UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Cuddles]

What we're really after here is evidence. Do you possess any?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Uh ... no ... Snad isn't using the same "data set". Air Force pilots are vectored by radar to chase floating ice blobs and dust trapped between window panes.

j.r.

The above pseudoscientist believes that pilots are only vectored by radar to chase alien spaceships because he begins with an unfalsifiable pseudoscientific null hypothesis.

 

[carlitos]

Uh ... no ... Snad isn't using the same "data set". Air Force pilots are vectored by radar to chase floating ice blobs and dust trapped between window panes.

j.r.

You say "are" but all of your Air Force UFO reports are from 50+ years ago.

You never answered this question:

Yes you are (jumping to conclusions and making **** up to suit your preconceived belief). Perhaps you could explain how this is different from assuming Gods?

 

[Correa Neto]

Sorry, ufology, your answer was far from being enough to dismiss the interpretation of some UFOs as living beings.

These Si-based lifeforms can look like metallic craft and also be tracked by radar.

 

[ufology]

The above pseudoscientist acknowledges that pseudoscience which uses his same methods has been debunked but is unable to make the mental leap to translate that to his own brand of pseudoscience. He believes every UFO to be a structured metallic alien craft even though he has never been able to falsify the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"
​

preferring his pseudoscientific one instead.

I've stated it before, but I'll repeat it again, that I have never said that I believe "every UFO to be a structured metallic alien craft".

In my time here I've learned not to make statements that are absolutes when it comes to the skeptics. It's an easy thing to fall into because of the polarized nature of the discussion, so I respectfully suggest that the skeptics should take a cue from that and try to avoid doing the same.

 

[ufology]

Sorry, ufology, your answer was far from being enough to dismiss the interpretation of some UFOs as living beings.

These Si-based lifeforms can look like metallic craft and also be tracked by radar.

Well if Correa wants to make the case for flying cryptid life forms that's fine, go ahead, but I've already stated my position on it as a ufologist and that is all I've been asked for. If people want to know all the gory details then they should consult someone with specialized knowledge. I'm not the person for that. As for some UFOs being living beings ... that is another issue.

 

[carlitos]

And yet you have failed to demonstrate the logic that differentiates your belief that *some* UFOs are alien craft from the logic that:

assumes Gods

or

assumes intra-spacial fish and insects.


I can't see the difference. Others here can't see the difference. Why not help us out and just take us through it logically?

 

[John Albert]

...that they aren't simply unidentified in the common context of the word. "Unidentified" in the context of UFOs has a very specific meaning, as has been discussed in previous posts that reference the official USAF definition AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958, and other Air Force discussions of the subject that show we are dealing with craft that have appeared to be metallic and posess performance characteristics beyond any known manmade or natural phenomena. Things like birds, aircraft, balloons, and hoaxes, misperceptions, and sightings without enough information to make a judgement call are ruled out. All we are left with is an "unidentified" craft ... which within this context is by its very nature alien to our civilization.

Mr. J. Randall Murphy, founder and proprietor of online bookstore and UFO club "Ufology Society International," you are again engaging in fallacious and dishonest debating tactics.

Yet again, you are attempting to distort the conversation by manipulating semantics, a fallacy of redefinition of terms.

When I called you on it, you accused me thus:

[the poster above]

• Misrepresents the case using definitions that are not in context with the subject matter

I have not misrepresented anything. "UFO" is an acronym; more specifically, an initialism. The definitions of acronyms are already present within the constituent words initialized within them.

"U.F.O." is an initialism that means, "Unidentified Flying Object," your citation of some obscure USAF documentation notwithstanding.

Here are some common dictionary definitions of "UFO" that can be found on the Web:

UFO (yf-)
n. pl. UFOs or UFO's
An unidentified flying object.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/UFO

UFO   [yoo-ef-oh or, sometimes, yoo-foh]
noun, plural UFO's, UFOs.
any unexplained moving object observed in the sky, especially one assumed by some observers to be of extraterrestrial origin.

Also called unidentified flying object.

Compare flying saucer.

Origin:
1950–55; u ( nidentified ) f ( lying ) o ( bject )

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ufo

UFO
(yū'ĕf-ō')
n., pl., UFOs, or UFO's.
An unidentified flying object.

http://www.answers.com/topic/unidentified-flying-object

UFO
noun pl. or
any of a number of unidentified objects or phenomena frequently reported, esp. since 1947, to have been observed or tracked in the sky and variously explained as being atmospheric phenomena, hallucinations, misperceptions of actual objects, alien spacecraft, etc.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ufo

UFO noun \ˌyü-(ˌ)ef-ˈō\
plural UFO's or UFOs

Definition of UFO

: an unidentified flying object; especially : flying saucer

Origin of UFO

unidentified flying object

First Known Use: 1953

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ufo

What does UFO stand for?

