r.

 

[Pixel42]

So I said the pilots must have seen something ... and the comeback for that was that I'm wrong

No, the comeback was that you're right. It's only when you claim that it's possible to identify what they saw, let alone identify it as some form as alien craft, that you're wrong. No-one knows exactly what it was they saw, including them, but there's a high probability that it was something mundane.

I said ( to paraphrase ) that I think the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force could tell the difference between what he considered to be real metallic objects shaped like flying saucers, and fairies

Again, no-one is saying you're wrong about that. But as he's (as far as the evidence presented here has established) never seen either, this fact is irrelevant.

 

[Agatha]

But Twining didn't see things with his "own unimpaired senses", he relied on the anecdotal reports of other people. How good his "own unimpaired senses" are is not at issue, because he didn't see/hear/smell/touch/taste/etc any of these apparent objects for himself.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

But the Chief of Staff must know that his pilots wouldn't chase after wrong radar signals, try to shoot down venus or did mistake a reflection inside their plane as an object they couldn't intercept. His psychic abilities would allow him to rule out any errors and mistakes. Or do you say he wasn't present at the UFI sighting means he had only reports to get an opinion. No, that's impossible! The Force would tell him if his pilots were mistaken (he had to be a grand jedi to get appointed as Chief of Staff).

 

[23_Tauri]

So the skeptics are still harping on how high ranking military commanders in the Air Force can't tell the difference between oil flares,

Actually, they were officials working for the Mexican government, not members of the Air Force, but hey ho, don't let the facts get in your way, eh ufology?

lightning bugs and large metallic disks with a domes on top. They also keep harping about needing hypotheses and how those hypotheses need to be falsifiable. Sorry but this isn't the evidence thread, it's knowers and believers vs the skeptics.

Stop doing this. Discussion is discussion. Just because you're standing in a different room of the JREF doesn't mean other members are going to leave their principles at the door.

When intelligent well informed people know from the evidence of their own unimpaired senses, that they have had an extraordinary experience ...

Ok, do you understand the difference between the cues in the environment that are picked up by your ears, eyes, nose, etc., and how your brain interprets those signals? The former are simply the result of your neurons firing, the latter is a story. Science focuses on the former, anecdote is the latter.

all the skeptical rhetoric in the universe designed to convince them otherwise is meaningless. The fact about this world is that weird unexplainable things do happen and some people expereince them.

It's not rhetoric, it's adherence to the need for verifiable evidence to back up claims. No one here is saying you didn't see lights in the sky over the Rocky mountains, or that they seemed weird to you and your friends. As you say, people see things they consider weird all the time, but people are incredibly fallible. That's what is so important to understand, IMO.

 

[RoboTimbo]

...Sorry but this isn't the evidence thread...

When intelligent well informed people know from the evidence of their own unimpaired senses ...
j.r.

LOL

The null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

There is no evidence that has ever falsified that. Anecdotes and opinions never will.

Remember, this is the Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers thread. You can present all the opinion and anecdotes you want and we'll keep thinking critically.

 

[Correa Neto]

Please allow me to fix one of ufology's posts so it can match closer with skeptics's real points of view.

So the believers are still harping on how military people can always tell the difference between mundane things and alien craft. They also keep harping about not needing sound hypotheses and how those hypotheses don't need to be falsifiable. Some intelligent, well informed people believe from the evidence of their own seemingly unimpaired senses, that they have had an extraordinary experience, but this doesn't mean their interpretations of the experiences are correct... All the believer/knower rhetoric designed to convince skeptics of the reality, of the acuracy of their anecdotal experiences as well as of the soundness of their interpretations of these experiences, presented to date, is meaningless. The fact about this world is that weird, maybe even unexplainable things are perceived and some people interpretate them as evidence of UFOs, paranormal phenomena, etc.

I also happen to find funny how UFOlogists manage to embrace CTs about the military hiding UFO evidence but also present anecdotes about military seeing alien craft to back their space operas.

 

[Akhenaten]

I thought he was someone who wasn't around anymore ... oh ya and on the issue of opinions not counting as evidence ... sure, I know all about that. That's why I moved these posts over here. Where you can have your opinion without providing me with any evidence.

j.r.

Where did you get this bizarre idea that the rules of engagement vary from thread to thread?

And where did you get the even more bizarre idea that you're qualified to instruct other posters, many of whom have been here for years longer than you, on the way the forum operates?

 

[Akhenaten]

The above is a misrepresentation ... I said ( to paraphrase ) that I think the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force could tell the difference between what he considered to be real metallic objects shaped like flying saucers, and fairies ...

