UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

There is no special pleading at all ...

<snip special pleading>

There is no more special pleading in the fact that those who study UFOs have defined it for use within their field than there is in the way a ecology defines the word "dominant" compared to the generic usage ... be reasonable.

Comparing ufology to a genuine science, eh? There's a word for that sort of thing, you know.

In any case, you're wrong. There's nothing specialised about the word 'dominant' in the phrase 'dominant species'. Its meaning is exactly the same as it is in common usage.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The above isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that because the objects have not been able to be identified as any known manmade object, they are alien to our civilization.

Which is a silly thing to say. What do I have in my pocket? You say you don't know? So it must be alien to our civilization.

Whether or not they are "spaceships" is a whole other matter.

But on your website you say they are aliens visiting our world. Can you keep straight what exactly you are saying?

Regarding evidence, unless you are prepared to accept UFO reports as evidence, then there is little to discuss. You will have to see one for yourself I guess .. or would you not consider that as evidence either?

Why would any rational person accept a claim as evidence of that claim?

 

[Akhenaten]

That's fine if you want to redefine "UFO" to mean alien spaceship.

<snip for focus>

The above isn't what I'm saying.

Except that it's exactly what you're saying, weasel words notwithstanding.

viz.

I'm saying that because the objects have not been able to be identified as any known manmade object, they are alien to our civilization.

Whether or not they are "spaceships" is a whole other matter.

You really should stop using scare quotes the way you do. It's become a kind of shorthand for <<<warning - redefined word>>>

Regarding evidence, unless you are prepared to accept UFO reports as evidence, then there is little to discuss.

We know. We aren't the ones pretending otherwise.

You will have to see one for yourself I guess .. or would you not consider that as evidence either?

Not.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm saying that because the objects have not been able to be identified as any known manmade object, they are alien to our civilization.

This deserves to be addressed in isolation.

This ridiculous line of argumentation is going to cause you a world of trouble. You seem to be positing that an unknown civilisation is sharing the Earth with us. Are you sure you want to do such a thing, given that it makes flying saucers seem like a more sensible hypothesis?

 

[John Albert]

I'm saying that because the objects have not been able to be identified as any known manmade object, they are alien to our civilization.

That's a classic argument from ignorance.

You're citing the fact that you don't know what something is, as evidence that you do know what it is. Are you really unable to see the faulty logic in that?

If you don't know what it is, then how does that prove it was made by a non-human civilization?

As for "actual evidence" there is plenty of it, just none that from past experience here, you'll accept.

There is no evidence. There are only anecdotes, which is just a 25¢ word for "stories." In other words, "claims."

You have claims, made by people who say they saw something they were unable to identify.

"Claims" are not synonymous with "evidence." Evidence is the objective, testable stuff that is required to substantiate claims.

How is it that even now, you still don't understand how this works? A lot of people have been working for hours on end every day for over two months, trying to educate you about this one single point.

It should also be noted that although the USAF didn't use the specific phrase, "null hypothesis" ( that I'm aware of ), it did use a process similar in that investigators ruled out as many mundane objects as possible before arriving at their conclusion for any particular case.

If they did not start with the baseline assumption that all UFOs are the result of mundane causes, and if they did not find verifiable evidence to falsify that assumption, their "process" may have been "similar," but it was not proper science.

Another word for their similar process, in that case, would be "pseudoscience."

Snad's stuff is associated with cryptozoology, which is of peripheral interst to ufologists. At the present time in ufology, it falls under the general area of UFO studies right next to mythology and is given about as much weight ( in terms of reality ) as Pegasus or unicorns.

Snad has anecdotal and photographic "evidence" just like you do. What makes his "evidence" any less verifiable than yours?

 

[ufology]

You're citing the fact that you don't know what something is, as evidence that you do know what it is. Are you really unable to see the faulty logic in that?

If you don't know what it is, then how does that prove it was made by a non-human civilization?

There is no evidence. There are only anecdotes, which is just a 25¢ word for "stories." In other words, "claims."

You have claims, made by people who say they saw something they were unable to identify.

"Claims" are not synonymous with "evidence." Evidence is the objective, testable stuff that is required to substantiate claims.

How is it that even now, you still don't understand how this works? A lot of people have been working for hours on end every day for over two months, trying to educate you about this one single point.

If they did not start with the baseline assumption that all UFOs are the result of mundane causes, and if they did not find verifiable evidence to falsify that assumption, their "process" may have been "similar," but it was not proper science.

Another word for their similar process, in that case, would be "pseudoscience."

Snad has anecdotal and photographic "evidence" just like you do. What makes his "evidence" any less verifiable than yours?

Again the poster above:

• Misrepresents the case using definitions that are not in context with the subject matter.
• Denies the logic of previous explanations and the evidence in support of it, specifically AFR 200-2 Feb 05, 1958, in which the USAF defines UFOs ( a word it created ).
• Denies there is any value of anecdotal evidence without providing any reasonable foundation for doing so, as if it were somehow self-evident ( which it's not ), when in fact anecdotal evidence can be very valuable.