****** UFO Unidentified Flying Object

http://www.acronymfinder.com/UFO.html

UFO (UFOs plural)

A UFO is an object seen in the sky or landing on earth which cannot be identified and which is often believed to be from another planet. UFO is an abbreviation for `unidentified flying object'.

http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/UFO

See? All these definitions seem to agree that a UFO is an "unidentified flying object" often mistaken for an extraterrestrial spacecraft.



The following statement is yet another example of Mr. J. Randall Murphy, founder and proprietor of an online bookstore and UFO club known as "Ufology Society International" blatantly lying to support a failed argument:

[the poster above]

• 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.

Others and I have provided significant, overwhelming evidence to prove that anecdotes (stories) are not reliable evidence. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing at all to prove that anecdotes are reliable as evidence.

The evidence we have presented has taken the form of numerous scholarly reports, articles in journals of psychology and law.

We have also demonstrated practical evidence right here on this forum, whereby your own anecdotes have been shown to exhibit significant errors in memory, vague estimations, unsupported assumptions, details that are physically impossible, a mutating story with new details contrived at will specially to refute any mundane explanations proposed by the skeptics. You have also forwarded wholly imaginary, pseudoscientific explanations to account for obvious physical discrepancies of your story.

So I think we've pretty well demonstrated and documented the fact that mere stories (a.k.a. "claims") in and of themselves do not constitute valid evidence, your weasel-words ("when in fact..." and "can be very valuable") notwithstanding.

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

Nah, it's really just about the same.

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.

Again, anecdotes. Stories. Mere claims, unsubstantiated by anything material. Sorry, claims do not constitute evidence for themselves.

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.

See, now you're starting to think like a skeptic. Too bad you seem unable to apply that same kind of logic to your own UFO stories.

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.

Aw, hell.

I guess I take back what I said above. You never learn, Mr. J. Randall Murphy, founder and proprietor of online bookstore and UFO club "Ufology Society International."

 

[ufology]

And yet you have failed to demonstrate the logic that differentiates your belief that *some* UFOs are alien craft from the logic that:

assumes Gods

or

assumes intra-spacial fish and insects.


I can't see the difference. Others here can't see the difference. Why not help us out and just take us through it logically?

Belief in God is a religious issue based on psychology and is entirely different and not even on topic here. If you want to discuss God with me then let's do that on the God thread or whatever and you can compare what I think about that from there.

As for space faring life forms, I was watching a recent show ... I think it was Hawking's Universe that speculated that such creatures may be possible in the universe. That part I can accept. But the logic I use for doubting them being in near Earth orbit or in our atmosphere is that every case I've seen so far has been debunked to my satisfaction. On the other hand, not all UFO cases have been. So my logic is perfectly intact.

Where we differ is in the standards for evidence. I don't require strict scientific proof to think something is reasonable to believe, so in the absence of something being disproven ( debunked ), then I am inclined to consider the possibility that it may be true. On the other hand the inclination for skeptics is to doubt it ( which is what skeptics do ) and which is fine.

 

[carlitos]

Belief in God is a religious issue based on psychology and is entirely different and not even on topic here. If you want to discuss God with me then let's do that on the God thread or whatever and you can compare what I think about that from there.

Belief in UFOs is a religious issue based on psychology and is entirely different.

So, no.

Would you care to try again? I asked you to take me through it LOGICALLY and you gave me "argument by bare assertion." That was weak. Dishonest and weak. Please try again, and use logic this time.

And you can cut the **** about what is "on topic" here.

 

[laca]

Well if Correa wants to make the case for flying cryptid life forms that's fine, go ahead, but I've already stated my position on it as a ufologist and that is all I've been asked for. If people want to know all the gory details then they should consult someone with specialized knowledge. I'm not the person for that. As for some UFOs being living beings ... that is another issue.

Is that like a toothiologist?

 

[Resume]

Where we differ is in the standards for evidence. I don't require strict scientific proof to think something is reasonable to believe, so in the absence of something being disproven ( debunked ), then I am inclined to consider the possibility that it may be true. On the other hand the inclination for skeptics is to doubt it ( which is what skeptics do ) and which is fine.

No, the difference is you have no standards. Anecdotes are claims.

 

[ufology]

Mr. J. Randall Murphy, founder and proprietor of online bookstore and UFO club "Ufology Society International," you are again engaging in fallacious and dishonest debating tactics.

