Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
You'll need to do better than lamely grasp at a 53 year old sort-job to change what "unidentified" means. Either something is identified or it is not. It's that simple and there's nothing misleading about that.
So obviously UFOs aren't simply anything including:
Any familiar or known object such as aircraft, birds, balloons, kites, searchlights, and astronomical bodies etc.
Unknown aircraft that fit the general description of aircraft
Pilotless aircraft or missiles
They also don't conform to the performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or features of known aircraft or missiles.
Wrong! All the above things could, and often are, classified as "UFOs" and rightly so if the observers didn't know what they were. I know you don't like the intimation that a balloon or other "mundane" object could fuel a UFO report but that's reality. You might try, but you can't redefine what "unidentified" means to suit your bias.
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 ).
A couple years back during the late afternoon I saw an odd-looking "lumpy" spherical object traveling at a decent clip without making a sound. It was too far up to make a naked-eye determination as to what it could have been but it obviously wasn't a plane, helicopter, or missile. Luckily for me I had my binoculars handy and identified it as 2 balloons tied together with string that was scudding along on an upper air current. Without my binocs I would not have been able to identify what I saw and it's quite possible that a few of my neighbors saw it and didn't have binoculars. If that was the case what did they see? They saw a "UFO" and for all I know those balloons are on a UFO database somewhere. Where's the hoax and how could you, by waving AFR 200-2 around, tell any of my naked-eye neighbors that they didn't see a "UFO?"
What say the skeptics? 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.
No sceptic has (or even could possibly) "determine every possible case represents a mundane object"
Just that the evidence presented so far is not sufficient to falsify the null hypothesis.
As for my statement about "nonsense" Anything that is written which claims to falsify the null hypothesis is nonsense. You endorse such pseudo scientific nonsense by promoting the fallacy that unless disproven, a story can be claimed as 'OMG - aliens!'.
A real researcher would not do that and it's only in UFOlogy and other paranormal subjects that this misuse of the scientific method is the prevalent method... which is exactly why the term pseudo science is appropriate.
The above poster misrepresents my position entirely. As anyone who follows the conversation will discover. Not only have I asked for skeptical input, and have noted the apparent hoaxing of the MIG UFO chase video, I've also pointed out the official USAF definition of UFO for which many mundane objects had to be ruled out before the object in a UFO report was considered to be a UFO, and I've openly advocated the use of science when possible and critical thinking when it's not possible. I've also offered a relatively mundane explanation for one of the sightings presented by another poster. Simply because I also advocate a proper understanding of the word UFO by those who use it, is in no way assuming all UFO reports are caused by UFOs.
If skeptics want to pursue the study of the phenomenon using a null hypothesis, then at least state it correctly. Because UFOs themselves, as defined, are not mundane phenomena, and UFO reports and UFOs themselves are two separate things, they could use something like: "All UFO reports stem from mundane objects or phenomena."
Even so, as I've mentioned in the past, any null hypothesis is meant to be used in a controlled experiment where probabilities can be established through repetition. UFOs do not offer us that opportunity, so insisting on using a null hypothesis in any way other than informally, is not in keeping with standard scientific practice. Yet the skeptics insist that it should be used ... are they themselves then not advocating pseudoscience?
What I "see" or think is irrelevant. My opinion alone means nothing.
If you go back to the beginning of this thread and read through it, you'll see that I am not the only person here espousing the view that anecdotes are not evidence. For a more thorough discussion of why this is so, I invite you to check out this thread which you appear to have forgotten already.
Everybody in this thread (with the notable exception of yourself and Rramjet) agrees that stories by themselves do not constitute evidence for any extraordinary claim. We're all in agreement that anecdotes alone have no power at all to prove any of the claims contained within them, and even a profusion of generally self-supporting anecdotes do not add up to much.
But even the collective opinion of everyone on these forums—or the shared opinion of everyone who ever lived, for that matter—means little in terms of establishing the truth. Opinions have no bearing or power over reality. Reality does what it does, regardless what we think of it.