The quality and quantity of anecdotal evidence for cryptozoological creatures does not compare at all to the anecdotal evidence for UFOs. There may indeed be strange creatures, but none have been chased in braod daylight at the speed of sound by Air Force jets ... or tracked on radar, or seen by commercial pilots. I've seen images of some of these alledged creatures and the last one I looked at looked like a weather balloon. As for infra red pictures, infra red cameras can pick up all kinds of odd thermal anomalies, both natural and manmade. That isn't good enough on its own. Besides if these were living creatures of some kind, there would have to be remnants of them someplace.

Now all that being said ... I did see one day while waiting for my son to come out of his apartment so we could go for lunch, the oddest little insect, probably in its larval stage, about half an inch long. It looked like a really thin white translucent caterpiller, but instead of legs, it had these really thin white hairs that sort of flowed in ripples and propelled it through the air. I've never seen anything like it before or since. I'm no entomologist, but I presume they know of several species that do this. Or maybe it was a baby ( whatever they are ) ... I dunno.

 

[Toke]

It looked like a really thin white translucent caterpiller, but instead of legs, it had these really thin white hairs that sort of flowed in ripples and propelled it through the air.

It must have been a chthonian.

 

[ufology]

It must have been a chthonian.

Never heard of them before. It looked more like one of these ... but not exactly:

 

[Akhenaten]

The quality and quantity of anecdotal evidence for cryptozoological creatures does not compare at all to the anecdotal evidence for UFOs.

Indeed. The cryptidiots are miles ahead of the ufailogists. Maybe you should be taking notes.

 

[carlitos]

The quality and quantity of anecdotal evidence for cryptozoological creatures does not compare at all to the anecdotal evidence for UFOs.

You are cracking me up.

 

[ufology]

Indeed. The cryptidiots are miles ahead of the ufailogists. Maybe you should be taking notes.

I do love Akhenaten's new cryptid avatar/blimp ... man I'll give you guys credit, at least your consistent ... and I got a good laugh out of it ... man that's funny. Please don't suspend me again for making this comment. It really is quite harmless ( although suspending me again would probably make the gang here laugh even more ).

 

[Robrob]

Why would lights in the sky indicate a UFO (e.g. spacecraft)? Did any of our lunar landers have lights?

 

[ufology]

Why would lights in the sky indicate a UFO (e.g. spacecraft)? Did any of our lunar landers have lights?

I'm not sure what the above is referencing ... but I'm guessing the AFR 200-2 Feb 05, 1958 which includes lights in the description of what could indicate an aircraft ( rather than a UFO ). On aircraft, lights are colored and positioned according to international standards. So if the lights are very unusual, then you would need additional details to eliminate the object as an aircraft ( such as conventional engines, wings, tail or fuselage ). In the absence of those, it is still possible that such a light might be a rocket, in which case, if the body isn't visible, you would have to combine that with the performance charcteristics, in which case if it didn't behave like a rocket, then you need to come up with something else ... perhaps an illuminated balloon, RC flyer ... and keep eliminating possibilities based on known parameters.

 

[Toke]

Never heard of them before. It looked more like one of these ... but not exactly:

Not many have heard of them, that is why I included a link to them.
(as in underlined word)

Anyway,
You have still not come up with a sensible explanation to why lights in the sky equals aliens.
I believe that "null hypothesis" have been mentioned before, why are you picking aliens instead of mundane or divine explanations?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Again the poster above:

[*]Misrepresents the case using definitions that are not in context with the subject matter.

The above poster uses definitions not consistent with the context of modern usage. UFO means Unidentified Flying Object.

[*]Denies the logic of previous explanations and the evidence in support of it, specifically AFR 200-2 Feb 05, 1958, in which the USAF defines UFOs ( a word it created ).

The above poster denies the logic of the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

and uses a pseudoscientific one instead.

[*]Denies there is any value of anecdotal evidence without providing any reasonable foundation for doing so, as if it were somehow self-evident ( which it's not ), when in fact anecdotal evidence can be very valuable.

The above poster claims that a claim is evidence of itself and displays no evidence of critical thinking.

The quality and quantity of anecdotal evidence for cryptozoological creatures does not compare at all to the anecdotal evidence for UFOs.

No, it's much better. The evidence is able to be reproduced, something the UFOlogists haven't ever been able to do.

There may indeed be strange creatures, but none have been chased in braod daylight at the speed of sound by Air Force jets ... or tracked on radar, or seen by commercial pilots.

Santa Claus is tracked by NORAD every year and leaves presents for good boys and girls as evidence of his existence

I've seen images of some of these alledged creatures and the last one I looked at looked like a weather balloon.

You should see the ones that look like fireflies.

As for infra red pictures, infra red cameras can pick up all kinds of odd thermal anomalies, both natural and manmade. That isn't good enough on its own. Besides if these were living creatures of some kind, there would have to be remnants of them someplace.

