UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

OK fine, I'll just say, "The skeptics have already determined that every possible case represents a mundane object"

That's almost correct:

"every possible case could represent a mundane object"

 

[EHocking]

I suggest that viewers read the entire article in its proper context.

I have. Thus my previous conclusion

...
Furthermore the use of the word "alien" as I have previously stated does not necessitate an extraterrestrial origin, only something foreign to human civilization. Where they actually come from I don't know.

What bollocks.

Your definition of alien, from your website.

In contrast, most ufologists think that some UFOs represent alien craft, at least to the extent that they are alien to human civilization and are probably extraterrestrial in origin.
​

Throughout that page you make the argument for ET origin of UFOs.
And reiterate the notion of ET=EFO in your UFO definition:

"...advanced, intelligent, or intelligently controlled, highly motile entities or craft of alien origin. "
​

So there is nothing dishonest or disingenuous in what I've said. My proposed new definiton is based on the existing official definition ( which is still a proven fact ),

Rubbish.

You propose to completely discard the USAF origin of UFO.

"it is time to evolve its definition away from classical USAF definitions..."
​

To pretend otherwise is disingenous.

and which still makes all the skeptics who claim UFOs could be anything at all simply because of the word "unidentified" the ones who are truly either misinformed or disingenuous.

Incorrect.
Stating "I don't know", when don't or can not know is honest.

To state, "I don't know, therefore alien aircraft", is not.

 

[Jocce]

Mr. Albert: Anecdotal evidence falls within the scope of evidence, just not the kind of evidence you will accept because you see it as fallible

Anecdotes are unreliable. That's why you need corroborating evidence. I don't think that anyone could deny that?

, and by extension imply that science isn't,

I don't see that as implied. Our knowledge of the world is always open to correction. Only pseudoscience isn't.

even though every scientific experiment has a margin of error, and science has made plenty of mistakes and has had its share of frauds and quacks. The conclusions of science are based on the probability that given the same coinditions the same result will occur each time, but probabilities are not certainties, and unpredictable things do happen.

So science has been wrong before, therefor some UFOs are aliens. Is that your opinion?

Anecdotes arise from people's sensory experiences, which have known parameters and margins of error. Therefore it has been established by the same science you hoild so dear that first hand accounts from average healthy people contain a reasonable amount of accurate information.

Oh please. Provide some research that has come to that quite astonishing conclusion.

You choose not to accept that fact, and that's your right. However I choose to also consider what real people tell me, not just what comes out of a lab. You consider that a weakness but I consider it a strength ... too bad you can't see it.

You choose to belive claims without evidence. That is your right. That you see it as a strength is amazing.

 

[Akhenaten]

For example it is not correct to say, "I saw a UFO", if what you saw was simply some lights flying overhead. "It would be correct to say I saw some unidentified lights flying overhead."

That's not the way you described the Volksblimp in your own flying saucer story.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Quote: "Unfortunately, you think the only people who should look at both sides are the skeptics. Nothing in your closed mind has changed."

Response: So you think that me coming here to ask skeptics for opinions on cases ( The MIG video as a recent example ), so that I could get their evaluations and post them on my website constitutes me thinking that the only people who should look at both sides are the skeptics. Perhaps you haven't actually been to my website, but it's a UFO interest group. If I didn't want the people there to look at the skeptical side, why would I be attempting to create a liaison in order to provide that opportunity? You've obviously been blinded by your bias and have just proven that it is not my mind that is closed, but yours.

No, you are incorrect. You've done nothing to meet skeptics half-way as you claimed you wanted to do. I've already explained that I would be willing to admit that some UFOs were alien spaceships if there were just one confirmed case of a UFO being an alien spaceship. You may wish to review the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

which has never been falsified.

What exactly is it that you find unacceptable about that null hypothesis?

 

[RoboTimbo]

OK fine, I'll just say, "The skeptics have already determined that every possible case represents a mundane object and therefore they have no comment."

Every time you post a strawman like that, you prove that you have no understanding of the actual skeptical position nor do you want to. No wonder you're depressed every time you visit here. Have you considered posting honestly?

 

[Jocce]

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.

The problem with this definition is that it assumes that reported characteristics are a true representation of reality. Something that appeared to be doing impossible maneuvers might not have done so at all. For example, someone might see a UFOs doing airborn figure eights at night in regular intervalls. The behavior will certainly not match any known craft but be SOP for a mating firefly.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Mr. Albert: Anecdotal evidence falls within the scope of evidence, just not the kind of evidence you will accept because you see it as fallible, and by extension imply that science isn't, even though every scientific experiment has a margin of error, and science has made plenty of mistakes and has had its share of frauds and quacks.

