UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Paul2]

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.)

One little quibble. If we see it, isn't it then known? Don't you mean a previously unknown species?

Exactly what about it is unknown in your scenario? We haven't named it yet? We haven't studied it extensively?

I'm not exactly sure about this analogy.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Personally, I think Condon's definition of a UFO is probably most accurate:

An unidentified flying object (UFO, pronounced OOFO) is here defined as the stimulus for a report made by one or more individuals of something seen in the sky (or an object thought to be capable of flight but when landed on the earth) which the observer could not identify as having an ordinary natural origin, and which seemed to him sufficiently puzzling that he undertook to make a report of it to police, to government officials, to the press, or perhaps to a representative of a private organization devoted to the study of such objects.


http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/sec-ii.htm

 

[tsig]

so the more uneducated someone is, the more likely that something they see is a UFO
got it thanks

The less you know the more they glow.

 

[tsig]

These are your own accounts, aren't they Ufology?
http://ufopages.com/Common/Control/Reframe_T1.htm?../../Reference/FS/Murphy-02a.htm

Astounding stuff.

I liked the large white rabbit that said "hello". I couldn't believe him more if he said it was wearing a watch coat and took him down a rabbit hole, it would explain so much.

 

[Akhenaten]

To improve your credibility.

Yup. Didn't work out too well, did it?

 

[Archer17]

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.

ufology's premise that a "UFO" and an 'unidentified flying object' don't mean the same thing is asinine. End of story. Now if I was an ET-friendly ufologist I would realize that all UFOs couldn't be the same thing simply by the descriptions of what was provided - a cursory review of the lore show UFOs come in more shapes and sizes than Bayer has aspirin. That would be a problem...they can't all be ET, can they? So, if I was going to try to separate the 'wheat from the chaff 'what could I do? Since I couldn't know what any particular UFO was because of that pesky 'U' I'd have to come up with something to concentrate on the ones that I thought would best advance my ETH premise without looking like I was cherry-picking. Most ufologists do this by making up an arbitrary percentage of sightings (usually in the 90s) that they "concede" are actually "mundane" objects that are misinterpreted by Joe Sixpack. I've never figured out how they come up with that determination/figure but practically all of them do it. They seem to think it makes them look like they aren't fanatics and frees them up to concentrate on those juicy stories (usually the ones from half a century ago involving interception accounts).
ufology tries a different tack. He latches onto an old Air Force UFO report vetting system and uses its 1958 definition for "UFO" to separate the wheat from the chaff for him. By using the USAF he also employs one of the saucer-peddler's favorite tactics, the appeal to authority. After all, if the USAF is shown to be interested in a vetted criterion for a potentially non-mundane UFO then it has to mean something besides balloons and U-2s are involved, eh? Lastly, it provides him with a way to address the skeptics who rightly state that “unidentified” doesn't equal “ET-controlled.” By trying to appear to shorten his leap of faith ufology thinks he can reduce the inanity of such a UFO=ET corollary.
It didn't work here.

A few other things that seem to elude ufology:

*The USAF isn't any more qualified to recognize a craft from Deneb IV than you or I are. Oh, they can eliminate their own secret toys as a flap-trigger but like you and me (and your basic ufologist for that matter) they can't know what an extraterrestrial craft looks like or investigate something that is no longer there. Think MUFON or the USAF could have, after the fact, told me the short-lived “UFO” I saw was 2 balloons tied together?

* The Air Force has never admitted that any UFO (no matter what semantical way you slice it) was an ET aircraft.

*The 3 words represented by 'UFO' have their own individual well-established meaning(s). They don't change if you put them together just because the USAF had their own criteria for assessing reports or the 1958 USAF "definition" is more helpful to a saucer-peddler. What I find ironic is how quickly the military goes from foil to friend and back to foil for folks like ufology.

* There is no real evidence. This in spite of supposed alien abductions which should have produced at least a couple of decent videos by now don’tcha think? I know, ET detects and turns off the recording equipment.