If I were you, I'd go with the alledged misrepresentation because your desperate attempts to build strawmen are backfiring badly. The little buggers seem hell-bent on doing nothing more than digging you a deeper hole.

. . . and the context had been that it was implied that there is no more reason to believe in fairies than UFOs.

Only straw people don't believe in UFOs. Real people do, however, consider belief in flying saucers to be comparable with a belief in fairies. You really should take more notice of this.

 

[carlitos]

The above is a misrepresentation ... I said ( to paraphrase ) that I think the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force could tell the difference between what he considered to be real metallic objects shaped like flying saucers, and fairies ...

Oh, this is fun. I say that Barack Obama can tell the difference between Kraft dinner and a pickup truck. I didn't realize that we were just telling tales about random people's alleged ability to recognize random stuff. Don't be silly - you brought up the general and dishonestly claimed his "ability" and expertise made your story somehow more believable.

and the context had been that it was implied that there is no more reason to believe in fairies than UFOs.

Well, that was the analogy presented, yes. Full context below:

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.

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.

Anyway, you don't have evidence, for example a UFO story crashed spaceship, alien raygun, alien body or a fairy in a jar, so what is the difference again?

Who is this poster above ... the attack dog for the nasties whose job it is to go around taking the opponent's posts out of context and twisting them into a character assasination? Someone kindly put him back in his cage.

j.r.

And here is where you can post evidence for your claims:

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

 

[tsig]

Drivel.

I'm sure that by 'drivel' you mean corresponding to truth.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm sure that by 'drivel' you mean corresponding to truth.

Oh, absolutely, but I leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide which truth.

 

[ufology]

Well, that was the analogy presented, yes. Full context below:

Anyway, you don't have evidence, for example a UFO story crashed spaceship, alien raygun, alien body or a fairy in a jar, so what is the difference again?

And here is where you can post evidence for your claims:

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

Well you see ... as the title of the thread says, this is just knowers/believers vs. skeptics thread, not the "evidence thread", so I hope the "show me the evidence" mantra isn't all we're going to see here. And of course when the skeptics use the word "evidence" here, what they really mean is objective scientific evidence that can be applied to the scientific method. Other evidence like anecdotal information is consistently dismissed, which is what scientific skeptics are supposed to do. They have the easy job. That is unless they get off their butts and go try to find the evidence. But do we ever see any of them doing that? Heaven's no ... and if they ever did have an extraordinary experience, OMG, that would be sacreligious and they'd be ostracized from their order. So why bother? It's easier to sit back and use the lazy-man's argument all day. After all there isn't much to remember ... you certainly don't have to actually think about the issue ... you just chant "show me the evidence" over and over and over again. You can even do it with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears so that you can block out any attempts by others to explain the larger reality ... for example how human perception is a scientific fact and doesn't have a 100% margin of error, especially in highly trained and experienced people like Air Force pilots, and how their firsthand reports are no more anecdotal than if some scientist, perhaps an astronomer, writes down what he or she saw during the observation of some unique celestial event, or when a meteorologist observes rare weather phenomena.

j.r.

 

[carlitos]

So, you won't provide evidence for the following claim, because this thread is about belief without evidence?

taking the opponent's posts out of context and twisting them into a character assassination?

I suspected as much.

and if they ever did have an extraordinary experience, OMG, that would be sacreligious and they'd be ostracized from their order.

As for "extraordinary experiences," most of us have had them and there are lots of anecdotes (like mine, for instance) to be found on this and the UFO evidence thread. Feel free to pretend otherwise.

Also, feel free to pretend that you don't understand the information you have been given about gauging distances (especially from Jeff Corey, whose post you ... well, you took it out of context and twisted it, didn't you? Hmm). Whether this is willful ignorance, self-delusion, trolling, a learning disability, or whatever is a mystery. Maybe someone could develop a handy card that we could refer to and guess, like on a scale from 1 to 10.

Anyway, here is my suggestion:

• Click my username "carlitos" to the left.
• Choose "Add carlitos to your ignore list"
• Print out Jeff Corey's posts and show them to a smart person near you
• Download google maps
• Plot the valley where your sighting took place with landmarks and distances, then post screencaps here
• Read up on lightning bugs

Good luck.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Well you see ... as the title of the thread says, this is just knowers/believers vs. skeptics thread, not the "evidence thread", so I hope the "show me the evidence" mantra isn't all we're going to see here.

You're probably right. People who think rationally are going to ask for extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. They are going to assume the null hypothesis is correct until it is falsified. Fortunately, the null hypothesis is falsifiable.

The credulous are going to continue to throw out their stories and opinions and use them to justify their belief in aliens.

And of course when the skeptics use the word "evidence" here, what they really mean is objective scientific evidence that can be applied to the scientific method.

