UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Toke]

Sure assorted fields of science and trade get to define their own term and have some success at getting the rest of the world to use that meaning.

Flying-saucerologists on the other hand have a problem (which they share with other pseudo-scientists) in not having the respect and credibility to make it stick.
(And often because it is simply too silly, just see UFO = flying saucer.)

 

[AdMan]

Again the person above igored the official definitions and defers to casual out of context usage as if it's valid.

Poster above, if by UFO you mean "flying alien craft," why not just say "flying alien craft" and lose the ambiguity?

If you want an acronym, you can go with FAC, and you're a facologist.

For everyone else, the U in UFO still means we don't yet know what it is.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Even the superceeded definion, if you sift through it, still amounts to the same thing. It's just been made more accomodating to certain politics at the time that were trying to downplay ufos. But if you read on you'll see for example:

a. Activities receiving initial reports of aerial objects and phenomena will screen the information to determine if the report concerns a valid UFO as defined in paragraph 1a. reports not falling within that definition do not require further action. Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling near airport and airways, and other aircraft phenomena should not be reported as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO.
​

Since the superceded versions still amount one way or another to the same thing as the better organized definition in AFR 200-2 Feb 05, 1958, that is the one I refer people to.

The later version simply states some of the obvious mundane explanations for some sightings that didn't need to be reported or labeled as UFOs. Can you point out in it where it says that all UFOs are of non-mundane origin?

I think we all see why you prefer the old superceded version since they don't amount to the same thing. Do you feel that dishonestly clinging to the 1958 version is an admirable thing for you to do?

 

[John Albert]

To illustrate further, the word "star" can have several different meanings, from a generic "point of light in the night sky" ( Encarta ) to a person of celebrity status, but in the field of astronomy the word "star" has a very specific meaning, an official definition by astronomers for use in the context of astronomy.

Well the solution to that problem would be rather easy, if it ever became an issue. One could simply post the dictionary definition of the word and highlight the appropriate sub-definition, like so:

star

1 a : a natural luminous body visible in the sky especially at night

...b : a self-luminous gaseous spheroidal celestial body of great mass which produces energy by means of nuclear fusion reactions
2 a : (1) : a planet or a configuration of the planets that is held in astrology to influence one's destiny or fortune —usually used in plural
........(2) : a waxing or waning fortune or fame <her star was rising>

...b : obsolete : destiny

3 a : a conventional figure with five or more points that represents a star; especially : asterisk

...b : an often star-shaped ornament or medal worn as a badge of honor, authority, or rank or as the insignia of an order

...c : one of a group of conventional stars used to place something in a scale of value

4 : something resembling a star <was hit on the head and saw stars>

5 a : the principal member of a theatrical or operatic company who usually plays the chief roles

...b : a highly publicized theatrical or motion-picture performer

...c : an outstandingly talented performer <a track star>

...d : a person who is preeminent in a particular field[/list][/LIST]​

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/star


We can't do that with the definitions you employ, because they're not found in any dictionary. You cherry-pick obscure, arcane definitions from outside the common usage, for the specific intent of controlling the language to support your own arguments, and depriving others of using those same words in the conventional sense.

That is very dishonest of you, Mr. J. Randall Murphy, noted pseudoscientist and founding proprietor of online bookstore and UFO club "Ufology Society International." Your deceitful tricks will not go undiscovered or unrecorded in this forum.

Furthermore it is perfectly acceptable for poeple who study things to define their own words, as astronomers have for the word "star" or geologists have for the word "erosion" or musicians have for the word "sharp" or artists have for the word "medium", and many such words date back farther than the word UFO.

Those are all false analogies, because all those words are recognized for their specific application in the given fields, whereas your definition is not.

In fact, MUFON (the world's oldest and largest UFOlogy organization) defines a UFO thus:

In strictest terms, a UFO is just that - an apparent unidentified flying object, origin unknown. The best scientifically accepted definition of a UFO is probably that provided by the late astronomer J. Allen Hynek, who said that the UFO is simply "the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible." (The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1972, p. 10.)

http://www.mufon.com/FAQs.html#Q1


So you see, your arcane, obsolete USAF definition is not even agreed upon by the world's leading UFOlogy organization, let alone a consensus within the "field" of UFOlogy.

You're not fooling us for a second with all this doubletalk, Mr. J. Randall Murphy, founder and proprietor of "Ufology Society International."

We're all quite astute enough to perceive the precise reason why you chose to employ your little trick of redefinition. That trick is one of your favorites. You've already tried (and failed) using it many times already on these same forums in arguments against the same individuals. It didn't work then. What made you think it would work this time?

So there is no legitimate criticism for ufologists using official definitions of the word UFO when discussing UFOs, and it is a misrepresentation to use incorrect terminology when presenting the word UFO to the public. It would be like me saying, "A star is just a point of light in the night sky ( Encarta ) ... so it could be almost anything with a light on it like a balloon or an airplane".

