UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

use the quote link to view entire post.

The above poster said some stuff, but I've removed it so I can just rabbit on about any old thing and pretend that I'm responding to him.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above poster is using out of context quotes. Since they are from my website and from me persoanlly I'll explain.

Could you also explain how they are out of context?

First: My personal belief about the existence of alien objects having visited Earth is different than assuming beforehand that every case represents a story of alien visitation. I don't do that.

Strawman. Nobody said you did. Have you looked up the strawman fallacy yet?

Second: My belief that other people have had sightings as good or better than mine is different than assuming beforehand that every case represents a story of alien visitation. I don't do that either.

Stawman. Nobody said you did.

Third: My beliefs are based on personal experience and the analysis of numerous reports. I haven't jumped to any conclusion. Rather I've arrived at a personal viewpoint through personal experience and the efforts of many others both inside and outside the field of ufology. Furthermore I don't claim to have any special insider knowledge. I don't know where the alien craft originate or why they are here, or if they are even still here at all.

False. Your beliefs are based on your personal fantasy. You saw a light in the sky and jumped to your conclusion that it was alien.

Lastly, I do stand with all those others who know that they have seen an alien craft because I'm one of them and I will not abandon them in that regard. We know ... while those who have never had the experience don't. It's as simple as that and nothing can change the truth of it whether we can prove it or not.

j.r.

So, what you said earlier was an untruth that no UFOlogists believed that any UFOs were alien? You folded pretty quickly on that one. It's also good that you can admit that you have no evidence for your beliefs.

 

[ufology]

Could you also explain how they are out of context?

Strawman. Nobody said you did. Have you looked up the strawman fallacy yet?

Stawman. Nobody said you did.

False. Your beliefs are based on your personal fantasy. You saw a light in the sky and jumped to your conclusion that it was alien.

So, what you said earlier was an untruth that no UFOlogists believed that any UFOs were alien? You folded pretty quickly on that one. It's also good that you can admit that you have no evidence for your beliefs.

The above isn't true. It was suggested that I begin by assuming every report is some kind of alien craft, and out of context quotes were used to prop up that assumption. So I demonstrated their proper context and how they don't apply to the assumption that was made. There was no "strawman" ... in fact the poster's "strawman" assertion is a "strawman" unto iself.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above isn't true. It was suggested that I begin by assuming every report is some kind of alien craft

Either point out exactly where that was said or stop repeating the lie.

and out of context quotes were used to prop up that assumption.

You were asked how they were out of context and you failed to answer.

So I demonstrated their proper context and how they don't apply to the assumption that was made. There was no "strawman" ... in fact the poster's "strawman" assertion is a "strawman" unto iself.

j.r.

That's a childish argument. You don't know what a strawman argument is. Look it up and come back and tell me what it is so that I'll know you understand it.

Also:

ufology, could you think of any UFOlogists who don't subscribe to the pseudoscientific unfalsifiable null hypothesis:

"Some UFO sightings are alien in origin"​

ETA: Note the use of the word "Some".

 

[carlitos]

use the quote link to view entire post.

If you'd like to easily copy a quote that contains other quotes, already formatted, do this:

- Click the little envelope that says "quote this post in a PM" when you mouse over it
- Copy all the text in the window that results
- Come back to the "reply" window and paste it there

Alternatively, you can just insert your own

boxes and type "

at the start.

 

[ufology]

Either point out exactly where that was said or stop repeating the lie. You were asked how they were out of context and you failed to answer. That's a childish argument. You don't know what a strawman argument is. Look it up and come back and tell me what it is so that I'll know you understand it.

Also:

ufology, could you think of any UFOlogists who don't subscribe to the pseudoscientific unfalsifiable null hypothesis:

"Some UFO sightings are alien in origin"
​

ETA: Note the use of the word "Some".

OK, in these recent posts, I'll stand corrected on the word "some". I wasn't lying so much as misinterpreting and being imprecise. My mistake. Thanks for correcting me. But the rest remains the same. Why? Because I don't begin by assuming anything about a report, which is where you keep getting me wrong. I simply look at the reports and see where the evidence leads. I make no preconceived opinion about them at all ... I try to look at each incident as if I were looking at the first UFO report anyone had ever seen, which would be before anyone could even form a "null hypothesis". Then I try to evaluate it given what I know, and can find out from further study.

j.r.

 

[carlitos]

I make no preconceived opinion about them at all ...

Well, except that you "know" that yours were aliens, and that "other people have had sightings as good or better than yours," in terms of them being aliens. So there's that preconception.

 

[23_Tauri]

Has ufology got me on ignore?

 

[AdMan]

Has ufology got me on ignore?

He ignores selectively.

 

[RoboTimbo]

OK, in these recent posts, I'll stand corrected on the word "some". I wasn't lying so much as misinterpreting and being imprecise. My mistake. Thanks for correcting me.

Thank you. I retract my comment.

But the rest remains the same. Why? Because I don't begin by assuming anything about a report, which is where you keep getting me wrong. I simply look at the reports and see where the evidence leads. I make no preconceived opinion about them at all ... I try to look at each incident as if I were looking at the first UFO report anyone had ever seen, which would be before anyone could even form a "null hypothesis". Then I try to evaluate it given what I know, and can find out from further study.

j.r.