* The plural of anecdote is not data and UFO sightings are singular events no matter how hard some believers try to use the ‘U’ (even uniquely defined ‘U’s) to tie them all together into some kind of “global phenomena.”

Any true examination of UFOs has to include all instances of unidentified flying objects, not just the stylish ones. Writing off 90-some percent of unexplained sightings (ie UFOs) while sitting in front of a keyboard or playing games with what 'unidentified flying object' means are just two examples of why ufology - both the pseudoscience hobby and our "a UFO is not a UFO unless it's a UFO" poster here - is not taken seriously by this arrow-slinger.

 

[tsig]

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 resort to this if he had any actual evidence to present.

Let's do the semantic shuffle again.

 

[tsig]

Carlitos, you are mistaken if you think that everyone agrees with your position or that everyone who runs across the slanderous innuendos you are creating in an effort to disparage my name on Google thinks I am deserving of such poor treatment. In my view you are doing nothing but destroying the reputation of the JREF with your tactics. Please stop.

Slander is spoken not written:

slander [ˈslɑːndə]
n
1. (Law) Law
a. defamation in some transient form, as by spoken words, gestures, etc.
b. a slanderous statement, etc.
2. any false or defamatory words spoken about a person; calumny


of do you wand to redefine this word as well?

 

[tsig]

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.

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.

Clearly it would be wiser to adopt the correct terminology in a discussion about a given topic. Why are skeptics here so opposed to doing so? 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.

I don't think we're in the USAF.

 

[Jocce]

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).

Sure, when something seems to defy the laws of nature we can speculate that it is "alien". We can also take the rational approach and admit that there is no conclusive evidence so the object remains a more boring UFO.

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.

There is no evidence that any alien objects are flying around so how could anyone admit that? I admit that some of the UFO observtions might be of alien craft. They might also have a mundane explanation. There is simply not enough reliable evidence in any case to come to a conclusion.

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.

There is no such difference of opinion. Just provide the evidence.

 

[John Albert]

To improve your credibility.

Yeah, that's evident from several of his statements. For example:

On the question of, "should scientific principles not be applied?" I would say that the more we can apply scientific principles the better off we are, but if we are going to do that, it should be done by real scientists who know how to do it properly. Then we could say that although ufology itself isn't a "science", it offers genuine scientific data. In the mean time I think that critical thinking adds just as much credibility as science. Remember science also has it's credibility issues.

In light of remarks like that, it appears that achieving credibility for UFOlogy is one of his main goals. Unfortunately for him, his foray into the world of skepticism has pretty much backfired in that regard.

He also sought the assistance of the skeptics in debunking the religion of Raëlism, which he apparently considers to be a hindrance to the credibility of UFOlogy:

There is something known as the Raelian Movement. It is a part of ufology because it deals with the phenomena of UFOs and aliens and so on. However ufologists do not consider Realism itself to be ufology any more than an anthropologist would consider Catholicism itself to be anthropology. The Raelian Movement is actually a legally recognized religion in Canada. They have a number of beliefs they say are based on science, and I think those beliefs and practises would probably fit the definition of pseudoscience.

Now if a skeptic here were to compose an objective level-headed report showing the connection between Raelism and pseudoscience, I would be happy to consider publishing it up under the Raelian entry on my website. This would demonstrate cooperation between skeptics and ufologists toward a common cause in a useful and constructive manner.

He's mentioned his disagreement with the Raëlians in other posts as well:

Now if I may respond to what you think I believe. When you say I believe, "tall tales based on folklore. This is faith-based, which is fine." and compare it to religion, you are way off base when it come to me perosnally.

However you would be right if you were to apply that line of thinking to the Raelians, who are a UFO cult ( actually now a recognized religion ). Neither myself nor USI is affiliated with any cult or religion. I personally do not subscribe to a belief in any God or other dieties.

His own website also contains a somewhat disparaging description of Raëlism, so it's clear that he has some beef with them and was hoping to enlist JREF Forum members to his side.