However I don't do that to astronomers or anyone else because I choose to respect people who work within their field. So please show the same courtesy here.

Wow. What a load of ****.

Mr. J. Randall Murphy, noted pseudoscientist and founding proprietor of online bookstore and UFO club "Ufology Society International," your dishonest arguments are certainly not reflecting favorably on the so-called "study" of UFOlogy.

 

[23_Tauri]

Poster above, if by UFO you mean "flying alien craft," why not just say "flying alien craft" and lose the ambiguity?

If you want an acronym, you can go with FAC, and you're a facologist.

Hat's off to you, Adman, you get Word of the Day™

 

[ufology]

Well the solution to that problem would be rather easy, if it ever became an issue. One could simply post the dictionary definition of the word and highlight the appropriate sub-definition, like so:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/star

We can't do that with the definitions you employ, because they're not found in any dictionary. You cherry-pick obscure, arcane definitions from outside the common usage, for the specific intent of controlling the language to support your own arguments, and depriving others of using those same words in the conventional sense.

That is very dishonest of you, Mr. J. Randall Murphy, noted pseudoscientist and founding proprietor of online bookstore and UFO club "Ufology Society International." Your deceitful tricks will not go undiscovered or unrecorded in this forum.

Those are all false analogies, because all those words are recognized for their specific application in the given fields, whereas your definition is not.

In fact, MUFON (the world's oldest and largest UFOlogy organization) defines a UFO thus:

So you see, your arcane, obsolete USAF definition is not even agreed upon by the major UFOlogy organization, let alone a consensus within the "field" of UFOlogy.

You're not fooling us for a second with all this doubletalk, Mr. J. Randall Murphy of "Ufology Society International."

We're all quite astute enough to perceive the precise reason why you chose to employ your little trick of redefinition. That trick is one of your favorites. You've already tried (and failed) using it many times already on these same forums in arguments against the same individuals. It didn't work then. What made you think it would work this time?
Wow. What a load of ****.

Mr. J. Randall Murphy, noted pseudoscientist and founding proprietor of online bookstore and UFO club "Ufology Society International," your dishonest arguments are certainly not reflecting favorably on the so-called "study" of UFOlogy.

The above is just more hand waving and name calling. None of it makes any sense. However when viewed in the context I had presented my statements, I do make sense and I've backed them with historical examples.

 

[AdMan]

The above is just more hand waving and name calling. None of it makes any sense. However when viewed in the context I had presented my statements, I do make sense and I've backed them with historical examples.

Not at all; you just claiming that doesn't make it so.

Have you contacted MUFON to tell them the definition they are using is wrong?

 

[carlitos]

Good point. ufology could build bridges through outreach.

 

[ufology]

The later version simply states some of the obvious mundane explanations for some sightings that didn't need to be reported or labeled as UFOs. Can you point out in it where it says that all UFOs are of non-mundane origin?

I think we all see why you prefer the old superceded version since they don't amount to the same thing. Do you feel that dishonestly clinging to the 1958 version is an admirable thing for you to do?

Because official definion(s) of the word UFO exclude most "mundane" objects by virtue of the fact that most people are unable to identify them, and because UFOs are not to be considered "mundane" objects like Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling near airport and airways, and other aircraft phenomena ... and because it is painfully obvious that UFOs are not to be reported if they are mundane objects, then obviously what is being said is that UFOs are not mundane objects.

Where the skeptics are getting confused is that the above doesn't mean that you can't presume a UFO report to have a mundane explanation until otherwise proven. It just means that until it's proven the object isn't a UFO as defined, it's simply an unidentified object or phenomenon. Informally it could be called an unidentified flying object so long as the context is understood or made clear.

As for "clinging" to the definition. It is perfectly reasonable to use official definitions within the context of the topics they apply to regardless of how old they are. I've conceded that the definition is clumsy, and I've proposed a new one that simply defines it as it was obviously designed to imply. However I'm not using that one here, because that would technically be a "redefinition". Perhaps I will be successful in having it accepted, but until I do, I've not redefined anything, only proposed it. The other definitions I've used here were created by the same people who created the word in the first place and therefore legitimately take precedence over other definitions regardless of when they were created or by whom else.

 

[AdMan]

Where the skeptics are getting confused is that the above doesn't mean that you can't presume a UFO report to have a mundane explanation until otherwise proven. It just means that until it's proven the object isn't a UFO as defined, it's simply an unidentified object or phenomenon.

It's amazing how you like to twist words into tortuous incomprehensible sentences and presume that you are making a persuasive logical argument that way.

Actually, it's just very silly.

ETA: Have you contacted MUFON to tell them the definition they are using is wrong?

 

[carlitos]

.....it is painfully obvious that UFOs are not to be reported if they are mundane objects, then obviously what is being said is that UFOs are not mundane objects.

