UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

Forgive me, maybe I am just one of the uninitiated, but to me its all Pseudoblobology.

I was hoping to coin the Word of the Day™ myself with Aeroichthyology, but there's no way I'm going to press my claim against the alliterative magnificence of Pseudoblobology.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

I asked this question in that context and you haven't answered:

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?

 

[Akhenaten]

This nonsense again?

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.

There's nothing ambiguous about it at all, ufology. It's bad enough that you want things that you claim to have seen to be counted as evidence, but trying to tell people that what they're looking at themselves is something other than what they know it to be is simply outrageous.

And this time don't try coming the raw prawn about copyright violation. The Admins have better things to do than deal with spurious complaints about fair use of images.

 

[John Albert]

...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.

First of all, I didn't imply anything. I stated it outright.

The reason I used your name is because you repeatedly refuse to address me directly when answering my posts. As I have mentioned several times before, I consider that approach arrogant and insulting.

Therefore, whenever you address my arguments in the third person, I will go out of my way to identify you specifically by your own name and the name of your organization, so you won't be able to hide your own identity from any readers of this thread.

You show me the respect I deserve, and I'll gladly show you the respect you deserve. That's how it works, like a two-way street.

There is nothing dishonest about my tactics.

On the contrary, you regularly use a variety of blatantly dishonest debating tactics, including flat-out lies. You still persist with these dishonest tactics despite having been corrected about them numerous times. Because you have failed to learn and self-correct after being corrected in friendly terms, I am hoping I can get through to you by directly calling you out and shaming you for your dishonesty.


So first of all, when it was pointed out to you that the acronym "UFO" means "unidentified flying objects" and therefore does not in any way specify the existence of "aliens," you dishonestly countered with a redefinition of the word "unidentified."

To wit:

"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.

This is a blatant attempt to distort the definition of the word "unidentified" to semantically justify your own belief that UFOs are some form of alien craft and not the result of mundane causes.

These objects are by their very definition alien to our civilization.

See?

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.

Let's look at that definition again, shall we?

2. Definitions. To insure proper and uniform usage in UFO screenings, investigations, and reportings, the objects are defined as follows:

a. Familiar or Known Objects - Aircraft, birds, balloons, kites, searchlights, and astronomical bodies (meteors, planets, stars).

b. Unknown Aircraft:
(1) Flying objects determined to be aircraft. These generally appear as a result of ADIZ violations and often prompt the UFO reports submitted by the general public. They are readily identifiable as, or known to be, aircraft, but their type, purpose, origin, and destination are unknown. Air Defense Command is responsible for reports of "unknown" aircraft and they should not be reported as UFO's under this regulation.
(2) Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO.
(3) Pilotless aircraft and missiles.

c. Unidentified Flying Objects - Any airborne object which, by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to known aircraft or missiles, or which does not correspond to definitions in a. and b. above.
​

That definition describes something that is unprovable by its very nature. There's no way the USAF could possibly prove that they have ruled out any and all mundane causes for all UFO sightings, short of providing physical, verifiable evidence.

The fact that the studies conducted under the USAF did not reveal any mundane cause, that does not mean no mundane cause exists. The fact that they did not detect or believe a hoax, confabulation, or human error does not mean that a hoax, confabulation or human error was not the cause.

In other words, if this is indeed the position the USAF researchers adopted regarding UFOs, then those researchers were engaged in the practice of pseudoscience.


I can also prove by your own admission that this USAF definition was cherry-picked specifically for the purpose of your own argument.

In another post, you also stated:

The word evolved through several official definitions, the Feb 05, 1958 being the most precise for reporting purposes.

See?

By your own admission in the quote above, the USAF "official designation," as you say, "evolved through several official definitions." Yet you choose to cherry-pick that one out of all the others, make the claim that its language reinterprets the word "unidentified" to mean something other than the plain English definition, and then assert that definition (and therefore your preferred interpretation of the word "unidentified") as the only valid one for the acronym "UFO."

Once again, you're trying to obtain an unfair advantage by using semantic distortions to skew the English language in your favor. That is a dishonest debating tactic, whether you're willing to admit it or not.

That is a fallacy of redefinition, with a garnish of appeal to authority, a special pleading on the side, and a nice cherry-picking on top. (I have to admit, I rather like your technique of nesting logical fallacies. It makes the debunking that much more fun.)

Of course, despite all your dishonest semantic gymnastics we all know and understand exactly what the acronym "UFO" actually means.

How do we know this?

Simple. We all speak the English *********** language. "UFO" is a common term in popular usage, therefore it has a universally-accepted definition. There's no need to revert back to some arcane 60-year-old USAF document to redefine a word we already know.

So considering this ... I again point out that we are dealing with incidents, as have been described earlier, where objects that are not aircraft, missiles or other manmade objects or natural phenomena are seen doing things can't be explained.