This is another thing that you refuse to understand. An anecdote of an alleged extraordinary event is a claim. The claim is not also evidence of itself. In your run-on sentence you also throw out the old woo chestnut of "science isn't infallible". Nobody has said it is. Science is self-correcting. What has the pseudoscience of UFOlogy accomplished in the last 60 years?

The conclusions of science are based on the probability that given the same coinditions the same result will occur each time, but probabilities are not certainties, and unpredictable things do happen. Anecdotes arise from people's sensory experiences, which have known parameters and margins of error. Therefore it has been established by the same science you hoild so dear that first hand accounts from average healthy people contain a reasonable amount of accurate information.

This is contrary to reality. You've been presented with research and evidence about how fallible perception and memory are. You were a perfect example of it.

You choose not to accept that fact, and that's your right. However I choose to also consider what real people tell me, not just what comes out of a lab. You consider that a weakness but I consider it a strength ... too bad you can't see it.

No, it's too bad that you choose to live in a pseudoscientific fantasy.

 

[edge]

Here ya go, I'll post it in here too.

Originally Posted by ufology
OK fine, I'll just say, "The skeptics have already determined that every possible case represents a mundane object and therefore they have no comment."

Hey how you doing,
I don’t know if you got my P. M. I was going to send you my story but there were too many characters.
I’ll try in here.

I would wind up camped for three and a half months before making it to town and it would take me six attempts to walk out the eighteen miles to Hayfork, it took that many attempts before my heel could handle it, and me to handle it from the pain that I felt.


Now that I knew I could make it to town I could re-supply myself but I would have to sell something to do that and once I found out who would buy my little trinkets it was easy like my camera, fishing gear, a hunting knife and the few things that I didn’t need, I could buy just enough food for five days or so and would have to do it again.
I was now able and had to walk all the way back to the camp where else could I go?

I would make it to town by 2:00 or so after starting at sun up and right before sundown I would head out, by sun up I would be back in my camp, it was a long and grueling ordeal, but each time I did that it made me stronger.

This next part is after I got a job in town.

So after relaxing for a couple of days and getting my motorcycle legal I decided one evening to go get and pick up some of my stuff that was still at my camp.

I knew it would take several trips and I would enjoy going there if for nothing else for the solitude that I was use to.

I rode up a twelve mile stretch to the crest of the hill which was about the 3000 foot elevation or so then another 8 or 10 miles before I got to the camp area where I would have to ride off the main road for several hundred yards and a walk from there of about several more yards.
So I loaded the rest of my clothing and sleeping bag and personal stuff like my razor and Clippers.

Darkness was approaching and I then proceeded to come out of that side rode when I noticed that there might be a helicopter approaching my position, I don’t know why I stopped and decided to look, except it didn’t quit fit the profile of how they acted, all I know was that it acted similar but not quit, so it was interesting to watch.

At a certain point I knew that off in the distance it was heading over and down the same crest that I would have to peak on the way to town so I then left.

I figured it was related to forest service or Camp, which is short for Campaign against marijuana planters, so I didn’t give it much more thought.

I didn’t give it more thought till I crested that hill and seen it again off in the distance cruising over the town.

I rode down further and soon I seen another object that was on the other side of the gulch adjacent to the rode that followed the counters of the hill I was on which it hovered above the other ridge across the way and parallel to me.

This object was different from the first as it was square and had running lights on the back and front; its size is what amazed me about the size of a really big two-story building or house, which had about 4500 square feet or more.
I stopped again off the side of the road right where there is a turn off... to park... and I turned off my light to get a better view, the backside lights were triangular and green the front side had the same shaped lights but were red.
It sat there motionless and without a sound, all of a sudden a doorway on top opened up and people came out, now at that distance I can’t be sure but they seemed to be smaller than average and seemed to be looking at me.

So at this point, not fearing yet I flashed my headlights at it to see if they would respond, they did, they just mimicked what I did and the only thing I could think of was to flash the SOS signal at them because that’s all I knew about Morse code.

In my mind I was told or my impression was that they were doing small repairs, I have no idea if that was them or myself justifying why they were there.