In the quest for truth, the only thing that matters is what we can prove, reliably and repeatably, through objective, measurable, and testable evidence.
The reason we have a consensus that anecdotes are near useless to this end, is because that fact has been proven time and again in countless tests. Even experiments that don't set out to test whether or not anecdotes are unreliable, end up indicating that fact to a certainty. Human beings tend to confuse, forget, and fabricate details on their own. In many cases, these errors are made without the claimant even realizing they're doing it.
Alongside the actual evidence that proves stories are generally unreliable, a logical examination of the nature of anecdotes reveals they're basically just collections of claims. Logic further dictates that claims do not prove themselves.
For proof of just how unreliable anecdotes can be, take a look at the story of my own UFO sighting. I invite you to take particular notice of how unreliable my own anecdote turned out to be, after checking my own memory against scientific star charts and the memories of two of my friends who were also present at the time of viewing.
This is a strawman argument. I certainly never said science is infallible, and have even made a conscious effort to avoid implying it. Science is always being proven wrong, through the ongoing practice of science. If science were ever to conclusively determine the whole truth, there would be no more science because we'd already know everything for certain.
It appears that this conclusion of yours is a result of your own bias, not anything I or anyone else ever said in this or any other thread.
Sure there are margins of error, and these are usually estimated and accounted for by researchers. Where's your margin of error in concluding that UFOs are actually alien spacecraft?
We're really coming back around to this old argument again?
As for quacks, I believe we'd already firmly established (in the "Is Ufology Pseudoscience" thread) that the individuals engaging in quackery are not practicing the methods of science, therefore they're in no way representative of the method of science.
In that same thread, you were challenged to provide an example of a UFOlogy organization that actually employs the real scientific method in the study of UFOlogy. To this date, that challenge remains buried within the growing pile of important questions you simply refused to acknowledge.
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.
Those margins of error are not known, because they're damn near infinitely variable. That lack of certainty is precisely why mere anecdotes alone are useless for determining the existence of anything not already proven to exist by empirical evidence.
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.
You talk a lot about critical thinking and do a bit of window dressing in this thread, but all pretence is shed on your website. Anyone under the misapprehension that you were making some kind of clever argument here - and I don't think there would be many - would have that very quickly dispelled by the stories you relate over there. Do you see any such contrast yourself?
Even so, as I've mentioned in the past, any null hypothesis is meant to be used in a controlled experiment where probabilities can be established through repetition. UFOs do not offer us that opportunity, so insisting on using a null hypothesis in any way other than informally, is not in keeping with standard scientific practice. Yet the skeptics insist that it should be used ... are they themselves then not advocating pseudoscience?
I have. Thus my previous conclusion
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. "
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.
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.
The poster above perhaps needs to learn the difference between what people think something is and what people think something probably is, and to differentiate between the words alien and extraterrestrial. Here is how we ufologists look at the words "alien" and "extraterrestrial".
So for some words, we consult a specific definition as recorded in 1958, as defined by the United States Air Force (even if we're Canadian and it's 2011).
For other words, the dictionary definitions are fine.
And for yet other words, we have to look at "ufology" web pages for definitions.
It's amazing I'm able to communicate at all. I never learned all these rules. Is there a special school for this?
For proof of just how unreliable anecdotes can be, take a look at the story of my own UFO sighting. It starts here and continues for a few pages along the same thread. I invite you to take particular notice of how unreliable my own account turned out to be.
When I was called on my numerous inaccuracies, did I declare that there's no way my own experience could have resulted from anything mundane? Did I stubbornly assert the infallibility of my own memory and defend my story point-by-point against the challenges of Astrophotographer and others? Did I suddenly confabulate additional details to refute their critiques?
Of course not. I approached the situation with the honest admission that I did not know what the object was.
When inconsistencies in my story were pointed out, I questioned my own memory, then double-checked the details against the accounts of two of my friends who were also present at the time of viewing (related anecdotes), and consulted objective star charts (genuine, bona-fide evidence!).
