UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Jim:

If saying UFOs are all mundane objects isn't correct, and saying UFO reports have mundane explanations isn't correct. Then what would you suggest?

I'm really not concerned about the reports so much as what they are reporting on. Why do you want to concentrate on a report of something rather than the thing itself? The null hypothesis is still:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

We could even simplify it further:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

if you insist.

Bear in mind that not all the unexplained cases remain unexplained because there is not sufficient information to explain them as mundane objects, but because they were so non-mundane that we don't have any conventional way of explaining them ... whatever they are, such UFOs are not mundane objects.

No, you are incorrect. They remain unexplained because there is insufficient information to explain them. If you know of cases where there is sufficient information to explain them, please present them in this thread. Otherwise, you are again being dishonest in labeling any UFOs as non-mundane. The null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

has never been falsified. A person would have to be a deliberate and calculated liar to say otherwise.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It was obvious they were real.

No, you are incorrect. It is obvious that they weren't real. Did you read any of Astrophotographer's post?

Both radar and visual confirmations proved that much.

No, you are incorrect. The lack of corroboration between radar and visual sightings proved that much.

The use of the word "disappeared" In the context of the DC sightings, is reveal by further reading to mean that in some instances they had suddenly changed location or accellerated beyond range.

No, you are incorrect. Disappearing is indicative that there was nothing there to begin with.

Seeming disappearance can also be accomplished by instantly fast acceleration directly away from the observer, who was in this case in pursuit. Or perhaps the objects simply switched off their lights. So I don't agree that it speaks for them not being real at all. But it does speak to them being evasive.

No, you are incorrect. Disappearing can't be accomplished at all. Only a credulous pseudoscientist would try to find explanations for something which hasn't been shown to exist.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hey Jim:

I guess you missed the whole section where it was explained that the word UFO is not simply a literal interpretation of the words that make up its initialism.

I guess you missed the dozens of rebuttals that proved how disingenuous you are in your attempts at redefinition. UFO means Unidentified Flying Object as shown by the online Oxford Dictionary.

For example, if you see an object do a maneuver that no known natural phenomenon or manmade technology can accomplish, the object is by definition a UFO and is therefore not mundane.

No, you are incorrect. All UFOs are of mundane origin. By definition a UFO is Unidentified and therefore Unidentified. It is disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise.

However if it is simply a light in the sky at some distance, it could possibly be an aircraft on approach, and is not considered to be a UFO as UFOs are defined.

No, you are incorrect. It is, by definition, a UFO (Unidentified Flying Object).

To get around this issue we need to create a null hypothesis that is in harmony with the accepted lexicon. I guess that if you don't think phrasing it in the form of a "UFO report" is OK, perhaps we might try:

"All unidentified airborne objects are of mundane origin"​

No, we already have a null hypothesis that works. It is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

and that's the one we're all using.

How does that sound?

Yours? Psuedoscientific.

It seems to me that if the above were falsified, we'd end up with some non-mundane object.

If you falsify the real null hypothesis, by default you have a non-mundane explanation. Why would you not want to do that?

But would that make it alien?

Falsifying the real null hypothesis would imply that there is a non-mundane explanation. Which one is your favorite?

Some high-tech projects are anything but "mundane" in a generic sense and what we are trying to distinguish is whether or not they are alien, at the very least to human civilization.

No, you are incorrect. High-tech projects are very mundane and going on all the time, whether you know about them or not. What we're trying to distinguish is non-mundane explanations. Your favorite happens to be aliens.

So I suppose then we'd also have to define what we really mean by "non-mundane" So perhaps even better we might say:

"All unidentified airborne objects are of natural or manmade origin"​

No, we already have a null hypothesis which everyone has agreed on. It is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

How about that?

Yours is still childishly pseudoscientific. Why are you so against a real null hypothesis?

It seems to nail it down better. If that is falsified what else could it be but something alien?

If the real null hypothesis were falsified, that would by default imply that there was a non-mundane explanation. It really isn't any more difficult than that.

 

[Akhenaten]

Geeze. 12,000 posts and still no evidence. I'll bet that's never happened before.

Oh, wait . . .

