UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

People who search for 'research + evidence + UFOs' are going to be disappointed, aren't they?

Blame the moderators for moving all my posts from the Knowers/Believers vs Skeptics thread to here where they are all out of context.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

Blame the moderators for moving all my posts from the Knowers/Believers vs Skeptics thread to here where they are all out of context.

I don't suppose you still have the private message from the mods, notifying you about that particular post being moved?

You know, as proof that you originally posted it in the "Knowers/Believers" thread?

Because the first I remember reading about your UFO story was in this thread right here. If you look back on the discussion, you'll see a smooth transition in the conversation from a discussion of other UFO anecdotes, right into you mentioning that you have firsthand experience with seeing a UFO, right into you giving an account of your story and the discussion proceeding from there.

You didn't resurrect the Knowers/Believers thread until later, because you obviously felt it might somehow provide you a safe haven from the critical analysis of the skeptics.

 

[Akhenaten]

People who search for 'research + evidence + UFOs' are going to be disappointed, aren't they?

UFOs + fireflys on the other hand . . .

Guess what happens when you search for 'ufailogy'.

 

[ufology]

This is incorrect. You first posted about your sighting in this thread, not the "Knowers/Believers" thread.

Here's the first post where you ever mentioned your UFO sighting, right here in this thread, a little over a month ago on July 22nd, and here's the first post where you actually offered an account of your story, on July 23rd.

Your memory must be faultier than you remember, if you can't even recollect basic details of something that happened only a month ago.

That's only 38 days ago, and we're expected to trust your recall of events from over 36 years ago?

I mentioned it in the other thread and pursued it in the other thread. It may have been mentioned here peripherally as well, but in my notices, about 80 posts were moved from the other thread to here, all focused on my sighting.

j.r.

 

[AdMan]

This is incorrect. You first posted about your sighting in this thread, not the "Knowers/Believers" thread.

Here's the first post where you ever mentioned your UFO sighting, right here in this thread, a little over a month ago on July 22nd, and here's the first post where you actually offered an account of your story, on July 23rd.

Your memory must be faultier than you remember, if you can't even recollect basic details of something that happened only a month ago.

That's only 38 days ago, and we're expected to trust your recall of events from over 36 years ago?

You are actually wrong--I think that ufology's point is that his memory self-corrected, so that in fact his misremembering details has changed what actually happened.

 

[Akhenaten]

I mentioned it in the other thread and pursued it in the other thread. It may have been mentioned here peripherally as well, but in my notices, about 80 posts were moved from the other thread to here, all focused on my sighting.

What sighting would that be? I can't recall seeing any evidence that you ever had a sighting.

I'll just have a go at self-correcting my memory . . .



























Nup. Still nothing.

 

[Resume]

Guess what happens when you search for 'ufailogy'.

Very nice. Lurkers, try it out.

 

[ufology]

You are actually wrong--I think that ufology's point is that his memory self-corrected, so that in fact his misremembering details has changed what actually happened.

The recent round of discussion about my sighting on this thread is separate from the earlier one that was on the Knower/Believers vs Skeptics thread.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

The recent round of discussion about my sighting on this thread is separate from the earlier one that was on the Knower/Believers vs Skeptics thread.

What the hell does it matter? All of the discussions about your alleged sighting contribute to but one blindingly obvious conclusion - that memory is a poor servant and will never take the place of actual, bona fide evidence.

 

[John Albert]

I mentioned it in the other thread and pursued it in the other thread. It may have been mentioned here peripherally as well, but in my notices, about 80 posts were moved from the other thread to here, all focused on my sighting.

This is incorrect.

The "Knowers/Believers" thread was one of the zombies you resurrected in your pursuit of respite from the shellacking you'd been receiving in the "Is Ufology Pseudoscience?" thread, and also the "Critical Thinking in Ufology" thread that you'd created in an attempt to change the rules of skepticism in your own favor. It's true that you resurrected that thread prior to relating your "sighting" story, but that's not the place you initially brought it up.

Back in mid-July, you bumped "Knowers/Believers," and entreated honest opinions about who was really winning the debates in the UFO-related threads. When the skeptics from the other threads began posting in there, you complained that that thread was only for "fence-sitters" to weigh in as KotA had originally intended. Not getting the response you expected, you left that thread alone and resumed your efforts in the "Critical Thinking in Ufology" thread and the "Pseudoscience" thread, until the "Pseudoscience" thread and the "Critical Thinking in Ufology" threads got merged because the same discussion was running parallel in both threads.

As I indicated in my post above, you first mentioned your UFO sighting in the "Evidence" thread on the 22nd and 23rd. In the ensuing discussion, your "anecdotal evidence" was systematically deconstructed and scrutinized, and numerous factual, logical and continuity errors were exposed. It was around this time that you got suspended for abusing thread topics to suit your whims.

Upon your return, you fled the "Evidence" thread and resumed discussing your UFO story in "Knowers/Believers" under the mistaken impression that you'd get a break from having to provide proof, because you figured "Knowers/Believers" did not demand the same strict standards of evidence and analysis as the "Evidence" thread. The debate continued in that thread for a few days until the mods decided that any discussion of UFO stories rightfully belonged in the "Evidence" thread, and moved all the relevant posts accordingly. When that happened, you whinged about your posts getting moved and ran off all butthurt.

That's pretty much how I remember the entire saga taking place. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong about the sequence or chronology of any of this.

 

[ufology]

What the hell does it matter? All of the discussions about your alleged sighting contribute to but one blindingly obvious conclusion - that memory is a poor servant and will never take the place of actual, bona fide evidence.