I started to panic a little as it started to dawn on me about what it was that I was witnessing.
I forgot about the red light and the object that was attached to that light and I comforted myself thinking that its ours and maybe the officials were investigating it, but still panic set in.
I knew that our government didn’t have anything like this in their arsenal as I was trained to observe and recognize planes and artillery of different nations including distances and sizes.
I waved to them and they waved back I was that close, they seemed friendly enough when all of a sudden The red light at least that’s what I though, (I thought it was attached to a helicopter), came back and it was the whole craft that was a red glowing light! It pulled up and docked with the square object.
This object was about forty feet across and it never touched the square object now both were hovering and perfectly still.
It was a clear night and could tell their size because both blocked out the star field that was visible behind them.
It was about this time that all the occupants that were on top went back into it and closed the hatch or what ever it was and the light that emanated from that opening was gone.
I was expecting the military to show up at any moment but they never did, I was thinking to my self there is a flaw in our system of the way we observe our air space and then I realized that they could probably get away with even more.
It also dawned on me that they who ever they were possessed a great amount of power to be able to make that amount of mass just sit there and hover with out a sound from their equipment.
It only took a split second to realize that and about that time it fired up to move.
What I received in my mind during all of this was they were doing repairs and that they were friendly but their leader who was in the glowing red object was not exactly like them and that they feared his rule or command.

It was too late to move all I could do was sit there and observe its departure there was never a variance in their docked distance and it seemed to be locked in place, each of the two objects never touched each other.
It went from hover to slow movement all the while progressively increasing its speed moving from a northeast heading towards me to the north west leaving the ridge were they hovered some fifty feet above the tree line, these tress were at least 100 to 150 feet tall, this also gave me a perspective on their size.
It then crossed Tulle creek and the road I was on... and as it approached I could then hear a faint propulsion noise that it made.
It was electrical in nature and was picking up speed, it sounded like the huge electrical motors I had been around in USS Steels motor room and these were about fifteen feet tall and there were about five of these big ones driving the first big mill rolls of the billet mill, but way more quiet, I could barely hear it.
It proceeded around the mountain to my left and behind me and the road I was on… and then was headed due west and around and out of sight. The view I got was unbelievable and so close I can’t describe it any better except to say it was stealthy in appearance or meant to blend in and very large.

I then started up my bike and headed to town.

It was about eight o’clock when I got back and I sat at the bar and decided to have a double rum and coke.
Mickey said I thought you didn’t drink”
I said, “I do now”, so she sensed something right off and asked, “what was wrong”, I said, “you wouldn’t believe me if I told you”, she said, “ go ahead try me”.
This isn't the beginning of the story or the end.
Two weeks later I was amazed again.

I know skeptics won't understand my writing.

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snip cherry picked definition of Unidentified Flying Object>

So what's left? Paul suggested hoaxes. However it does not seem reasonable to propose hoaxes for every UFO case ... ( The radar/visual USAF jet pursuit from the Washington National Sightings as an example ) so then what ... clearly we are we are dealing with something alien ( to our civilization ). Where it came from I don't know ( I didn't say it was ET ).

The pseudoscientist above again dishonestly repeats the same misrepresentation. ufology, why do you continue to strawman the skeptical position? Can you make an attempt to be honest? Nobody has said that every case is a hoax so why do you continue to repeat it. No wonder you are depressed after your visits here.

What say the skeptics?

Does it matter if you don't listen?

I presume they think it was a mundane object ... as if glowing blue-white spheres of light that outrun USAF interceptors are "mundane". But where's the proof they say? To that I say go look it up. The radar/visual pursuit is documented.

The null hypothesis is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

If there are any which you claim are non-mundane, you have the burden of proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anecdotes won't cut it. Which parts of that do you not understand? The evidence says, "All of it."

 

[Paul2]

So what's left? Paul suggested hoaxes. However it does not seem reasonable to propose hoaxes for every UFO case ...

Your strawman is shifting the burden of proof by moving the goalposts. Which is pretty tricky, if you visualize it!

Well done!

 

[RoboTimbo]

I suggest that viewers read the entire article in its proper context. So far as I am concerned, the official USAF definition is nothing more than a way of saying the same thing as the proposed new definition without actually having to use the word "alien". After all, the word UFO was created to replace the phrase "flying saucer", which was presumed to be an alien craft anyway. That makes the word UFO nothing more than a euphmism that better served the USAF P.R. campaign. Furthermore the use of the word "alien" as I have previously stated does not necessitate an extraterrestrial origin, only something foreign to human civilization. Where they actually come from I don't know.

Why do you make up such lame crap?

So there is nothing dishonest or disingenuous in what I've said. My proposed new definiton is based on the existing official definition ( which is still a proven fact ), and which still makes all the skeptics who claim UFOs could be anything at all simply because of the word "unidentified" the ones who are truly either misinformed or disingenuous.