It's the same old argument from ignorance you've been corrected on countless times. Not knowing what something is does not constitute proof that you know what it is.

Those sightings might have resulted from some completely mundane cause (or even lies, hoaxes, hallucinations, dreams or other confabulations), but the USAF researchers simply failed to detect them as such.

We just don't know what they are other than some have been clearly observed to be structured metallic craft of alien origin.

No, we don't know that. Yet again, you restate the same old argument from ignorance. All we can say for certain is that "some have been reported to be structured metallic craft of alien origin." And as we've pointed out to you innumerable times already, reports, stories, anecdotes, claims, etc. do not constitute evidence for themselves.

Arguments from ignorance are not necessarily dishonest. They might be just poorly-reasoned.


By the way, you forgot to respond to this half of my last post:

[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.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

The above is piffle.

 

[23_Tauri]

I was hoping to coin the Word of the Day™ myself with Aeroichthyology, but there's no way I'm going to press my claim against the alliterative magnificence of Pseudoblobology.

Definitely room for two Words of the Day™

 

[ufology]

I asked this question in that context and you haven't answered:

I did answer ... glowing spheres are another class of UFO. A case would be the Washington National sightings. Also note that what the poster above referred to as my "chosen" definition isn't a fixed definition. The meaning of "UFO" shifts with the context of usage as explained earlier and those who follow ufology need to be able to shift from one to another when it's appropriate. The two main differences ( again ) are the usage in reference to UFOs themselves, and to UFO reports. So for example when someone reports a UFO, we don't automatically presume it is a UFO as in the official definition. What were are talking about is a UFO report, which may then be followed up on to determine whether or not the object or phenomena is an actual UFO. Hypothetically, UFO reports by the military weren't supposed to contain any known manmade objects or phenomena, but inevitably, there were still many reports that after investigation were classed as something other than UFOs.

 

[Jocce]

The meaning of "UFO" shifts with the context of usage as explained earlier and those who follow ufology need to be able to shift from one to another when it's appropriate. The two main differences ( again ) are the usage in reference to UFOs themselves, and to UFO reports. So for example when someone reports a UFO, we don't automatically presume it is a UFO as in the official definition. What were are talking about is a UFO report, which may then be followed up on to determine whether or not the object or phenomena is an actual UFO. Hypothetically, UFO reports by the military weren't supposed to contain any known manmade objects or phenomena, but inevitably, there were still many reports that after investigation were classed as something other than UFOs.

Rather than arguing semantics, do you have any particular case you'd like to present for discusssion? One that hasn't ben discussed in this thread that you feel have enough evidence to classify as a UFO as per your definition?

 

[Paulhoff]

So, where is the material evidence, the only thing that means anything.

Paul

 

[Akhenaten]

I asked this question in that context and you haven't answered:

I did answer ...

<alleged response>

Instead of complaining about people questioning your honesty it might be helpful to quit this blatantly dishonest practice of removing that part of the posts that you claim to be responding to.

 

[John Albert]

The meaning of "UFO" shifts with the context of usage as explained earlier and those who follow ufology need to be able to shift from one to another when it's appropriate.

Nice way to keep your options open for future redefinitions however you see fit.

So much for your claim of not being dishonest.

"UFO" means "unidentified flying object." Period.

You know how I know that? I speak the English ************* language.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I did answer ... glowing spheres are another class of UFO. A case would be the Washington National sightings. Also note that what the poster above referred to as my "chosen" definition isn't a fixed definition.

The pseudoscientist above continues to bait and switch his chosen definition of UFO to suit his immediate purpose. A very common technique in the pseudosciences.

The meaning of "UFO" shifts with the context of usage as explained earlier and those who follow ufology need to be able to shift from one to another when it's appropriate convenient.

The pseudoscientist above needed his incorrectly worded sentence corrected.

The two main differences ( again ) are the usage in reference to UFOs themselves, and to UFO reports. So for example when someone reports a UFO, we don't automatically presume it is a UFO as in the official definition. What were are talking about is a UFO report, which may then be followed up on to determine whether or not the object or phenomena is an actual UFO. Hypothetically, UFO reports by the military weren't supposed to contain any known manmade objects or phenomena, but inevitably, there were still many reports that after investigation were classed as something other than UFOs.

The pseudoscientist above doesn't understand that we have evidence for UFO reports but none for UFOs as alien spaceships. He continues to foster his belief in UFOs as alien spaceships by subscribing to the pseudoscientific and unfalsifiable null hypothesis "Some UFO sightings are alien spaceships".

The pseudoscientist above, Mr. J. Randall Murphy, founder and proprietor of online bookstore and UFO club "Ufology Society International", has dishonestly failed to answer the pertinent question, "How then do you tell the difference between the ones that are [UFOs by your chosen definition] and the ones which are misperceptions, hoaxes, misidentification, etc?"