There is nothing dishonest about my tactics. I've traced the origin of the word UFO back the people who created it and I've traced the official definitions back to those same people. The short incomplete definitions that many everyday dictionaries use were created later and are not complete or in context. If you doubt that then by all means visit my website, look up where the word UFO has been traced back to its origins, find the errors and disprove my examples, including the official USAF definition of AFR 200-2 Feruary 05 1958.

Also while you are on my website you may want to notice that the two featured books right now include one by a skeptic and one by an investigative journalist.

Lastly, associating my name and what I do with slights against me that imply dishonesty, even if they are indirectly stated, are not something I appreciate and I kindly ask you not to do it. I am here for constructive friendly debate, not to be slandered.

 

[carlitos]

The meaning of words is determined by usage.

Argument by semantics is intellectually dishonest.

ETA - LOL.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've stated it before, but I'll repeat it again, that I have never said that I believe "every UFO to be a structured metallic alien craft".

In my time here I've learned not to make statements that are absolutes when it comes to the skeptics. It's an easy thing to fall into because of the polarized nature of the discussion, so I respectfully suggest that the skeptics should take a cue from that and try to avoid doing the same.

Then was this incorrect:

The thing you're missing Robo is that they aren't simply unidentified in the common context of the word. "Unidentified" in the context of UFOs has a very specific meaning, as has been discussed in previous posts that reference the official USAF definition AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958, and other Air Force discussions of the subject that show we are dealing with craft that have appeared to be metallic and posess performance characteristics beyond any known manmade or natural phenomena. Things like birds, aircraft, balloons, and hoaxes, misperceptions, and sightings without enough information to make a judgement call are ruled out. All we are left with is an "unidentified" craft ... which within this context is by its very nature alien to our civilization.

j.r.

You do use the UFO definition that says they're all metallic structured craft or you don't?

 

[Akhenaten]

Uh ... no ... Snad isn't using the same "data set". Air Force pilots are vectored by radar to chase floating ice blobs and dust trapped between window panes.

The above is a misrepresentation of the function of ground controllers.

 

[laca]

Where we differ is in the standards for evidence. I don't require strict scientific proof to think something is reasonable to believe, so in the absence of something being disproven ( debunked ), then I am inclined to consider the possibility that it may be true. On the other hand the inclination for skeptics is to doubt it ( which is what skeptics do ) and which is fine.

Most people don't require scientific evidence for mundane claims.

What's that even mean, you're considering that it may be true? You might daydream all you want, but if you want other people (or the government) to give you their time, money or some other resource, then be prepared to back up your claim. That's what all you creduloids are whining about. You can froth at the mouth all day in your forums filled with your ilk, but you all know that once you're out in the real world, no one is going to take you seriously without evidence.

Anecdotes are not evidence. They are claims. The claims you're making are extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your buddy, Rramjet, tried to argue that it ain't so for hundreds of pages. He failed. Miserably. You are going to fail too.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've stated it before, but I'll repeat it again, that I have never said that I believe "every UFO to be a structured metallic alien craft".

The above is boringly repetitive.

In my time here I've learned not to make statements that are absolutes when it comes to the skeptics. It's an easy thing to fall into because of the polarized nature of the discussion, so I respectfully suggest that the skeptics should take a cue from that and try to avoid doing the same.

The above is a misrepresentation of the nature of the discussion.

And very whiny as well.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well if Correa wants to make the case for flying cryptid life forms that's fine, go ahead, but I've already stated my position on it as a ufologist and that is all I've been asked for.

The above represents the point flashing above the poster's head at 25 km/sec.

If people want to know all the gory details then they should consult someone with specialized knowledge.

A specialist in flying cryptids? That seems to be me. What would you like to know?

I'm not the person for that. As for some UFOs being living beings ... that is another issue.

Why? How you know that some UFOs aren't living beings? This is supposed to be a thread for discussing research into all kinds of UFOs, not just your personal favourites.

 

[ufology]

Then was this incorrect:

You do use the UFO definition that says they're all metallic structured craft or you don't?

The quotes used do not say all UFOs are structured metallic craft. Some UFOs ( within the context that was used ) have been reported to have been glowing spheres of unknown composition that behave like craft, but are neither saucer shaped, nor metallic looking.

Also, try ro keep in mind that the context of the word UFO sometimes references UFOs themselves, and at other times references UFO reports. So it is important ( as with many other words ) to take into account the context. What we seem to be dealing with here is the presumption of UFO reports as opposed to UFOs themselves, as well as the context of informal converstaion with people who are not aware of the official definitions and who simply use the incomplete and misleading term that common dictionaries use. Admittedly these factors can be confusing and in an online forum like this, it's easy to get derailed, but if care is taken to phrase things in their proper context, and confirm once in a while with others that we are all talking about the same thing, then it is still possible to make some progress.