UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[AdMan]

That definition you're promoting is an archaic one that is no longer in use by anyone but yourself, yet here you are trying to impose it on us.

That definition is not, as you dishonestly claim, an accepted, standardized definition within the study of UFOlogy. Your own personal website is the only UFOlogy "authority" that promotes it as a general definition.

Hmm. A field of study in which its adherents cannot even agree on how to define one of its most basic terms.

If that isn't already one of the characteristics of a pseudoscience, someone should add that to Wikipedia asap.

ETA: After a short search, as I expected, it turns out that researchers do consider the characteristic of using "terms that sound like scientific ideas, but the terms are not clearly defined" as indicative of pseudoscience: http://www.ithaca.edu/beins/methods/materials/char-pseudo.htm.

ufology, have you contacted MUFON to tell them the definition of "UFO" they are using is wrong?

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

No, it doesn't exclude most mundane objects. It excludes a very limited set of obvious mundane objects. Why do you try to twist things like that? It've very dishonest. Can't you try to be honest? Nor are UFOs to be considered non-mundane. That is again something that you have made up in your own mind. I asked you to show me where it said that and you can't. Stop with the fantasy-land crap.

... 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.

Again, you are making things up out of whole cloth. It must be painfully obvious to you that what is being said is not that they aren't mundane. Is that why you choose to lie about it?

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.

Yes, that is exactly what it means. The null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

has never been falsified. When will you be presenting evidence that could falsify it, keeping in mind the context that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and unfalsifiable anecdotal claims won't cut it.

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.

It matters not a whit what you've proposed. You cling to the superceded and outmoded 1958 definition of UFO because the updated one doesn't suit your dishonest agenda. When will you start being honest in your discussion here?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Mr. Albert:

The definition I have used and posted here was created by the people who created the word in the first place ( not by me ) and it applies to the same kinds of objects that are being referenced historically and today. I have not redefined anything and your continued threats to level accusations of dishonesty are nothing more than slanderous innuendo.

The definition that you have attempted to cling to is outmoded and superceded but you are too dishonest to admit it. If you wish to avoid accusations of dishonesty, I'll give you three guesses how you can accomplish that.

 

[RoboTimbo]

And this is why he needs to argue by choosing his own meanings for words, so that we end up uselessly arguing about semantics.

He wouldn't need to do this if he had any actual evidence to present.[/quote}


Adman:

You continue to misrepresent my position. Again, it was the USAF who created the word UFO and the definition. I am merely quoting it as it appeared in the official USAF regulation. So please stop making false claims that I am choosing my "own" meanings.

No, you dishonestly choose to cherry pick an outdated and superceded definition because you believe it fits your dishonest agenda. It was the USAF who created the updated definition that doesn't further your dishonest agenda so you choose to deliberately ignore it, along with the more common and usual definition of Unidentified Flying Object. Your dishonesty will continue to be pointed out as long as you continue to engage in it.

As for semantics, such is the way we communicate what we mean. I choose to use more precise meanings in the context they were created for, while the skeptics here use popular watered down out of context versions to support their misleading positions.

No, you don't use precise meanings. You attempt to use the fallacy of redefinition and cherry picking, along with attempted twisting of reality. Rationally minded people use English language definitions of words.

Clearly it would be wiser to adopt the correct terminology in a discussion about a given topic.

Good. You're going to start using the common definition of Unidentified Flying Object and stop clinging to your outmoded and superceded cherry picked definition from 1958.

Why are skeptics here so opposed to doing so?

Huh? Skeptics want you to adopt the correct terminology and stop being dishonest.

Instead they offer no meaningful reasoning and defer to hand waving and name calling ... even character attacks intended to disparage my name on Google. Excuse me but such behavior is disgraceful.

You really can't derive any meaning from common English phrasing? You never did answer as to what is your first language.

 

[Puddle Duck]

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.

Well you should stop it. You're doing it wrong.
You quoted part of the known area. It's Para 2 under unknown aircraft


From the '54 version
2. Definitions:
a. Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOB) relates to any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object.