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hey Jim:

Well if you want to deny the evidence, like the official USAF definitons,

Your cherry picked, outdated, and superceded one from 1958?

the Oxford Diictionary,

Here's the definition I found from the Oxford Dictionary. I've already posted it before with a link:

noun (plural UFOs)
a mysterious object seen in the sky for which, it is claimed, no orthodox scientific explanation can be found.

Origin: 1950s: acronym from unidentified flying object

Why do you continue your dishonesty?

several other dictionary definitions,

All of which say unidentified flying object

the definition by scientific experts who studied the phenomena for decades,

And who have never presented a non-mundane UFO for study.

and the overwhelming obviousness that UFO imagery and stories have all become deeply embeded in modern culture,

I thought it was "obviousity" but oh well. Santa Claus stories have become deeply embedded in modern culture. Just as obvious, wouldn't you agree?

not just as some unknown light in the sky, but of alien craft, and all backed by references and examples

Well, yes, sometimes they are unknown lights in the sky, none have been alien craft, and none backed by evidence of being alien.

... then I'm sure you'll be heartily welcomed into that pack you refer to as "everyone else here" who think comments like your "Humpty Dumpty" remark are smart, I'll stck with the other "everyone else here" ... and there are more of them than you think.

I'm sure you're still depressed after visiting this forum with your dishonesty, outright fabrications, and logical fallacies.

 

[R.A.F.]

...the presumption only happens if you use the word UFO, because UFOs, by definition, are not mundane in the first place, and some definitions even include the presumption of an alien craft as part of the definition.

Man, you are desperate to re-define "inconvenient" words.

So if I see a bird in the sky, but I can't identify it as a bird, then it IS NOT MUNDANE?


Tell another story...I need a laugh...

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sideroxylon:

If you look back through the actual conversation, you will find that the answer is "no".

Actually, everyone looking back through the conversation can see that the answer is "yes".

It's strictly a usage issue involving the way the word UFO is defined as compared to the literal interpretation of the words that make up its initialism. This relates to the "Research" part of the thread in that understanding the lexicon of a particular field of study is very important to meaningful discussion. So merely defining the word to mean a certain thing does not automatically assign belief or a predetermined conclusion to it. It simply describes what such a word is meant to convey.

Then we might as well stick with the non-pseudoscientific non-creduloid definition which everyone agrees on, Unidentified Flying Object. Otherwise, we run the risk of being accused of dishonesty in attempting to redefine something into existence.

To quickly review. The word UFO is meant to convey an object that defies known explanations.

No, you are incorrect. It is meant to convey an Unidentified Flying Object.

Various official and non-official definitions and the overwhelmingly obvious way UFOs are portrayed in modern culture prove this point.

That Unidentified Flying Object is the definition.

Therefore it isn't proper to construct a null hypothesis that proposes UFOs or UFO sightings are mundane objects. It would be like saying "All Millenium Falcon sightings are mundane objects" or "All starship sightings are mundane objects." Obviously the Millenium Falcon and starships are not mundane objects.

You still don't understand a null hypothesis. It is simply assumed to be true until it is falsified. Since the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

has never been falsified, it is still assumed to be true. You may wish to get busy on falsifying the null hypothesis if it bothers you so much.

Consequently I made an effort to establish a null hypothesis that was true to the definition of the word UFO, not because I believe a null hypothesis is workable, but for the sake of discussing it with those who do. It went something like this:

"All unidentified airborne objects are natural or manmade objects".
​

Let's see if we can simplify it somewhat:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

Yep, that's better. That's the one we'll work with.

As you can see, there is no presumption of an alien craft in the above version of the null hypothesis. In fact, the presumption only happens if you use the word UFO, because UFOs, by definition, are not mundane in the first place, and some definitions even include the presumption of an alien craft as part of the definition.

Saying that UFOs are by definition not mundane is idiotic. UFOs are by definition Unidentified Flying Objects. How you want to redefine words within your club and the pseudoscience of UFOlogy is your business but it has no place here.

 

[Pendelton]

UFOs & Apollo Moon Landing

Any one have info on the disruption of transmissions from the moon concerning the sighting of "bogeys"

 

[23_Tauri]

Any one have info on the disruption of transmissions from the moon concerning the sighting of "bogeys"

But we never went to the moon!

 

[ufology]

You wish.