Well, yes, since what you are supposed to be providing evidence of is something that has never been shown to exist so rationally minded people will certainly require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. It would be foolish to do otherwise.

Other evidence like anecdotal information is consistently dismissed, which is what scientific skeptics are supposed to do. They have the easy job. That is unless they get off their butts and go try to find the evidence. But do we ever see any of them doing that? Heaven's no ...

You really need to start paying attention. It is the skeptics who do all the work to uncover explanations which the lazy creduloids have summarily dismissed. You could park a Freightliner in your blind spot. That was one of the most false statements you've ever made and that's saying a lot.

and if they ever did have an extraordinary experience, OMG, that would be sacreligious and they'd be ostracized from their order.

Again, you don't pay attention. Many rationally minded people have related their own experiences with seeing things that they couldn't identify. Why do you say such foolish things?

So why bother? It's easier to sit back and use the lazy-man's argument all day. After all there isn't much to remember ... you certainly don't have to actually think about the issue ...

Again, you've got it backwards. The credulous are the ones who don't think. They've already jumped to their unfalsifiable conclusion of "OMG PsuedoAliens!" They don't do the actual work that you see in these threads. The rationally minded are the ones doing all the heavy lifting.

you just chant "show me the evidence" over and over and over again. You can even do it with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears so that you can block out any attempts by others to explain the larger reality ...

Again, no. YOU are the one who blocks out any explanation of actual reality for your own preferred version of a "larger" reality. You live in fantasy land. You don't want to ever leave your fantasy land so you pout and throw a tantrum whenever someone mentions the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

and you're mad that you don't have any evidence that falsifies it. Maybe you should work on getting that evidence that will falsify it instead?

for example how human perception is a scientific fact and doesn't have a 100% margin of error, especially in highly trained and experienced people like Air Force pilots, and how their firsthand reports are no more anecdotal than if some scientist, perhaps an astronomer, writes down what he or she saw during the observation of some unique celestial event, or when a meteorologist observes rare weather phenomena.

j.r.

Yes, you definitely have not been reading anything. Look up "strawman fallacy" and report back here with what you've learned. So far, you've ignored all opportunities you've had here for learning.

Do you yet understand why anecdotes are unfalsifiable and useless for validating extraordinary claims?

 

[Correa Neto]

Ufology is once again wrong.

Those who present themselves as "believers" and/or "knowers" are the ones who must present the reasons for their alleged beliefs and knowledges. Thus, you, UFOlogists and UFO buffs, are the ones which must get off your butts and go try to find and present the (reliable) evidence. Why we never see any of you doing that? Why you restrain yourselves to exposing ad nauseaum the same decades-old anecdotes? Why you restrain yourselves to repeat mischaracterizations of skeptics' positions?

For example, skpetics here more than once told you none of us is proposing 100% margin of observational error. I managed to trace this particular piece of nonsense, this mischaracterization, down to one of KotA's posts, BTW. Skeptics actually propose something may have gone wrong with some perceptions and some of their interpretations during some UFO sightings.

Why you insist on these mischaracterizations? Ignorance? Emotional response? Dishonesty? Everything is valid while "fighting the good fight"?

 

[Akhenaten]

Well you see ... as the title of the thread says, this is just knowers/believers vs. skeptics thread, not the "evidence thread", so I hope the "show me the evidence" mantra isn't all we're going to see here.

You really need to stop this rubbish about telling people what they should be posting in which thread and try to do something about getting yourself unlabelled as a knower/believer.

I might just add that you're hardly in a position to be lecturing people about which thread they're in, given that until you were corrected on it yesterday you didn't even know yourself.

This is just the "Knowers vs Believers" thread. So we're all entitled to our opinions here. That's why I took it out of the research and evidence thread. And in this case appealing to authority actually has weight. These are people who don't fabricate stories.

j.r.

And of course when the skeptics use the word "evidence" here, what they really mean is objective scientific evidence that can be applied to the scientific method.

Why are you so determined to distance yourself from the eebil skeptics? I thought you wanted to be seen as one.

<rant>

Anecdotes ≠ evidence.

You really need to deal with this and move on.

 

[Astrophotographer]

ufology, you've actually got the chance to discuss this with a real, live, and very helpful USAF pilot who knows huge amounts about UFOs, and so far you've offered up the chance. Why is this?

Just to clarify, I was in the USN on submarines and not a AF pilot. I believe that was Puddleduck, who offerred expertise as an F-4 pilot (although I thought he was a UK pilot and not US) in regards to the Iran UFO chase. It was an honest mistake on 23 Tauri's part. I just don't want people to get the wrong impression.