Your null hypothesis says nothing about individual reports, only that you have begun with the idea that aliens are here. Your website says you believe aliens are here. You aren't the only one, nearly all UFOlogists begin with the idea that aliens are here. In reality, you do believe the way the null hypothesis that I've attributed to you states it. You believe that "Some UFOs are of alien origin". Either you do or you don't. Which is it? Are you going to tell us that you don't believe any UFO sightings are of alien origin?

 

[Stray Cat]

[snip...]... 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.

 

[Akhenaten]

Mmm . . . tasty.

 

[Stray Cat]

Mmm . . . tasty.

You think that now, but if you use it on stuff that's not really compatible with reliability, you'll find it leaves an aftertaste.

 

[carlitos]

What about the wider reliability?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Reliability may need to go on a diet.

 

[Stray Cat]

Reliability may need to go on a diet.

Not too difficult when the wider reliability is in actual fact starved of actual facts.

 

[23_Tauri]

Extraordinary clams need reliable sauce.

(otherwise you get that bitter aftertaste, right?)

 

[ufology]

Well, except that you "know" that yours were aliens, and that "other people have had sightings as good or better than yours," in terms of them being aliens. So there's that preconception.

Yes it's true that I believe alien craft have visted the Earth, and that I have been involved in ufology for a long time, so yes I'll admit that after reviewing a case, it is more likely to seem reasonable to me, if there are no other reasonable explanations ( not merely possible ) that a sighting could represent an alien craft.

But that isn't the same as beginning with a predetermined point of view when looking at an individual case. When I read, like many people, I visualize what is being described. I don't start off visualizing a flying saucer or anything else before I start reading. But as the words begin to form the images of what what is described in the report, the picture itself forms, as free from any preconceived notions as possible.

I would also add that given my experience and knowledge, I am in a better position than most to make in informal judgement. Consider for a moment the explanation I offered for Ramjet's sighting of two objects that appeared to rotate about a central axis and looked similar to satellites ... or perhaps you missed that one? I've offered birds as an explanation to some people living downtown who saw some white undulating objects high in the sky. When I went to investigate, using the binoculars I had with me, they were in fact birds ( inland gulls ) gliding very high and reflecting the city light back down from their white undersides.

So don't mistake that I don't appreciate the spirit of the "null hypothesis" proposed here by the skeptics. I have my own database of possibilities and they are prioritized much in the same manner ... from the mundane through the less likely to something alien. I look for the signs that something is or even could be something known. But if it does what the thing I saw did, whether it's near the ground or higher in the sky, there isn't anything I know of that is natural or manmade that can do that. Instantaneous accelleration and decelleration, sharp turns and reverses in direction, all involving high speed are beyond our present day technology ... let alone even older technology. One doesn't need to start at the bottom of the list for those kinds of sightings. How high up the list you go depends on other factors in each case.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes it's true that I believe alien craft have visted the Earth, and that I have been involved in ufology for a long time, so yes I'll admit that after reviewing a case, it is more likely to seem reasonable to me, if there are no other reasonable explanations ( not merely possible ) that a sighting could represent an alien craft.

But there is no evidence of aliens. You are pseudoscientifically eliminating mundane explanations which you can't possibly know even exist so that you can arrive at your conclusion of "OMG Aliens!"

But that isn't the same as beginning with a predetermined point of view when looking at an individual case. When I read, like many people, I visualize what is being described. I don't start off visualizing a flying saucer or anything else before I start reading. But as the words begin to form the images of what what is described in the report, the picture itself forms, as free from any preconceived notions as possible.

Yes, beginning with a predetermined point of view. That's exactly what you are doing.

I would also add that given my experience and knowledge, I am in a better position than most to make in informal judgement. Consider for a moment the explanation I offered for Ramjet's sighting of two objects that appeared to rotate about a central axis and looked similar to satellites ... or perhaps you missed that one? I've offered birds as an explanation to some people living downtown who saw some white undulating objects high in the sky. When I went to investigate, using the binoculars I had with me, they were in fact birds ( inland gulls ) gliding very high and reflecting the city light back down from their white undersides.

In fact, you are in the worst position possible to make a judgment. You are a UFOlogist, a believer, and an alleged UFO witness. You already have your conclusion, you just look for more places to put it.

So don't mistake that I don't appreciate the spirit of the "null hypothesis" proposed here by the skeptics.

No, you actually don't appreciate it at all.

I have my own database of possibilities and they are prioritized much in the same manner ... from the mundane through the less likely to something alien.

Where does "alien" fit into the null hypothesis that you appreciate?

I look for the signs that something is or even could be something known. But if it does what the thing I saw did, whether it's near the ground or higher in the sky, there isn't anything I know of that is natural or manmade that can do that.

Including misperceptions, hoax, oil well fires, lightning bugs, etc?

Instantaneous accelleration and decelleration, sharp turns and reverses in direction, all involving high speed are beyond our present day technology ...

I guess that was a "no", then.

and even further beyond it back at the dawn of the modern era, and one doesn't need to start at the bottom of the list for those kinds of sightings. How high up the list you go depends on other factors in each case.

j.r.

What sightings?

 

[ufology]

What about the wider reliability?

Nice comeback phrase above ( my compliments ) ... and yes that is definitely a problem. If you guys think I'm way out there you aint seen nuthin' ... I'm really reserved compared to reptilian overlords disguised as humans running the world's governments. For me, that's where it goes from being something serious to pure entertainment.

j.r.