The fact is, looking back through the conversation only reveals that you've ignored most of it and simply repost your litany as a mock response every dozen posts or so.

You really do believe you can define these flying saucers of yours into existence, don't you? It's like watching you reiterate a spell you need to repeat a certain number of times before the magic happens.

Akhenaten

The point I'm, trying to make, as I'm sure actually realize, is not that I'm trying to "define flying saucers into existence", but to establish a common understanding of the word "UFO" and how it has different meanings in different contexts, and is not simply defined or understood as the literal meaning of the individual words that make up the initialism.

BTW: That was a very funny comment about shoe boxes.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Akhenaten

The point I'm, trying to make, as I'm sure actually realize, is not that I'm trying to "define flying saucers into existence", but to establish a common understanding of the word "UFO" and how it has different meanings in different contexts, and is not simply defined or understood as the literal meaning of the individual words that make up the initialism.

BTW: That was a very funny comment about shoe boxes.

Everyone realizes that you're trying to redefine your alien spaceships into existence. If you were trying to establish a common understanding here, you would accept the common definition of UFO which is:

"Unidentified Flying Object"​

as defined by the Oxford Online Dictionary.

Maybe you should stop dishonestly trying to redefine your aliens into existence.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Akhenaten

The point I'm, trying to make, as I'm sure actually realize, is not that I'm trying to "define flying saucers into existence", but to establish a common understanding of the word "UFO" and how it has different meanings in different contexts, and is not simply defined or understood as the literal meaning of the individual words that make up the initialism.

BTW: That was a very funny comment about shoe boxes.

I'll ask again. What practical benefit does your definition provide?

 

[ehcks]

Akhenaten

The point I'm, trying to make, as I'm sure actually realize, is not that I'm trying to "define flying saucers into existence", but to establish a common understanding of the word "UFO" and how it has different meanings in different contexts, and is not simply defined or understood as the literal meaning of the individual words that make up the initialism.

BTW: That was a very funny comment about shoe boxes.

But everyone else already has a common understanding of what "UFO" means. It's an acronym for Unidentified Flying Object.

It is an object or the appearance of an object that seems to be flying, floating, or falling, that no one has yet identified. It's quite a simple term.

 

[AdMan]

I'll ask again. What practical benefit does your definition provide?

That's what I don't get as well.

If he wants to refer to flying alien craft, that's what he can call them. Not use a term that stands for unidentifed flying object.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Akhenaten

The point I'm, trying to make, as I'm sure actually realize, is not that I'm trying to "define flying saucers into existence", but to establish a common understanding of the word "UFO" and how it has different meanings in different contexts, and is not simply defined or understood as the literal meaning of the individual words that make up the initialism.

The common understanding already exists, and the plain simple meaning is fine: UFO = Unidentified Flying Object.

You seem to be desperate to say that a UFO which has not been explained *can't* be explained as a mundane object, and therefore must be an alien craft. This simply isn't true. A UFO for which the explanation hasn't been found is still just an unidentified object. It doesn't magically become an alien craft just because we can't say for certain what was seen.

 

[R.A.F.]

...to establish a common understanding of the word "UFO" and how it has different meanings in different contexts, and is not simply defined or understood as the literal meaning of the individual words that make up the initialism.

Your bias disqualifies you from making those type of decisions.

 

[R.A.F.]

If he wants to refer to flying alien craft, that's what he can call them. Not use a term that stands for unidentifed flying object.

This is exactly why the term "UFO" was such a bad idea to begin with....because of it's "misuse" by flying saucer believers.


..and ufology is a perfect example...

 

[ufology]

But everyone else already has a common understanding of what "UFO" means. It's an acronym for Unidentified Flying Object.

It is an object or the appearance of an object that seems to be flying, floating, or falling, that no one has yet identified. It's quite a simple term.

ehcks:

You're missing the point. If you ask what the letters in the word UFO stand for, you would be right, however if you ask what the word UFO means ... how it is defined, the words that make up the initialism are not the same as the meaning of the word as a whole, and your definition above is simply not accurate.

The word "UFO" was created by USAF officials to replace the phrase "flying saucers" which were thought by the public ( and some USAF people ) to be alien craft. In addition to that, the official USAF definitions were much more involved and have been quoted in past posts under various USAF Regulations.