Where the skeptics are getting confused is that the above doesn't mean that you can't presume a UFO report to have a mundane explanation until otherwise proven. ....

The above is completely 180 degrees ass-backwards. No "non-mundane" objects have ever been proven, therefore that's the obvious default position. A null hypothesis that has never been disproven.

ETA - Seriously, FAC-ology doesn't sound great, but if you want to talk about aliens in flying saucers, just say so. Lots of people do this.

 

[John Albert]

The above is just more hand waving and name calling. None of it makes any sense. However when viewed in the context I had presented my statements, I do make sense and I've backed them with historical examples.

You can lie all you want, Mr. J. Randall Murphy, noted pseudoscientist and founding proprietor of online bookstore and UFO club "Ufology Society International," but any intelligent person who reads this thread will be able to plainly see your dishonest, manipulative tactics for what they are.

Don't you realize that you're digging yourself in deeper with every post in which you try to waffle, manipulate language, or outright lie instead of just honestly participating in the discussion at hand?

We'd be more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt if you'd just admit that your beliefs are faith-based opinions instead of known, proven facts. At that point, the only issue would be your misrepresentation of UFOlogy as some form of serious study instead of a hobby or casual interest.

But the longer you drag this out, the more pages we cover and more the evidence piles up to prove that you have no interest in addressing this subject reasonably or honestly. In the meantime, you're making yourself look really bad in the eyes of any casual visitor who happens to stumble across this thread or sees it as a Google result.

So why don't you just cut your losses and start playing fair and honestly?

 

[carlitos]

You can lie all you want, Mr. J. Randall Murphy, noted pseudoscientist and founding proprietor of online bookstore and UFO club "Ufology Society International," but any intelligent person who reads this thread will be able to plainly see your dishonest, manipulative tactics for what they are.

Don't you realize that you're digging yourself in deeper with every post in which you try to waffle, manipulate language, or outright lie instead of just honestly participating in the discussion at hand?

Great point. Here's more incentive to start debating honestly:

 

[John Albert]

The above poster is now off my ignore list.

 

[AdMan]

How many terms or words do your "studies" require unique definitions for?

So far: UFO, anecdote, claim, evidence, psuedo, skeptic . . . it's begining to sound like the Tower of Babel around here.

Also ufology, science and pseudoscience. ETA: And null hypothesis.

It's argument by redefinition: you don't like the points people are making against you? Just redefine the words to mean something different.

It's quite obvious and disingenuous, really. And not very effective.

 

[ufology]

The above is completely 180 degrees ass-backwards. No "non-mundane" objects have ever been proven, therefore that's the obvious default position. A null hypothesis that has never been disproven.

ETA - Seriously, FAC-ology doesn't sound great, but if you want to talk about aliens in flying saucers, just say so. Lots of people do this.

What I said isn't backwards. It's pretty much the same as what was said above. To Quote:"Where the skeptics are getting confused is that the above doesn't mean that you can't presume a UFO report to have a mundane explanation until otherwise proven."

The confusion is occurring in the usage of the the word UFO as defined within the context of its area of study. So if one is to suggest that a null hypothesis to be used ( even though such would be pseudoscientific with respect to ufology ), then it should use the terms as defined within the context they are meant to be used.

 

[Resume]

Also ufology, science and pseudoscience.

It's argument by redefinition: you don't like the points people are making against you? Just redefine the words to mean something different.

It's quite obvious and disingenuous, really. And not very effective.

Add context to the list.

 

[carlitos]

What I said isn't backwards. It's pretty much the same as what was said above. To Quote:"Where the skeptics are getting confused is that the above doesn't mean that you can't presume a UFO report to have a mundane explanation until otherwise proven."

The confusion is occurring in the usage of the the word UFO as defined within the context of its area of study. So if one is to suggest that a null hypothesis to be used ( even though such would be pseudoscientific with respect to ufology ), then it should use the terms as defined within the context they are meant to be used.

No, you're just being dishonest by using the logical fallacy of redefinition of terms. Everyone here (and everyone who googles your name and organization) can see it clearly. UFO means "unidentified flying object." Your "area of study" is pseudoscience. Your continued dishonest debating tactics are not going unnoticed.

on edit - I'm being serious. If you want to talk about aliens in flying saucers, just say so. Lots of people do this. What is the problem?

 

[ufology]

Add context to the list.

The above included the following quote from another poster:

"It's argument by redefinition: you don't like the points people are making against you? Just redefine the words to mean something different."

=========================

RESPONSE:

Exactly how could I redefine the official definition when it was created before I was born? The official definition is quoted from official USAF files and they were the ones who created the word. I didn't redefine anything. What is the matter with you people?

 

[Toke]

on edit - I'm being serious. If you want to talk about aliens in flying saucers, just say so. Lots of people do this. What is the problem?

I am sure there are several treads on or at least mentioning the fermi paradox.