This is the known

b. Familiar Objects - Include balloons, astronomical bodies, birds, and so forth.

Notice "and so forth" above in b. At the time it was written, the authors thought the definition of 'Familiar Objects' to be satisfactory. BUT, in comes all kind of crap as unknowns and they say to themselves "omg! everybody out there are idiots, we have to expand the definition" So the definition of "known' goes from eight words to……..

The '58 version!
The big change in the title is to drop the B to make the acronym UFO instead of UFOB.

a--Familiar or known objects--Aircraft, birds, balloons , kites, searchlights, and astronomical bodies (meteors, planets, stars)

b--Unknown aircraft--
1--Flying object determined to be aircraft. ( and paraphrased as) This is ADC's problem so don't send thim to us.
2 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
3 Pilotless aircraft and missiles

c--Unidentified Flying abjects--(identical to the '54 definition with a couple of wordsmithing changes)


The '62 versiion
The definitions of 'known' stays the same.

The definition of unknown changes.
The definition of the '58 is
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 or b above.
And
The '62 is
b-- Unidentified Flying Objects--Any aerial phenomena, airborne object or objects which are unknown or appear out of the ordinary to the observer because performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features.

Which of these statements is the better organized and is clearer. I vote for the '62 and I would have thought you would also. It no longer restricts the reporter to prove a solid object, which until you have it or some debris from itm can not be proven. Word wise, not much of a change, meaning wise, a large change. The official definition may have changed in '59 but it definitely changed by '62

After that let's look at AFR 80-17. In 1966, the definition changed once more, to something even more concise.
a.- Unidentified Flying Objects. Any aerial phenomenon or object which is unknown or appears out of the ordinary to the observer.
That was the final definition. And the best organized! And the simplest! So you should be using it..

In any case, it doesn't matter. A regulation is the equivalent of a civilian law. If AFR 123-45 has been saying that you do procedure blurble using an equilateral triangle and the new edition of AFR 123-45 comes out and says that procedure blurble will now be done using a right triangle, you do not have the option to continue using an equilateral triangle, no matter how much you enjoy those corners. You CAN'T continue to use the old version.

 

[TjW]

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?

Yes, it's just a short bus ride away.

 

[Jocce]

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

I'm still confused. So, one should only report alien UFOs? How can one be sure of that if only the most obvious mundane explanations has been excluded? How can I know before it's been reported and investigated if a possible mundane explanation exist or not?

 

[tomi71]

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.

Is it really so difficult to finally understand that there are two kind of unknowns. I´ve explained it to you already many times. Even though if we don´t know what something is, we can know what something is NOT.

For example if we see an unknown species in a forest. It is unknown to us and we still can say what it is NOT (for example: we can say that it is not a lion, bear, cat, crocodile, dog, wolf, elephant etc.)

Yet it still remains unknown. The most interesting UFO cases are like that. We can say what the object was not (aeroplane, balloon etc. etc.) and we still don´t know what it was.

See. Two kind of unknowns. Sometimes the U in UFO means just that kind of an unknown.

I find it hard to understand that sceptics here don´t seem to grasp this thing. They seem to only thing that unknown means unknown in a sense that we don´t have data of an object. That is not always the case!

 

[John Albert]

Ufology, I honestly don't understand what you hope to gain by all this mucking about with definitions.

Do you really expect to change reality by fidgeting with the words we use to describe it?

Why don't we all just agree to speak plain English, and take acronyms at their face value?

Engaging all this nonsense is not doing yourself any favors.

 

[23_Tauri]

Mr. Albert:

The definition I have used and posted here was created by the people who created the word in the first place ( not by me ) and it applies to the same kinds of objects that are being referenced historically and today. I have not redefined anything and your continued threats to level accusations of dishonesty are nothing more than slanderous innuendo.