In addition to the above, the worlds most established English dictionary ( Oxford ) does not define the word UFO as merely the three words that it originates from, nor do several other independent quality sources. In addition to that, the scientific expert who studied UFOs for decades, and who was pasrt of the official USAF investigations did not define UFOs so simply.

Lastly, UFOs have become deeply embedded in modern culture and the overwhelming imagery and usage all the way from comic books to television is that UFOs are some kind of alien craft. Virtually everyone, when they hear someone talking about UFOs visualizes something non-mundane ( usually a flying saucer ). Sources that do not take all these factors into account and defiine it as merely the words that make up the initialism are neither official, historically accurate or representative of what UFOs are commonly thought to be in modern culture.

The skeptics here of course deny all the facts above, make self-serving proclaimations, refer to the incomplete literal defintions from non-official sources, or cite only impartial sections of the official definitions, and then when shown to be error they make up poor excuses to dismiss the official definitions altogether, definitions that were created by the people who created the word in the first place, citing them as "out of date". Then when shown to be in error through modern language definitons from the most respected independent contemporary sources, they just start the hand waving, name calling and mockery. I anticipate more of that coming soon.

 

[ufology]

Your bias disqualifies you from making those type of decisions.

RAF

On the contrary, not only have I provided independent sources, I've also shown the definitions by the people who created the word UFO in the first place and by the experts who have studied them. Ufologists are better qualified to decide how the words in their field should be defined. By your logic, doctors would not be in a position to create medical terms, lawyers legal terms, geologists geology terms ... you continue to make no sense at all.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ehcks:

You're missing the point. If you ask what the letters in the word UFO stand for, you would be right, however if you ask what the word UFO means ... how it is defined, the words that make up the initialism are not the same as the meaning of the word as a whole, and your definition above is simply not accurate.

The above is a deliberate and blatant misrepresentation. Everyone gets your point that you want to redefine your flying saucers into existence. Can you at least make an attempt to be honest?

The word "UFO" was created by USAF officials to replace the phrase "flying saucers" which were thought by the public ( and some USAF people ) to be alien craft.

And have since changed their opinion, which you deliberately ignore in your dishonest attempt to redefine your flying saucers into existence. Why do you cling to the superceded and outdated 1958 definition rather than the correct one?

In addition to that, the official USAF definitions were much more involved and have been quoted in past posts under various USAF Regulations.

Yes, you learned that the one you cling to is outdated and superceded and yet you dishonestly cling to it.

In addition to the above, the worlds most established English dictionary ( Oxford ) does not define the word UFO as merely the three words that it originates from, nor do several other independent quality sources. In addition to that, the scientific expert who studied UFOs for decades, and who was pasrt of the official USAF investigations did not define UFOs so simply.

I quoted the Oxford dictionary where it was spelled out in black and white "Unidentified Flying Object". Can you at least attempt to be honest?

Lastly, UFOs have become deeply embedded in modern culture and the overwhelming imagery and usage all the way from comic books to television is that UFOs are some kind of alien craft. Virtually everyone, when they hear someone talking about UFOs visualizes something non-mundane ( usually a flying saucer ). Sources that do not take all these factors into account and defiine it as merely the words that make up the initialism are neither official, historically accurate or representative of what UFOs are commonly thought to be in modern culture.

Then why do you cite Oxford which defines UFO as "Unidentified Flying Object"? At least make a token effort to be honest.

The skeptics here of course deny all the facts above,

That's because they aren't facts. Do you see now why everyone is asking you to stop being so dishonest?

make self-serving proclaimations,

Project much?

refer to the incomplete literal defintions from non-official sources,

You mean the 1958 USAF version that you've been clinging to?

or cite only impartial sections of the official definitions,

Ah, you do mean the 1958 version which you desperately cling to.

and then when shown to be error they make up poor excuses to dismiss the official definitions altogether,

Project much?

definitions that were created by the people who created the word in the first place, citing them as "out of date".

Only because they're out of date. I'd like to introduce you to reality as it seems that you've never been acquainted before.

Then when shown to be in error through modern language definitons from the most respected independent contemporary sources, they just start the hand waving, name calling and mockery. I anticipate more of that coming soon.

Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhaha!!!!!!!!!

No, I'm still not mocking you personally. It's your silly statements.