Oh, that's why. Because you're dishonest and disingenuous in what you've said. UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object.

 

[Marduk]

is it me, or has Ufology given Rramjet access to his jref account
all of this is awfully familiar

 

[John Albert]

I do.

This is not a matter of RoboTimbo's satisfaction. When I'm looking at a claim regarding the physical world, I don't think to myself, "Gee, I better ask RoboTimbo's opinion about this" (Sorry, Robo).

Actually, I shouldn't have made an example of Mr. Timbo like that. What I meant to say is, when it comes to science, nobody's opinion is the rule. Knowledge of the Universe is based on empirical evidence, tested and verified by numerous researchers, independently trying to prove each other wrong.

If we don't challenge and test our own and each other's assumptions, and just accept as fact everything that our we feel sounds reasonable, and everything that's promoted by our friends, celebrities, leaders, etc. then we're going to be led astray. That's the way the world worked in the ages before we had science. Everything was explained in terms of some fairy-tale or cosmic mystery, often contrived specifically for the purpose of placating the public and reinforcing the power of the ruling establishment.

Science, on the other hand, represents the power of the individual to challenge and even change that establishment; but only so long as one follows the rules, examines and tests one's own work with objective critical analysis, and submits that work to testing by others before proclaiming it to the general public.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So the poster above doesn't consider himself to be a "steenkin' skeptic"? How interesting. What is he then? The resident heckler?

The point of referencing the official definition of UFO by the people who created it is to alert those who misrepresent the word UFO as possibly being anything simply because the initialism used the word "unidentified". Granted, the definition is long and clumsy, but it makes the point that UFOs are by definition not mundane objects, and using it casually as if they are is not correct.

This is more of your made up crap. UFOs by definition are Unidentified. You don't get to weasel your way into redefining words to make aliens appear. That would be dishonest pseudoscientific tactics and I'm sure you wouldn't want to appear that way.

For example it is not correct to say, "I saw a UFO", if what you saw was simply some lights flying overhead.

No, that would be the perfectly correct thing to say.

"It would be correct to say I saw some unidentified lights flying overhead."

That would also be correct but more wordier.

However as portrayed in the video that kicked this all off, it is common to see some skeptic say something like, "When somebody says they saw a UFO, what does that mean? It means they saw something unidentified. In other words they don't know what it was, so it could have been anything."

That's because that's what it means in English. What is your first language?

Such portrayals misrepresent the UFO phenomenon and misinform the public. Furthermore, many skeptics must know they are doing it. Certainly the skeptics ( and anyone else ) here should now know better.

No, your statement doesn't mesh with the facts. I'm not sure if you are deliberately telling falsehoods or you are just misinformed. I would appreciate it if you would not tell deliberate falsehoods anymore but I will point out every time you do.

 

[Marduk]

That's because that's what it means in English. What is your first language?
.

Canadian

 

[23_Tauri]

Tauri ... sure, but your comment is made out of context. I had proposed that skeptics make their views known about certain cases I run across for the benefit of my readers. Stray's response, to paraphrase, was that it's all nonsense and to just default to the null hypothesis, and that prompted me to say, "OK I'll just write that the skeptics just think it's all nonsense and all UFOs are of mundane origin". Which prompted the comment, "Where do you get this stuff?" So I provided the link to Stray's comment, and then you just fell off the rails here and started yelling with that confused look.

It's true, I admit it, I went

and shouted. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have raised my voice. My bad. Stray Cat won't though because he's Mr Cool.

 

[EHocking]

Your strawman is shifting the burden of proof by moving the goalposts. Which is pretty tricky, if you visualize it!

I can help there. I believe I created this GIF for just this thread (albeit as a result of the OP's debating technique).

 

[23_Tauri]

Furthermore the use of the word "alien" as I have previously stated does not necessitate an extraterrestrial origin, only something foreign to human civilization. Where they actually come from I don't know.

Like sky-fishes that fly around in the outer reaches of Earth's atmosphere, which are (quote) associated with cryptozoology, which is of peripheral interst to ufologists..(and)...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.

Those sorts of somethings foreign to human civilisation?

 

[23_Tauri]

This is contrary to reality. You've been presented with research and evidence about how fallible perception and memory are. You were a perfect example of it.

Yup, and not only that, ufology ( and the rest of us ) have been gifted with the resurrection of this thread. One of us didn't resurrect it, but the timing is impeccable. Ufology, have you had a good swint at all the examples documenting the unreliability of eye witness testimony yet? What does it tell you about stories from pilots saying that they saw orbs doing Mach 3?