In healthy people memory is actually pretty good. The evidence is that we remember many things on a daily basis and we can recall events from many years earlier. Certainly not everyone can recall everything, but it's not nearly as bad as the skeptics who constantly exaggerate the problems with memory proclaim. I'm sure everyone reading this has memories that extend all the way back to childhood. Or are the skeptic's memories all so bad that they don't trust them beyond the last 5 minutes?

j.r.

 

[Robrob]

None of this proves or disproves the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), alien abductions, time travel, extra space dimensions or even wilder theories.
This website shows UFO maps and graphs hoping that real patterns or clues may emerge, UFO evidence if not proof, some genuine ufology at least.

So over 20 years and 5+ billion people, somewhat under 19k have seen strange lights in the sky?

Well you've certainly convinced me!

 

[AdMan]

In healthy people memory is actually pretty good. The evidence is that we remember many things on a daily basis and we can recall events from many years earlier. Certainly not everyone can recall everything, but it's not nearly as bad as the skeptics who constantly exaggerate the problems with memory proclaim. I'm sure everyone reading this has memories that extend all the way back to childhood. Or are the skeptic's memories all so bad that they don't trust them beyond the last 5 minutes?

You keep twisting and making strawmen out of this. No one said you can't trust a memory beyond the last 5 minutes.

But, given the evidence for how eyewitnesses can't be counted on to accurately remember an event just a few hours or days old, it is reasonable to question any memory from years or decades ago. Human memory is simply too fallible to be trusted with details for such a long time. It has been proven again and again, and is the reason why eyewitness evidence is so mistrusted in courtrooms.

You keep trying to build up how reliable memory is, when it is demonstrably not so. Memory is not self-correcting. It is self-deluding, if anything. That you continue to insist this isn't so makes your arguments weak.

 

[Akhenaten]

What the hell does it matter? All of the discussions about your alleged sighting contribute to but one blindingly obvious conclusion - that memory is a poor servant and will never take the place of actual, bona fide evidence.

In healthy people memory is actually pretty good.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The whole problem, which you seem almost pathologically unable to acknowledge, is that without some kind of corroboration there's no way of knowing whether memories are accurate or not.

The evidence is that we remember many things on a daily basis and we can recall events from many years earlier.

Sometimes. Not knowing which times is the problem.

Certainly not everyone can recall everything, but it's not nearly as bad as the skeptics who constantly exaggerate the problems with memory proclaim.

Except for when it is.

I'm sure everyone reading this has memories that extend all the way back to childhood.

Yep. And some of them may even be accurate.

Or are the skeptic's memories all so bad that they don't trust them beyond the last 5 minutes?

Do you remember what a strawman is?

 

[John Albert]

In healthy people memory is actually pretty good. The evidence is that we remember many things on a daily basis and we can recall events from many years earlier. Certainly not everyone can recall everything, but it's not nearly as bad as the skeptics who constantly exaggerate the problems with memory proclaim. I'm sure everyone reading this has memories that extend all the way back to childhood.

Weasel words.

Whereas you've just provided weaselly blanket statements without any evidence to back them up, here are just a few references that describe how malleable and fallible human memory really is:

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/aug/are-recovered-memories-real

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/documentary_archive/4560303.stm

http://acfnewsource.org.s60463.gridserver.com/science/false_memories.html


Here's a good episode of Scientific American Frontiers that discusses the shortcomings of the human memory: http://www.hulu.com/watch/220599/scientific-american-frontiers-dont-forget


Neil DeGrasse Tyson gives an excellent little speech about arguments from ignorance, the frailty of human perception, the worthlessness of eyewitness testimony, and how all that stuff relates to UFO sightings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

 

[AdMan]

ufology, can you point us to any scientific research that supports your position on how accurate human memory is? There have been any number of links posted here to studies and papers that demonstrate the fallibility of human memory, so if your thinking is right we should expect some support for your position too, shouldn't we?

Looking forward to reading about it.

 

[ufology]

So over 20 years and 5+ billion people, somewhat under 19k have seen strange lights in the sky?

Well you've certainly convinced me!

All it takes is for just one of them to be right.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

All it takes is for just one of them to be right.

Wrong.

All it takes is for one of them to come forward with a single piece of verifiable evidence to falsify the null hypothesis that all UFO sightings are the result of mundane causes.

 

[Jocce]

In healthy people memory is actually pretty good.

I do understand your frustration and assume that you honestly believe that you saw what you remember you saw and that there is no way you could have been mistaken. However, you have been given several links to research that shows that memory is not reliable. I for one would take you a lot more seriously if you acknowledged this and moved on. I'm fine with you believing whatever you want but trying to claim that your memory is unique in this way simply isn't a good tactic. Another route you could take is to show research that support your claim.

The evidence is that we remember many things on a daily basis and we can recall events from many years earlier. Certainly not everyone can recall everything, but it's not nearly as bad as the skeptics who constantly exaggerate the problems with memory proclaim.

That is true. We remember many things, can recall old memories and our brains are amazing. However, research shows that our memories of events doesn't conform to reality.

I'm sure everyone reading this has memories that extend all the way back to childhood. Or are the skeptic's memories all so bad that they don't trust them beyond the last 5 minutes?

I remember preciously few things from my childhood. The few bits I remember are more like the emotion I had in certain situations, not details about the event itself. So yeah, I guess my long term memory is not that great anyway.

 

[Akhenaten]

So over 20 years and 5+ billion people, somewhat under 19k have seen strange lights in the sky?

Well you've certainly convinced me!

All it takes is for just one of them to be right.

All what takes?


As it happens, I'm quite confident that far more than 19000 people have seen bright lights in the sky.

Which probably means that there are, in fact, bright lights in the sky.

So?