The poster above is relying on a definition, which is niche, over fifty years old and not aligned with the accepted, commonly used, definition of UFO, which is an acronym meaning Unidentified Flying Object. English is a living language and the meaning and usage of words changes over time. What a fascinating topic. Here's a few to get you going.

Eight Words Which Have Completely Changed Their Meaning Over Time

 

[Akhenaten]

And this is why he needs to argue by choosing his own meanings for words, so that we end up uselessly arguing about semantics.

He wouldn't need to do this if he had any actual evidence to present.

Adman:

You continue to misrepresent my position.

<snip useless argument about semantics>

Apparently not.

Clearly it would be wiser to adopt the correct terminology in a discussion about a given topic.

Seems reasonable. When will you be coming on board with everyone else?

Why are skeptics here so opposed to doing so?

They're all meanies. Youi'll just have to talk to me instead.

Although I think you're wrong too, so it seems you're snookered.

Instead they offer no meaningful reasoning and defer to hand waving and name calling ... even character attacks intended to disparage my name on Google.

Excuse me but such behavior is disgraceful.

Rather than asking to be excused, wouldn't it be better if you just stopped doing it?

 

[Akhenaten]

Is it really so difficult to finally understand that there are two kind of unknowns. I´ve explained it to you already many times. Even though if we don´t know what something is, we can know what something is NOT.

For example if we see an unknown species in a forest. It is unknown to us and we still can say what it is NOT (for example: we can say that it is not a lion, bear, cat, crocodile, dog, wolf, elephant etc.)

Yet it still remains unknown. The most interesting UFO cases are like that. We can say what the object was not (aeroplane, balloon etc. etc.) and we still don´t know what it was.

See. Two kind of unknowns. Sometimes the U in UFO means just that kind of an unknown.

Yeah, good.

Trouble is, the 'U' in UFO doesn't stand for 'unknown', it stands for 'unidentified'.

At least ufology only tries to redefine words that we're actually using.

I find it hard to understand that sceptics here don´t seem to grasp this thing. They seem to only thing that unknown means unknown in a sense that we don´t have data of an object. That is not always the case!

I don't thing any such think, I'll have you know!

 

[John Albert]

Is it really so difficult to finally understand that there are two kind of unknowns. I´ve explained it to you already many times. Even though if we don´t know what something is, we can know what something is NOT.

For example if we see an unknown species in a forest. It is unknown to us and we still can say what it is NOT (for example: we can say that it is not a lion, bear, cat, crocodile, dog, wolf, elephant etc.)

Not knowing what something is, yet knowing what things it is not, are both possible conclusions. There's no doubt I can look at an object I don't know and be able to conclude that it isn't, say, a cantaloupe.

But here's where the UFOlogists typically run into trouble: not knowing what something is—and even being able to rule out a bunch of things that it is not—still do not justify a jump to the conclusion that the object is inexplicable, only that it is unidentified.

Yet it still remains unknown. The most interesting UFO cases are like that.

Actually, we really can't say much about UFO cases for certain, because we don't have any reliable evidence to go on. All we have is a bunch of stories and some easily hoaxed amateur photographs, film, and video footage. Lacking some kind of testable evidence, ET is just as unproven as the existence of dragons, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, etc. The stories could all be lies, or any number of mundane objects that the viewers did not happen to recognize at the time.

We can say what the object was not (aeroplane, balloon etc. etc.) and we still don´t know what it was.

Even if we could say for certain what the object was not, where would that leave us? Not knowing what something is, certainly does not justify a jump to the conclusion that the object in question originated from outer space, another dimension, a future era in time, from inside the Hollow Earth, or from Nazis living in a secret base at the South Pole. Not knowing what something is does not constitute evidence to support such a conclusion.

Now I'm not saying I know for certain that extraterrestrial outer space aliens have never visited Earth. Nobody can reasonably make that claim, because it's a universal negative and therefore unprovable. I think it would be extraordinarily awesome if they had. But on the other hand, there's simply no evidence to support the conclusion of extraterrestrial visitation, so there's absolutely no logical reason to make that claim.