If you look at some of his posts on paranormal discussion forums, as well as Q&A sites such as "allexperts.com," he definitely tries to present himself as one of the moderate, lesser kooks of the UFO community. He sometimes even comes off as a bit of a skeptic, debunking some of the wilder UFOlogy theories. But one look at his website (especially his bio) and that illusion falls apart real quick.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yeah, that's evident from several of his statements. For example:




In light of remarks like that, it appears that achieving credibility for UFOlogy is one of his main goals. Unfortunately for him, his foray into the world of skepticism has pretty much backfired in that regard.

He also sought the assistance of the skeptics in debunking the religion of Raëlism, which he apparently considers to be a hindrance to the credibility of UFOlogy:




If you look at some of his posts on other paranormal discussion forums and on Q&A sites such as "allexperts.com", he definitely tries to present himself as one of the moderate, lesser kooks of the UFO community. He sometimes even comes off as a bit of a skeptic, debunking some of the wilder UFOlogy theories. But one look at his website (especially his bio) and that illusion falls apart real quick.

It's that kind of inconsistency that makes me not trust anything he says. He has demonstrated that he is willing to say anything, redefine anything, twist any reality to try to suit his dishonest agenda.

 

[John Albert]

I was hoping he would be willing to learn a few things about critical thinking, and come to accept a more skeptical outlook. Unfortunately, he appears far too invested (ideologically, socially, perhaps even financially) to be able to give up the woo. He seems to appreciate skepticism on some level, but can't see any higher purpose for it than as a weapon to attack things he personally dislikes.

He'd have a much easier time around here if it weren't for his arrogance and dishonesty. Even after several months, he's still ignoring and dismissing questions and challenges to his reasoning, fudging language to thwart meaningful discussion, asserting his own authority on subjects which he obviously has little or no knowledge of, and blatantly repeating the same failed arguments ad nauseam.

 

[RoboTimbo]

He even said he was depressed after his visits here. Well, duh! No wonder! Even he knows that what he's doing is obvious to everyone else. He probably can't think of a graceful exit strategy now. Once you start that kind of misrepresentation, you have to keep misrepresenting.

If he would just start being honest.

 

[laca]

He even said he was depressed after his visits here. Well, duh! No wonder! Even he knows that what he's doing is obvious to everyone else. He probably can't think of a graceful exit strategy now. Once you start that kind of misrepresentation, you have to keep misrepresenting.

If he would just start being honest.

... then his whole world would crumble, so it's not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[ufology]

Definition Of UFO - Official & Unofficial

It's not slander, nor is it libel. You are being dishonest and I am pointing out that fact, as I am well within my legal rights to do.

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.

As I have already pointed out:

Therefore your allegation is a bald-faced lie, asserted on your own misplaced authority.

There is nothing illegal, improper, or immoral about pointing that out.

Don't forget "critical thinking," "proof," and above all, "truth."

As if anyone needed any further proof that J. Randall Murphy, founder and proprietor of "Ufology Society International" is incapable of intellectual honesty, at least where the subject of UFOs is concerned.

Mr. Albert:

You may think you are within your legal rights to defame me on the Internet, with express intent to create widespread dissent against me via Google searches, but unless you can prove that I fabricated ARF 200-2 Feb. 05 1958, you have no evidence to show that I have been dishonest in any way. It is perfectly fair for me to use it as part of my position.

Also, your tactic of defaming my character with intent to cause me personal and financial difficulty, and bully me off the forum rather than engage in friendly debate only proves that you will stoop to the lowest level to attain your position. This is not what I would think is acceptable behavior for a forum that purports be an example for students and educational institutes. So again, please ... let us continue in a civilized manner.

In this spirit I offer in addition to AFR 200-2 Feb 05 1958, the following contemporary and common language definitions in support of my position:

• Gale Encyclopedia of US History:
  The UFO phenomenon consists of reports of unusual flying objects that remain unidentified after scientific inquiry.
  
• Oxford Dictionary:
  UFO: a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials.