By comparing my own account with their accounts and the charts, I was able to piece together bits of information I'd overlooked, and identify the inconsistencies among our stories. Two of my most glaring inaccuracies regarded the specific time of the sighting (pointed out by Astrophotographer and later corrected by my friends' accounts as well as the star charts), and the exact heading of the object as it traversed the sky (related by my friend who owns the real estate we'd been standing in at the time).
Comparing our subjective accounts with each other pointed out some areas of inaccuracy, and that's where the objective evidence came in. It provided more accuracy than all our accounts taken as a whole, and considerably more then any one account alone. That accuracy was just enough to square our claims with other objective sources of information (even more real evidence!) as to what sorts of man-made things were known to be circling the Earth in that direction at that time. By taking everything into account, I was able to extrapolate enough info to determine the exact identity of our "flying object" with reasonable certainty.
Note that this discovery would never have been possible if I hadn't acknowledged my own infallibility and sought out other peoples' opinions and objective facts to correct my own mistakes. Likewise, it would have remained a mystery if I'd approached the experience with a foregone conclusion and sought only evidence to validate it, while rejecting any evidence to the contrary.
It's important to note that the value of anecdotal evidence in this example was merely a jumping off point for seeking specific objective evidence. That non-anecdotal, objective evidence was indispensable to solving the case.
Also, while the multiplicity of accounts did provide additional accuracy, that accuracy was derived not by examining the points on which our stories agreed, but where they differed. The differences pointed towards areas of inaccuracy where alternate, objective evidence could be brought in to resolve the differences. If that objective data had not been available, or if my single account was the only thing we had to go on, a successful resolution would not have been possible.
Following a firsthand sighting, one can choose from two paths:
to investigate honestly, rationally and critically in search of a valid explanation by way of proven methodology, or
exploit one's own lack of knowledge to assume it represents a universal mystery, arrogantly declare oneself an expert on the paranormal, and dishonestly expound on it by piling on the BS.
The reasons we tend to think things are true is because they seem reasonable. If I'd not seen this object do what it did with my own eyes, I'd think that it was unreasonable too. I've said it before that I have a hard time accepting the sheer accelleration of the object.
You implied well enough that it could have been something as mundane as that and I simply used the same example to imply it's ludicrous to think it was.
In fact I think the above poster is wrong and that the reports that led to the conclusions were very real, which means that there was some reality. I also think that the reports that led to the conclusion were based on real events and not merely fabricated, and I would go so far as to say that the pilots who reported chasing the objects were telling the truth to their superiors. Which means they must have seen something ... which apparently were real structured metallic craft, circular or elliptical in shape, flat on bottom and domed on top ... hmm ... sounds pretty real to me.
So for some words, we consult a specific definition as recorded in 1958, as defined by the United States Air Force (even if we're Canadian and it's 2011).
For other words, the dictionary definitions are fine.
And for yet other words, we have to look at "ufology" web pages for definitions.
It's amazing I'm able to communicate at all. I never learned all these rules. Is there a special school for this?
The above poster again misses the context and presumes incorrectly that if he sees something in the sky and can't identify it immediately it's automatically a UFO. However that is not the case. It would be correct to say that the object is an unidentified object, light, shape or whatever in the sky ... or simply ask, "What's that thing up there?" To jump to the conclusion that it is a UFO automatically rules out a whole host of mundane objects, and as skeptics point out, that is not such a good way to start.
Lastly, simply because the word UFO is often used as a convenience term in casual conversation, doesn't make it a correct usage, and when it is used in casual conversation the context should be clarified so as to differentiate it from what the official definition implies ... which is something alien to our civilization, knowledge or understanding. Again, in this context, the word "alien" is not synonymous with "extraterrestrial".
Simply put. Unless you are reasonably sure that the object you see can't be explained as a mundane object or phenomenon, you should not be calling it a UFO.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