I find it hard to understand that sceptics here don´t seem to grasp this thing. They seem to only thing that unknown means unknown in a sense that we don´t have data of an object. That is not always the case!

I find it hard to believe you actually think the skeptics here don't already understand that. Have fun playing with your little straw man there, because nobody around here has ever said such a thing, at least not in this thread.

 

[tomi71]

Good points you have presented. I admit that you are right that we can´t jump to conclusions that UFO´s are extraterrestial vehicles. Just wanted to clarify the concept of unknown. It seems that everybody here understands this so: good!

And yes the U is for unidentified, not unknown. Unidentied could actually be same kind of a thing: When something is unidentified, sometimes it is still identified in the sense of what it is NOT (same thing as explained about the unknown). It´s true that we can´t jump to ET-conclusion, but what about a conclusion that the object is non-mundane (as it´s characteristics are proven to be not-mundane: for example flying maneuvers that seem to challenge the laws of physics (or at least all known aircrafts). Certainly we can speculate that it can be somekind of a natural phenomena we know nothing of (atmospherical electrical things or something like that).

I think that we should at least speculate so that the discussion could move on. It´s difficult though since not all here even admit that there are non-mundane objects flying around. I guess there can never be a consensus of reality about UFO´s since even inside the sceptical movement there are different opinions of what can be accepted and what not. Some sceptics would accept that there is a phenomenon that can´t be explained by science so far. Some sceptics wouldn´t accept that and would claim that there is not proof of non-mundanity in the UFO-cases etc. etc.

I guess we can only speculate and create hypotheses or argue to ad infinitum.

 

[tomi71]

Good points you have presented. I admit that you are right that we can´t jump to conclusions that UFO´s are extraterrestial vehicles. Just wanted to clarify the concept of unknown. It seems that everybody here understands this so: good!

And yes the U is for unidentified, not unknown. Unidentied could actually be same kind of a thing: When something is unidentified, sometimes it is still identified in the sense of what it is NOT (same thing as explained about the unknown). It´s true that we can´t jump to ET-conclusion, but what about a conclusion that the object is non-mundane (as it´s characteristics are proven to be not-mundane: for example flying maneuvers that seem to challenge the laws of physics (or at least all known aircrafts). Certainly we can speculate that it can be somekind of a natural phenomena we know nothing of (atmospherical electrical things or something like that).

I think that we should at least speculate so that the discussion could move on. It´s difficult though since not all here even admit that there are non-mundane objects flying around. I guess there can never be a consensus of reality about UFO´s since even inside the sceptical movement there are different opinions of what can be accepted and what not. Some sceptics would accept that there is a phenomenon that can´t be explained by science so far. Some sceptics wouldn´t accept that and would claim that there is not proof of non-mundanity in the UFO-cases etc. etc.

I guess we can only speculate and create hypotheses or argue to ad infinitum.

 

[John Albert]

I think that we should at least speculate so that the discussion could move on.

One thing that would help move the discussion along would be for everyone to respond to the questions they've been asked in a thoughtful and considerate way, man up and stop playing the victim card, and quite sidetracking the conversation into pointless semantic quagmires.

 

[Akhenaten]

Good points you have presented. I admit that you are right that we can´t jump to conclusions that UFO´s are extraterrestial vehicles. Just wanted to clarify the concept of unknown. It seems that everybody here understands this so: good!

Yay for us.

And yes the U is for unidentified, not unknown. Unidentied could actually be same kind of a thing: When something is unidentified, sometimes it is still identified in the sense of what it is NOT (same thing as explained about the unknown).

No. You're heading down the same path as certain nameless others in this silly thread who claim that UFOs can be identified by a process of eliminating all the things they're not.

It´s true that we can´t jump to ET-conclusion, but what about a conclusion that the object is non-mundane (as it´s characteristics are proven to be not-mundane: for example flying maneuvers that seem to challenge the laws of physics (or at least all known aircrafts).

The appearance of being able to do figure-eights at mach 25 does not prove that a UFO is non-mundane.