Good fellow! You didn't forget FLIR!

Now all that being said ... I did see one day while waiting for my son to come out of his apartment so we could go for lunch, the oddest little insect, probably in its larval stage, about half an inch long. It looked like a really thin white translucent caterpiller, but instead of legs, it had these really thin white hairs that sort of flowed in ripples and propelled it through the air. I've never seen anything like it before or since. I'm no entomologist, but I presume they know of several species that do this. Or maybe it was a baby ( whatever they are ) ... I dunno.

Why do you deny Snadert his own particular brand of pseudoscience? You have your own.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm not sure what the above is referencing ... but I'm guessing the AFR 200-2 Feb 05, 1958 which includes lights in the description of what could indicate an aircraft ( rather than a UFO ). On aircraft, lights are colored and positioned according to international standards. So if the lights are very unusual, then you would need additional details to eliminate the object as an aircraft ( such as conventional engines, wings, tail or fuselage ). In the absence of those, it is still possible that such a light might be a rocket, in which case, if the body isn't visible, you would have to combine that with the performance charcteristics, in which case if it didn't behave like a rocket, then you need to come up with something else ... perhaps an illuminated balloon, RC flyer ... and keep eliminating possibilities based on known parameters.

When will you be providing evidence for your redefined "UFOs"? Until you do, the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

still hasn't been falsified. Were you going to even attempt to falsify it? It just needs one confirmed non-mundane one.

 

[ufology]

When will you be providing evidence for your redefined "UFOs"? Until you do, the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"
​

still hasn't been falsified. Were you going to even attempt to falsify it? It just needs one confirmed non-mundane one.

The above asks for a "confirmed" case. Now we need to define the word "confirmed".

What constitutes confirmation? Does a UFO have to land at the River Entrance to the Pentagon, near the Joint Chiefs of Staff offices? Or is it confirmation when a ground radar station detects a UFO, sends a jet to intercept it, the jet pilot sees it, and locks on with his radar, only to have the UFO streak away at a phenomenal speed? Is it proof when a jet pilot fires at a UFO and sticks to his story even under the threat of court-martial? Does this constitute confirmation?

The skeptics say "no" ... a visual confirmation is only anecdotal evidence and doesn't count. So why send jet interceptors after anything then? Why not just wait until whatever it is lands on your front lawn? Dare I say that the USAF feels visual confirmation is valuable ... and that they use it for a reason ... and that lives often depend on such information. In fact, the constant stream of visual information processed by military pilots has proven accurate so many times that tens of thousands of successful takeoffs, flights and landings have taken place all because of it ... far far more than the number of accidents caused by pilot error. Given this fact, the probability that the craft reported by such people over the years isn't something "mundane" is almost zero. It is no longer reasonable to believe that some UFOs do not represent alien craft.

 

[Paul2]

The above asks for a "confirmed" case. Now we need to define the word "confirmed".

What constitutes confirmation?

• multiple

• independent

• physical

would help.

 

[Akhenaten]

The above asks for a "confirmed" case. Now we need to define the word "confirmed".

No we don't.

What constitutes confirmation?

Irrefutable evidence. That thing that you don't have a skerrick of.

Does a UFO have to land at the River Entrance to the Pentagon, near the Joint Chiefs of Staff offices?

Are you talking about UFOs or flying saucers? The two terms aren't interchangeable and it's dishonest to keep pretending that they are.

Or is it confirmation when a ground radar station detects a UFO, sends a jet to intercept it, the jet pilot sees it, and locks on with his radar, only to have the UFO streak away at a phenomenal speed?

It would be confirmation of a UFO if we knew for sure that's what happened. It's most definitely not confirmation of a flying saucer, which is what you want it to be.

Is it proof when a jet pilot fires at a UFO and sticks to his story even under the threat of court-martial? Does this constitute confirmation?

Proofs are for mathematics.

The skeptics say "no" ... a visual confirmation is only anecdotal evidence and doesn't count.

People see UFOs all the time. I'm perfectly happy to accept an anecdote as evidence that someone saw something. It's too trivial a thing to quibble about.

So why send jet interceptors after anything then?

Because they're very effective against real attackers.

Why not just wait until whatever it is lands on your front lawn?

That is a stupid question.

<waffle>

Given this fact, the probability that the craft reported by such people over the years isn't something "mundane" is almost zero.

You have no evidence to back up this completely non sequitur conclusion.

It is no longer reasonable to believe that some UFOs do not represent alien craft.

Spoken like a true pseudoscientist. This nonsensical interpretation of what's reasonable is precisely why skeptical people are fond of pointing out the obvious truth that the plural of 'anecdotes' is not 'evidence'.

 

[AdMan]

The above asks for a "confirmed" case. Now we need to define the word "confirmed".

Why do you keep referring to "the above"? Why aren't you directly addressing the points and questions directed at you?

I think you feel it places you above the argument as if you're only observing it and commenting on it; rather, it comes across as if you're a fastidious student complaining to the teacher.