• J. Allen Hynek Astronomer/CUFOS - UFO:
  A UFO is 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."
  NOTE: The above quoted from the MUFON FAQ page:
  
  
• Encarta Dictionary: UFO (plural UFOs) noun
  unidentified flying object: a flying object that cannot be identified and is thought by some to be an alien spacecraft Websters Dictionary:
  UFO: an unidentified flying object; especially : flying saucer
  

NOTE: UFO was a word created by the USAF to replace the phrase flying saucer, therefore UFOs and flying saucers are synonymous in casual conversation. Here we have two definitions of flying saucer:

• Oxford Dictionary:
  Flying Saucer: a disc-shaped flying craft supposedly piloted by aliens.

• Encarta Dictionary: Flying Saucer
  
  fly·ing sau·cer (plural fly·ing sau·cers) noun​
  disk-shaped UFO: a disk-shaped flying object believed to be an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Then again we have the official USAF Definion:

2. Definitions. To insure proper and uniform usage in UFO screenings, investigations, and reportings, the objects are defined as follows:

a. Familiar or Known Objects - Aircraft, birds, balloons, kites, searchlights, and astronomical bodies (meteors, planets, stars).
​

b. Unknown Aircraft:

(1) Flying objects determined to be aircraft. These generally appear as a result of ADIZ violations and often prompt the UFO reports submitted by the general public. They are readily identifiable as, or known to be, aircraft, but their type, purpose, origin, and destination are unknown. Air Defense Command is responsible for reports of "unknown" aircraft and they should not be reported as UFO's under this regulation.
​

(2) Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO.

(3) Pilotless aircraft and missiles.

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.
​

Popular Interpretation:

The UFO phenomenon has become deeply engrained in modern culture and virtually every popular usage of the word conjures up imagery of alien craft, usually a flying saucer. Not only is this blatantly self evident in the ubiquitous portrayals of UFOs as alien craft in every form of media from cartoons to advertising, it is also apparent in modern definitions as provided above. Consequently whenever the word UFO is used, it is never without inference or reference to an extraordinary object that defies conventional explanation.

Official Interpretation:

Official interpretations evolved through various phases based on the results of early investigations in which it was presumed that the observers were able to tell mundane objects from flying saucers and UFOs, however as many UFO reports turned out to have common explanations, more specific definitions were created to screen out mundane objects from the reports the USAF were interested in ... which were the residue of non-mundane objects and were called UFOs.

Commentary

Every in depth official definition from the people who created the word UFO during the official investigations define the word UFO in such a manner as to eliminate many mundane explanations. Several contemprary definitions also portray UFOs as alen craft. Established UFO interest groups also define UFOs in such as way as to preclude mundane objects, and the overwhelming popular imagery of UFOs is of alien craft.

The term UFO is therefore not simply a reference to a generic "unidentified" object in the sky, but to something extraordinary. Whether it is proven to be extraordinary or not is irrelevant. It is similar in nature to the word "truck" e.g. "I see a truck ahead". Simply because the truck might turn out to be a station wagon, does not mean that the word "truck" suddenly means something other that what it was meant to convey.

The above however does not mean that casual references to UFOs or references that are in the context of objects in UFO reports, especially in the context of investigation and evaluation, are presumed to be alien craft. Again context is everything. In other words not all objects in UFO reports turn out to be UFOs. In some contexts the word is therefore a homonym ... with both specific and non-specific interpretations based on context. It takes some getting used to to be able to accurately identify what the proper contexts are for what usage, but generally speaking, ufology studies is focused on UFOs for which no reasonable mundane explanation has been found, and in particular those which are believed to be alien craft.