Certainly we can speculate that it can be somekind of a natural phenomena we know nothing of (atmospherical electrical things or something like that).

Yep.

I think that we should at least speculate so that the discussion could move on.

We're not writing a novel here.

It´s difficult though since not all here even admit that there are non-mundane objects flying around.

Why would anyone admit such a thing when there's no evidence for it?

I guess there can never be a consensus of reality about UFO´s since even inside the sceptical movement there are different opinions of what can be accepted and what not.

That almost looks as though it should mean something, but frankly, I don't think it does.

Some sceptics would accept that there is a phenomenon that can´t be explained by science so far. Some sceptics wouldn´t accept that and would claim that there is not proof of non-mundanity in the UFO-cases etc. etc.

I should think that all sceptics accept that there are things that can't presently be explained by science. Acceptance of this point does not logically lead to a conclusion of "OMG . . . aliens!"

I guess we can only speculate and create hypotheses or argue to ad infinitum.

Perhaps, but not in a thread that's been created specifically to discuss evidence and research.

 

[EHocking]

The point of the links was to a quick reference.

As stated above, it is perfectly legitimate to make references to those in a certain field for information about that field ... e.g. If you want to know something about cooking ask a chef. If you want to know something about trees, ask an arborist. If you want to know something about geology, ask a geologist. It isn't reasonable to call such referencing biased, especially when the information itself is factual rather than speculative and/or used in the specific context of the field of study. So the rationale that because the links point to my site, the information isn't valid, has no basis in logic or reason. Every field has its lexicon ... its jargon, and ufology is no different. What better place to get it than from a ufologist?

Where you analogy falls flat on its face is that, the chef, arborist and geologist are all experts in their field.

While you may well be an expert in your field (computer tech/website design), these qualifications are about as relevant as a chef's when it comes to claiming you are an ufologist.

Or is the pseudoscience of ufology just like homeotherapy, as other posters have suggested - anyone can practice it, without the requirement of any qualifications in the field?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Good points you have presented. I admit that you are right that we can´t jump to conclusions that UFO´s are extraterrestial vehicles. Just wanted to clarify the concept of unknown. It seems that everybody here understands this so: good!

Everyone understood it before. It was you who didn't understand that everyone understood it.

And yes the U is for unidentified, not unknown. Unidentied could actually be same kind of a thing: When something is unidentified, sometimes it is still identified in the sense of what it is NOT (same thing as explained about the unknown). It´s true that we can´t jump to ET-conclusion, but what about a conclusion that the object is non-mundane (as it´s characteristics are proven to be not-mundane: for example flying maneuvers that seem to challenge the laws of physics (or at least all known aircrafts). Certainly we can speculate that it can be somekind of a natural phenomena we know nothing of (atmospherical electrical things or something like that).

I'm sure you've seen the logical pitfall that the UFOlogists in this thread have fallen victim to. They don't know what something is so that means they immediately know what it is. Not surprising since they consider a claim to be evidence for itself.

I think that we should at least speculate so that the discussion could move on. It´s difficult though since not all here even admit that there are non-mundane objects flying around. I guess there can never be a consensus of reality about UFO´s since even inside the sceptical movement there are different opinions of what can be accepted and what not. Some sceptics would accept that there is a phenomenon that can´t be explained by science so far. Some sceptics wouldn´t accept that and would claim that there is not proof of non-mundanity in the UFO-cases etc. etc.

What a great idea! You start a new thread speculating what each unidentified thing is so that it won't clutter up this Research and Evidence thread. After all, someone might eventurally post some actual evidence in this thread and I wouldn't want that to get lost in the noise.

I guess we can only speculate and create hypotheses or argue to ad infinitum.

Sadly, in the absence of any real evidence you are probably correct about the speculation part. But there is only one hypothesis that has been presented so far and that is the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

Can you see anything wrong with it? Or any idea why pseudoscientists wouldn't want to use it?

 

[tsig]

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.

To improve your credibility.