UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[23_Tauri]

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.

"Data set"? Isn't that a science term? In which case, do I hear pseudoscience being spoken?

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

The above is either totally disingenuous, a genuine inability to grasp a simple analogy or more of the handwaving that marks a great many of this poster's attempts to avoid answering difficult questions.

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.

The above is a pretence at explaining why the poster's logic is intact, but is actually nothing more than an assertion that his belief system is 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.

The above is a strawman.

 

[carlitos]

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.

So someone here could go around using the word "faggot" and it wouldn't be offensive, based on your DISHONEST form of argument then. Got it.

faggot (1)
late 13c., "bundle of twigs bound up," from O.Fr. fagot "bundle of sticks" (13c.), of uncertain origin, probably from It. faggotto, dim. of V.L. *facus, from L. fascis "bundle of wood" (see fasces). Especially used for burning heretics (emblematic of this from 1550s), so that phrase fire and faggot was used to indicate "punishment of a heretic." Heretics who recanted were required to wear an embroidered figure of a faggot on their sleeve, as an emblem and reminder of what they deserved.​

No answer to the God / logic question other than bare assertion, I see. How unsurprising.

 

[Resume]

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. QUOTE]

I would have thought the term UFO reports references the term . . . UFO reports. Seems easier.

 

[ufology]

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

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

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.

Where we need to draw the line in the above quote is that the flaky ice specks and optical effects from dust between panes of glass and other illusions and misidentifications that have been proposed by some to represent space creatures, are different from the possibility of some UFOs being life forms in and of themselves.

Attention was drawn to something similar to the glowing sphere I saw. My personal experience was that the object behaved as if under guided or intelligent control. If it was self-guided, then perhaps the means by which it processed the information necessary to maneuver and do its job was an artificial intelligence ... or maybe something like what Kurzweil envisions as the next phase in human evolution ... a sentient machine. In such a case I contend that it would be fair to call such UFOs "living craft", but that isn't anything like saying floating ice crystals off a manuevering thruster are intelligent life forms.

 

[carlitos]

Yeah, it's really tough to discuss things when people dishonestly keep changing the meaning of words. UFO means "unidentified flying object," everybody. Got it? Good. Now, about the research, the evidence?

 

[Resume]

Attention was drawn to something similar to the glowing sphere I saw. My personal experience was that the object behaved as if under guided or intelligent control. If it was self-guided,.

Fireflies are self-guided.

 

[carlitos]

Where we need to draw the line in the above quote is that the flaky ice specks and optical effects from dust between panes of glass and other illusions and misidentifications that have been proposed by some to represent space creatures, are different from the possibility of some UFOs being life forms in and of themselves.

Attention was drawn to something similar to the glowing sphere I saw. My personal experience was that the object behaved as if under guided or intelligent control. If it was self-guided, then perhaps the means by which it processed the information necessary to maneuver and do its job was an artificial intelligence ... or maybe something like what Kurzweil envisions as the next phase in human evolution ... a sentient machine. In such a case I contend that it would be fair to call such UFOs "living craft", but that isn't anything like saying floating ice crystals off a manuevering thruster are intelligent life forms.

Meh. What's a UFO again, and how is assuming "living craft" or "aliens" different from assuming Gods?

 

[ufology]

Meh. What's a UFO again, and how is assuming "living craft" or "aliens" different from assuming Gods?

Who is assuming what? I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply discussing what I believe to be reasonable or possible under certain circumstances and within certain contexts. I suppose that if someone is prone to making assumptions without any rationale, then they could be assuming anything, and I don't advocate that kind of thinking.

 

[carlitos]

Who is assuming what? I'm not assuming anything.

That's a lie. There is a flying saucer in your *********** logo! You are assuming that aliens are driving a *********** flying saucer. Stop lying.

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.

In case you haven't figured it out, dishonest argumentation by dishonest tactics like semantics just pisses me off.

The US Air Force wrote a report on UFOs, and you pretend that you get to use that definition and it gives you some credibility. You say that "Gods" are based on psychology and somehow different. Well, no.

The US military plays "taps" at military funerals. In the lyrics is "God is nigh."
The US military employs chaplains from many faiths, effectively recognizing many Gods.
The US military has been under fire recently for "spiritual fitness" tests, which effectively endorsed religion.

I could go on and on and pretend to use some military endorsement for God that explains your Eziekel-like lights in the sky.

Again, please show L-O-G-I-C-A-L-L-Y how your belief system is different from religion. Bare assertion is not logic.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Then you don't think that all UFOs are structured metallic craft? How then do you tell the difference between the ones that are and the ones which are misperceptions, hoaxes, misidentification, etc? Can you give us an example of a sighting where the UFO was not a structured metallic craft but still meets your chosen definition of UFO?

 

[Resume]

Who is assuming what? I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply discussing what I believe to be reasonable or possible under certain circumstances and within certain contexts. I suppose that if someone is prone to making assumptions without any rationale, then they could be assuming anything, and I don't advocate that kind of thinking.

Your entire raison d'etre is assumption.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

The above is a transparent attempt based on an appeal to authority to validate the poster's practice of redefining certain words and phrases coupled with some wishful thinking that all this folderol about definitions will:

1. Generate a few hits for his website, and
   
   
2. distract people from the fact that his entire argument is completely undermined by a refusal to acknowledge the correct null hypothesis with regard to UFOs.

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.

The above is wishful thinking, as well as getting dangerously close to using the forum to promote a commercial enterprise.