Summary:

The overwhelming public perception, the official USAF definitions, most respected contemporary dictionary definitions, and definitions provided by UFO interest groups, all define UFOs as something unexplained or alien ... anything but mundane. Only in casual conversation and specific contexts does the word imply a definition as simple as the literal interpretation of the words that make up the initialism. Therefore, as has been stated in the past, it is misleading for skeptics to portray UFOs as simply some "unidentified" object in the sky when they are by definition extraordinary.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I was hoping he would be willing to learn a few things about critical thinking, and come to accept a more skeptical outlook. Unfortunately, he appears far too invested (ideologically, socially, perhaps even financially) to be able to give up the woo. He seems to appreciate skepticism on some level, but can't see any higher purpose for it than as a weapon to attack things he personally dislikes.

He'd have a much easier time around here if it weren't for his arrogance and dishonesty. Even after several months, he's still ignoring and dismissing questions and challenges to his reasoning, fudging language to thwart meaningful discussion, asserting his own authority on subjects which he obviously has little or no knowledge of, and blatantly repeating the same failed arguments ad nauseam.

He is apparently going to continue to be dishonest with his redefinitions and cherry picking.

 

[ufology]

Um ... Timbo ...

How is using the mosted respected independent dictionary on the planet ( Oxford ) and the official definition by the people who created the word itself ( USAF ), and the definition by the undisputed scientific expert who studied them ( Hynek ), and pointing out the ubiquitous portrayal in modern culture of UFOs as alien craft, in any way "cherry picking"? I've just spanned the enitire range of usage from the specialized to the general public at large. There is no cherry picking at all here ... only the truth that you refuse to accept.

 

[carlitos]

It was asked by others earlier (and probably more eloquently), but:

What part of "I'm not in the US Air Force" and "It's not 1958" are you having trouble with? We're on an internet forum in 2011. Do you have a calendar? A globe?

On edit - kudos to ufology for the dictionary definitions of UFO = flying saucer.

 

[Puddle Duck]

NOTE: UFO was a word created by the USAF to replace the phrase flying saucer, therefore UFOs and flying saucers are synonymous in casual conversation
<snip>
Then again we have the official USAF Definion

2. Definitions. To insure proper and uniform usage in UFO screenings, investigations, and reportings, the objects are defined as follows:
<snip>
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
<snip>

Official Interpretation:

Official interpretations evolved through various phases based on the results of early investigations in which it was presumed that the observers were able to tell mundane objects from flying saucers and UFOs, however as many UFO reports turned out to have common explanations, more specific definitions were created to screen out mundane objects from the reports the USAF were interested in ... which were the residue of non-mundane objects and were called UFOs.

False. They were screening out obvious known objects. They were interested in sightings that had insufficient information to ID. Non-mundane had nothing to do with it.

You're right in that the interpretations evolved. But you got stuck in a definition half way through the evolution, in the '58 edition rather than continuing to the final form in the '66 edition of AFR 80-17.There were 3 follow-on editions after your '58 edition.

The original "word" they created to replace flying saucer was UFOB, it got changed to UFO when a newer edition superceded the first edition.

Commentary
<snip>
The term UFO is therefore not simply a reference to a generic "unidentified" object in the sky, but to something extraordinary. Whether it is proven to be extraordinary or not is irrelevant. It is similar in nature to the word "truck" e.g. "I see a truck ahead". Simply because the truck might turn out to be a station wagon, does not mean that the word "truck" suddenly means something other that what it was meant to convey.

Wrong again. The final definition in 80-17 is simplified to
a.- Unidentified Flying Objects. Any aerial phenomenon or object which is unknown or appears out of the ordinary to the observer.
You can't get much more simple and succinct than that. It does nothing to indicate non-mundinity. Simply not enough information.

If you don't follow the superseding editions to their end, you are being dishonest and trying to cherry pick. If you want to use the USAF definition, you have to follow it to the end. Once a new edition is published, the old edition is invalid. If you can't accept the new definition, don't reference or use the USAF definition. It was never intended to be used as a universal encyclopedia entry for the rest of the world. It was an in-house definition for reports.

Once again. The last known definition is a.- Unidentified Flying Objects. Any aerial phenomenon or object which is unknown or appears out of the ordinary to the observer.
If you don't like this one, don't use the USAF definition