UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

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.

Which bit of all that guff are you claiming as the testable evidence?

 

[ufology]

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

And pigs fish fly.

That's why I also posted the images that the above conveniently left out. It makes it obvious that I speak the truth regardless of my personal bias. I should also point out here that it's the skeptics who say they only see the saucer ( ironic ). And I'll point out again that since I'm the one who made the emblem, I should know what effect I was trying to acheive. And I'll add to that the ambiguity was also intended to represent stealth technology ... alien or otherwise ( the blue sky ground showing clearly through the object itself ).

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

The above pseudoscientist claims that Air Force pilots never make mistakes. Does the above pseudoscientist have evidence for that claim?

 

[John Albert]

Air Force pilots have already been trained and tested and the invetigators have already interrogated them and evaluated the facts.

None of this has any bearing on the truthfulness or accuracy of the accounts. The only fact we know for certain is that somebody wrote down a story.

Just because skeptics don't accept that doesn't mean there is no value to it.

Skeptics don't accept extraordinary claims at face value, because claims do not constitute evidence for themselves. That's just elementary logic.

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.

Weasel words. In the absence of evidence, probability is a totally subjective matter of opinion.

For all we know, the entire story might have been the result of an optical illusion, an hallucination, or a made-up lie.

[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 in this thread, 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 proposed mundane explanations. 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.

 

[23_Tauri]

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.

And if you don't particularly like that example of skyfishes reacting intelligently to external stimuli, you can see them again collecting around the STS-75 tether at 1:07:34, and the pièce de résistance is "making themselves known" at 57:34 - 59:05.

My question remains, what is the difference between this 'evidence' for intelligent/intelligently controlled craft/entities/UFOs, which is the sort of thing that Snad was alluding to, and your intelligently controlled UFOs, ufology?

 

[ufology]

Which bit of all that guff are you claiming as the testable evidence?

The testable evidence was the pilot and his report, who as a USAF pilot had already been tested and evaluated for his ability to observe, take action and report, and that afterward he was also tested under interrogation, and that was cross checked against the radar readings and those who had been monitoring the situation as it happened. The margin of error in the testing of that evidence to determine that a UFO had actually been tracked on radar, intercepted and pursued is negligible. I accept it as evidence, most skeptics don't. They can't get their hands on the evidence so they don't think it exists or ever existed.

 

[AdMan]

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.

So you're really claiming that the saucer-shaped object in your logo isn't meant to represent this object in the image that's right next to it on your website?

 

[John Albert]

The testable evidence was the pilot and his report, who as a USAF pilot had already been tested and evaluated for his ability to observe, take action and report, and that afterward he was also tested under interrogation, and that was cross checked against the radar readings and those who had been monitoring the situation as it happened. The margin of error in the testing of that evidence to determine that a UFO had actually been tracked on radar, intercepted and pursued is negligible. I accept it as evidence, most skeptics don't. They can't get their hands on the evidence so they don't think it exists or ever existed.

No, what you're calling "evidence" is a story that claims all those things.

But a story alone is not evidence, because the story itself is not testable. You have no physical access to any of the original data, or any of the principals in this story to verify it. Therefore, the entire thing is completely unverifiable and unfalsifiable.

In other words, it's a claim and not evidence.

 

[John Albert]

[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 in this thread, 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 proposed mundane explanations. 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.

 

[carlitos]

lulz

So you're really claiming that the saucer-shaped object in your logo isn't meant to represent this object in the image that's right next to it on your website?

On edit - To be fair, that one doesn't look very stealthy, symbolically or otherwise.

 

[Resume]

The testable evidence was the pilot and his report,

No, that's not testable evidence; it's an anecdote that can't be falsified nor independently corroborated and thus nearly useless.

 

[carlitos]

This was post #14 in the thread:

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

This is post 11,408

The testable evidence was the pilot and his report ...

If a "ufologist" were interested in honest discourse, he could explain the logical difference between believing that 50's-era UFO reports are evidence for alien visitors and believing in the truth of the new testament, or that bigfoot stories are evidence for bigfoot.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The testable evidence was the pilot and his report, who as a USAF pilot had already been tested and evaluated for his ability to observe

The above pseudoscientist, Mr. J. Randall Murphy, founder and proprietor of online bookstore and UFO club "Ufology Society International", has posted a deliberate misrepresentation. Note the following from this thread:

One of the things that has been bandied about here is that military pilots are trained observers and that their word is totally true. I have never seen a course of study along the lines of a college course titled 'Observation of Things in the Air and on the Ground - 101'. I have never heard from anyone that has ever experienced it. I don't know where it would be taught, certainly not in Undergraturate Pilot Traing (UPT).