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.

Your debating tactics lack integrity. If you wish to avoid that accusation, cut out the special pleading, the disingenuous responses, the unconventional formatting and all the other nonsense, some of which has already earned you a couple of infractions.

Your appreciation and the kindliness of your request to stop pointing out the many flaws in your arguments is irrelevant.

And finally, having your ridiculous ideas torn to shreds isn't slander.

 

[23_Tauri]

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.

Oh, they've got to be saucer-shaped as well now, have they, to fit your definition of a UFO?

 

[carlitos]

Oh, they've got to be saucer-shaped as well now, have they, to fit your definition of a UFO?

He's kind of committed to that, what with a flying saucer in his club logo and all.

 

[Akhenaten]

<waffle>

My personal experience was that the object behaved as if under guided or intelligent control.

<waffle>

Your personal experience is even more worthless than your silly stories about other people's experiences. It's not much use claiming that you're here for here for constructive friendly debate and then launching into these meaningless campfire stories.

 

[23_Tauri]

Attention was drawn to something similar to the glowing sphere I saw. My personal experience was that the object behaved as if under guided or intelligent control. If it was self-guided, then perhaps the means by which it processed the information necessary to maneuver and do its job was an artificial intelligence ... or maybe something like what Kurzweil envisions as the next phase in human evolution ... a sentient machine. In such a case I contend that it would be fair to call such UFOs "living craft", but that isn't anything like saying floating ice crystals off a manuevering thruster are intelligent life forms.

Still haven't addressed my question as to why the object at 1:05:23 in Secret Space doesn't "behave as if under guided or intelligent control.." and was "self-guided" And "perhaps the means by which it processed the information necessary to manuever and do its job (escape from the NASA death ray) was an an artificial intelligence"....

Because the ufologist being interviewed in the film, that's what he believes.

 

[Akhenaten]

Who is assuming what?

YOU are assuming that "OMG . . . aliens!" is reasonable conclusion to draw when the only information available is "unidentified".

I'm not assuming anything.

Do you have any evidence for intelligently-controlled, structured, metallic craft?

Of course you don't, because you assumed them into existence.

I'm simply discussing what I believe to be reasonable or possible under certain circumstances and within certain contexts.

In exactly the same way the religious proselytisers simply discuss what they believe about bearded sky fairies.

I suppose that if someone is prone to making assumptions without any rationale, then they could be assuming anything, and I don't advocate that kind of thinking.

Whether you advocate it or not is a moot point. What's relevant though is that you express your engagement in it with just about every post you make.

 

[ufology]

That's a lie. There is a flying saucer in your *********** logo! You are assuming that aliens are driving a *********** flying saucer. Stop lying.

In case you haven't figured it out, dishonest argumentation by dishonest tactics like semantics just pisses me off.

The US Air Force wrote a report on UFOs, and you pretend that you get to use that definition and it gives you some credibility. You say that "Gods" are based on psychology and somehow different. Well, no.

The US military plays "taps" at military funerals. In the lyrics is "God is nigh."
The US military employs chaplains from many faiths, effectively recognizing many Gods.
The US military has been under fire recently for "spiritual fitness" tests, which effectively endorsed religion.

I could go on and on and pretend to use some military endorsement for God that explains your Eziekel-like lights in the sky.

Again, please show L-O-G-I-C-A-L-L-Y how your belief system is different from religion. Bare assertion is not logic.

The logo in the USI emblem, as discussed before, has an ambiguous outline that could actually be interpreted several ways. In previous discussions I've shown how it resembles certain aircraft as seen head on. It could also just as easily be the outline of some lenticular cloud or possibly a series of contrails ... or the classic domed saucer. Had I wanted to make it unambiguous, it would have been very easy to do so.

Regarding the use of the actual word orgin of UFO and definitions by the people who created it. Yes that does give my position credibility. If one cannot accept the facts as they exist then that isn't my problem.

Lastly, the assertion that the use of semantics is dishonest is completely uncalled for. This is a discussion forum and words are all we have to convey our points of view, therefore we must try to be precise and choose our words carefully within the context they are meant to convey. That's what semantics is about. It's is nothing to get upset about. I'm not trying to derail anyone's argument, just explain my position as clearly and accurately as possible.

It often seems that my intent is interpreted to be something else and that I do not understand what the opposing viewpoint is. However that is not the case. More often than not, I find that the opposing viewpoint is coherent within its own context, but when applied to an actual situation falls apart. It doesn't mean that the poster is necessarily "wrong" but that when other factors are considered, it opens up another point of view. Perhaps instead of trying to constantly hammer that door shut, it might help to go through that door, and then instead of trying to drag that person back into your point of view, try to identify where the flaws are within the new view itself. For example try to understand why, as a ufologist, I see the different contexts of usage for the word UFO and how they relate to the conversation. Then use those contexts to identify issues that are relevant to your argument.

 

[ufology]

YOU are assuming that "OMG . . . aliens!" is reasonable conclusion to draw when the only information available is "unidentified".
Do you have any evidence for intelligently-controlled, structured, metallic craft?
Of course you don't, because you assumed them into existence.
In exactly the same way the religious proselytisers simply discuss what they believe about bearded sky fairies.
Whether you advocate it or not is a moot point. What's relevant though is that you express your engagement in it with just about every post you make.

None of the above makes any sense when considered within the context of a UFO as defined by AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958, especially in light of the evidence that had been provided to official USAF investigators by USAF pilots who had observed such objects.