 

[Correa Neto]

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.

Yes, the point, as ye good ole pharaoh wrote, flew fast high above your head without a sonic boom...

You made a claim, based on UFO lore that (some) UFOs are alien craft. You wrote that your position, as an ufologist about (some) UFOs being "metallic structured alien craft". Its a claim and it must be defended by bringing forward the evidence and the methods used to build this position. I, based on the same material, showed that you can not refute an alternative interpretation built on the very same way you built your "metallic structured alien craft" interpretation. The truth is that you -as well as many other UFOlogists- will find an equally hard time while refuting other interpretations built using the same methodology, such as visitors from other universes, tulpas, Nazi craft from secret bases at the South Pole or at the Moon, time travellers, gods, etc.

By now, you should have started to wonder why it happens. The reason is simple- flawed methods. All those interpretations, (yours included) are nothing but fantasies built over preconceived ideas and weak evidence. Just like theologists can fight for centuries over what the Trinity actually means, UFOlogists can also fight an endless fight about UFOs ... Both groups of people are actually fighting over nothing but fantasies.

 

[ufology]

This nonsense again?

There's nothing ambiguous about it at all, ufology. It's bad enough that you want things that you claim to have seen to be counted as evidence, but trying to tell people that what they're looking at themselves is something other than what they know it to be is simply outrageous.

And this time don't try coming the raw prawn about copyright violation. The Admins have better things to do than deal with spurious complaints about fair use of images.

Well here are a couple more to support what I said about possible aircraft or cloud outlines:

Have a look at the emblem ( my avatar is right there ) ... hmm ... I can see the ambiguity just fine.

 

[Correa Neto]

So, where is the material evidence, the only thing that means anything.

Paul

Only "they" have it, and its kept locked in hidden subterranean bases...

 

[ufology]

Yes, the point, as ye good ole pharaoh wrote, flew fast high above your head without a sonic boom...

You made a claim, based on UFO lore that (some) UFOs are alien craft. You wrote that your position, as an ufologist about (some) UFOs being "metallic structured alien craft". Its a claim and it must be defended by bringing forward the evidence and the methods used to build this position. I, based on the same material, showed that you can not refute an alternative interpretation built on the very same way you built your "metallic structured alien craft" interpretation. The truth is that you -as well as many other UFOlogists- will find an equally hard time while refuting other interpretations built using the same methodology, such as visitors from other universes, tulpas, Nazi craft from secret bases at the South Pole or at the Moon, time travellers, gods, etc.

By now, you should have started to wonder why it happens. The reason is simple- flawed methods. All those interpretations, (yours included) are nothing but fantasies built over preconceived ideas and weak evidence. Just like theologists can fight for centuries over what the Trinity actually means, UFOlogists can also fight an endless fight about UFOs ... Both groups of people are actually fighting over nothing but fantasies.

Everything is fine up to the point when the above quote says, "will find an equally hard time while refuting other interpretations built using the same methodology". The fact is that the cryptoid space creatures have been debunked using analysis of images and investigation that shows exactly how such phenomena on video can be recreated. However the UFOs I mentioned, especially the ones that were referenced by the USAF as structured metallic craft have not been debunked. The only thing skeptics can do is dismiss them.

 

[John Albert]

...the UFOs I mentioned, especially the ones that were referenced by the USAF as structured metallic craft have not been debunked.

They haven't been debunked because there's no possible way to even evaluate them. They're nothing but claims without any testable evidence.

That's not a strong point, by any means. Pretending to "study" such untestable claims is known as pseudoscience.

 

[Akhenaten]

<special pleading>


However the UFOs I mentioned, especially the ones that were referenced by the USAF as structured metallic craft have not been debunked. The only thing skeptics can do is dismiss them.

Anyone can dismiss them, not just skeptics, and they can do it 'til hell freezes over with complete impunity.

And you know exactly why this is so, don't you, ufology?

 

[Akhenaten]

Have a look at the emblem ( my avatar is right there ) ... hmm ... I can see the ambiguity just fine.

Sure you can. And you're a completely objective and unbiased observer too.

And pigs fish fly.

 

[ufology]

They haven't been debunked because there's no possible way to evaluate them. They're nothing but claims without any testable evidence.

That's not a strong point, by any means.

Air Force pilots have already been trained and tested and the invetigators have already interrogated them and evaluated the facts. Just because skeptics don't accept that doesn't mean there is no value to it. The probability that the USAF jet pilot who chased a UFO for several minutes during the day in plain view and closed with 500 yards, close enough to determine it to be a disk shaped craft travelling at the speed of sound ... was actually hallucinating the entire event or mistook it as a canopy reflection or some other mundane thing is almost zero. The margin of error is small enough for the report to be considered reliable and true.