PD

take action and report, and that afterward he was also tested under interrogation, and that was cross checked against the radar readings and those who had been monitoring the situation as it happened. The margin of error in the testing of that evidence to determine that a UFO had actually been tracked on radar, intercepted and pursued is negligible. I accept it as evidence, most skeptics don't. They can't get their hands on the evidence so they don't think it exists or ever existed.

rendering the above paragraph a blatant misrepresentation. When will the above pseudoscientist stop posting deliberate and blatant misrepresentations?

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Ufology please tell me how the Air Force trains it's pilots to identify ufos.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

Hmmmm......Is this the same kind of trained pilot who could make mistake like perceiving a bright meteor as a swarm of UFOs (see Klass - UFOs Identified) or re-entering space debris as the stealth fighter (See MOD files - this was not just one pilot)? Apparently, their training in identifying things breaks down on occassion.

As for this case, you omit telling everyone (and it has been pointed out repeatedly) that this was Ruppelt reading about a report he saw that was never filed. There is no evidence it even happened as described (or even happened at all). In fact, the pilot is the only person who saw the UFO. If the pilot really did fire his guns over US air space where it was possible he could hit innocent civilians, it would have been a serious violation of the rules. What better way to explain his eagerness to pull the trigger and play with his guns than he was chasing a UFO? I am not stating that is what happened but it is a realistic possibility that MUST be considered. Had he reported he was chasing a flying dragon, you would dismiss it even though there is the same amount of evidence for flying dragons as there are for these UFO craft.

 

[ufology]

No, what you're calling "evidence" is a story that claims all those things.

But a story alone is not evidence, because the story itself is not testable. You have no physical access to any of the original data, or any of the principals in this story to verify it. Therefore, the entire thing is completely unverifiable and unfalsifiable.

In other words, it's a claim and not evidence.

evidence​

ev·i·dence [évvid’ns] noun

1. sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion.
•　There is no evidence that the disease is related to diet.​

2. proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime​

•　The police have no evidence.​

3. statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry​

 

[carlitos]

Oh, so the dictionary is OK for some words, but not others. Another textbook case of special pleading^WP. How very dishonest.

On edit - maybe I'm rushing to judgement.

Dear ufology guy,

This is my last ditch effort at giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you aren't being dishonest and manipulative with me here.

Can you honestly (using logic and not fallacies) explain why you look at a dictionary to define "evidence," but you have to dig up 50-year-old Air Force documents to define "UFO?" Per my earlier example, if I went to a 100-year-old dictionary to defend my use of the offensive term "faggot," that would be me being dishonest. You appear to be doing the same. Please explain, and again please no fallacies. A list is here - you can cross check before you hit "post reply."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

 

[John Albert]

evidence​

ev·i·dence [évvid’ns] noun

1. sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion.
•　There is no evidence that the disease is related to diet.​

2. proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime​

•　The police have no evidence.​

3. statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry​

Your highlighting of "statements of witnesses" is kind of dubious. UFOlogy does not constitute a trial or official inquiry, but (allegedly) an area of research.

When it comes to critical thinking, anecdotes alone are no evidence to support extraordinary claims.


ETA: and what's with all the FONT tags? Jesus H. Christ!

 

[ufology]

Oh, so the dictionary is OK for some words, but not others. Another textbook case of special pleading^WP. How very dishonest.

On edit - maybe I'm rushing to judgement.

Dear ufology guy,

This is my last ditch effort at giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you aren't being dishonest and manipulative with me here.

Can you honestly (using logic and not fallacies) explain why you look at a dictionary to define "evidence," but you have to dig up 50-year-old Air Force documents to define "UFO?" Per my earlier example, if I went to a 100-year-old dictionary to defend my use of the offensive term "faggot," that would be me being dishonest. You appear to be doing the same. Please explain, and again please no fallacies. A list is here - you can cross check before you hit "post reply."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

The official USAF definition from AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958 is perfectly valid within the context I've used it. If you don't think so then revisit my post that outlines the importance of context within a discussion. If you would like to use some other definition of evidence that is of special relevance to this discission, then present the source and we'll discuss it as we are able within that context ... no problem.

 

[carlitos]

The official USAF definition from AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958 is perfectly valid within the context I've used it

Bare Assertion^WP it is. That wasn't really even a good try. Come on - I gave you this list! . Your methods of argument are dishonest.

You can't honestly answer this question?

Why is the dictionary OK for some words, but not for your precious "UFO" word? It's a simple question; you've posted a handful of definitions that suit your purposes, but you reject the simple, commonly-understood definition of UFO. This is transparently dishonest, and frankly manipulative. You deserve much worse than you're getting here.