UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

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.

If you mean alien spaceship, why can't you just say alien spaceship? And then provide some evidence for them.

Why do you continue with your blatant dishonesty?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Why do you continue with your blatant dishonesty?

It's either that or evidence that the human brain can do some pretty nifty tricks to deal with pesky new ideas that threaten to tear apart a significant part of someone's web of belief. There is a word for that but my brain's not working too well for me either.

 

[R.A.F.]

Ufologists are better qualified to decide how the words in their field should be defined.

What a bunch of crap...you have no qualifications whatsoever...but you sure do have "balls" to say something as outrageous as that.

By your logic, doctors would not be in a position to create medical terms, lawyers legal terms, geologists geology terms ...

Well, you're NOT a scientist, and simple "belief" does not qualify ANYONE to re-define reality....nice, but lame attempt.

...you continue to make no sense at all.

I imagine you'd be hard pressed to get anyone to agree with that...any takers?

 

[R.A.F.]

There is a word for that...

It's just religious belief with different "particulars".

 

[R.A.F.]

If you mean alien spaceship, why can't you just say alien spaceship? And then provide some evidence for them.

IMO, it's because UFO's are real, and if he can re-define UFO's to mean alien flying saucer then he "proves" the existence of aliens without having to worry about that pesky thing called conformational evidence.

It's a cheap "trick", and that's all it is.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It's either that or evidence that the human brain can do some pretty nifty tricks to deal with pesky new ideas that threaten to tear apart a significant part of someone's web of belief. There is a word for that but my brain's not working too well for me either.

Cognitive dissonance^WP? That's very likely. That would explain why his posting here makes him so distraught.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Cognitive dissonance^WP? That's very likely. That would explain why his posting here makes him so distraught.

That's the one, mate.

ETA: The UFO origins to the term are interesting, too.

 

[ufology]

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?

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?

Yes, you learned that the one you cling to is outdated and superceded and yet you dishonestly cling to it.

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?

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

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

Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhaha!!!!!!!!!

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

Did I not say the denials, proclaimations, hand waving, name calling and mockery would follow? At least they're consistent.

I'm not going to go back and list all the posts that prove the unfounded allegations they make here. But I will post one example of the many that proves that I'm telling the truth. The poster above claims he posted the Oxford disctionary definition. Here is is the Oxford definition and link to source ...

Oxford Online: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/UFO

noun (plural UFOs) 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.

Origin:1950s: acronym from unidentified flying object

​

You will also note the above poster's hypocrisy. Not only did he not quote the definition, and attempted to mislead the readers by using the word origin instead, the word origin clearly says it was in the 1950s, yet when official USAF definitions from that period were presented by me, he was the first to consider them outdated, even though within the context of the discussion they were entirely relevant.

It is fast becoming obvious that simply proclaiming someone is dishonest without evidence is in itself dishonest and I have just proven ( again ) that I am in fact being completely honest ... so what does that make them?

 

[R.A.F.]

You will also note the above poster's hypocrisy.

I "note" nothing of the sort.*

You seem to have difficulty differentiating reality from fantasy...not an attribute I would "advertise".



edit to add...*I "note" that you have, once again, assumed that you "speak" for others here. I don't know what kind of "affliction" would cause that, BUT IT NEEDS TO STOP, NOW.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Did I not say the denials, proclaimations, hand waving, name calling and mockery would follow? At least they're consistent.

I'm not going to go back and list all the posts that prove the unfounded allegations they make here.

And it's a pity that you didn't. You would have found this one where I quoted the Oxford dictionary in its entirety and gave a link to it. As I noted in the post you were quoting:

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.

Here's the Oxford online dictionary defintion I found:

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

So UFOs are unidentified flying objects. Did you have some question about that? What did you think of Puddle Duck's correction of your misuse of the outmoded and superceded definition that you've been cherry picking from 1958?

Are you going to continue to dishonestly try to redefine UFOs to mean alien spaceship and then claim that they exist because of your redefinition? The evidence say, Yes you will. Your dishonesty won't make UFOs be alien spaceships.

Does it really matter though? You don't have any evidence for alien spaceships.

Does your dishonesty know no bounds?

But I will post one example of the many that proves that I'm telling the truth. The poster above claims he posted the Oxford disctionary definition.

Yes, and also just now posted evidence that I did do so. I hope you aren't going to now try to claim I didn't.

Here is how it was misrepresented by the poster above ... yet he has the nerve to call me dishonest:

Oxford Online: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/UFO

noun (plural UFOs) 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.

Origin:1950s: acronym from unidentified flying object​

Ooh, you did. Now that we all see what a liar you are, how will you recover?

You will also note the above poster's hypocrisy. Not only did he not quote the definition, and attempted to mislead the readers by using the word origin instead, the word origin clearly says it was in the 1950s, yet when official USAF definitions from that period were presented by me, he was the first to consider them outdated, even though within the context of the discussion they were entirely relevant.

Now you nail the lid on your lying. I quoted the post where I did quote Oxford Online dictionary in its entirety. So not only do you cling to your outmoded, superceded and discarded 1958 definition, you lie about it.

Will you at least make a token effort to be honest?

 

[Sideroxylon]

The Black Knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail" at least conceded to a "flesh wound" despite his obvious dismemberment. Going by ufology's form, you won't even get that, RoboTimbo.

 

[23_Tauri]

[/INDENT]You will also note the above poster's hypocrisy.

No, I won't note it either because I have never read anything of RoboTimbo's that I would consider to be hypocrisy.

Not only did he not quote the definition, and attempted to mislead the readers by using the word origin instead, the word origin clearly says it was in the 1950s, yet when official USAF definitions from that period were presented by me, he was the first to consider them outdated, even though within the context of the discussion they were entirely relevant.

That is an obtuse statement. You are implying that because the word UFO was first coined in the 1950s, then the word must have originated from the USAF (presumably the 1958 USAF definition in particular, but you didn't make that overt). Are you misrepresenting on purpose, or did you not realise the fallacy you just committed?

 

[ufology]

And it's a pity that you didn't. You would have found this one where I quoted the Oxford dictionary in its entirety and gave a link to it ... bla bla bla

Timbo:

The way you defined it in the forum above simply used the word origin from the 1950s. You and I both referenced the same definition and link, but it was I who just posted the actual definition ... so again you misrepresent and start in with libelous name calling. Furthermore it was I who posted the official definitions, which you rejected because they were created in the 1950s. Then you take the definition and use it out of the context of the discussion to make some unrelated point. Do you not see your hypocrisy? Your tactics ( if that's even what they are ) are an embarrassment to the forum. Try working on not being so intransigent.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Timbo:

The way you defined it in the forum above simply used the word origin from the 1950s. You and I both referenced the same definition and link, but it was I who just posted the actual definition ... so again you misrepresent and start in with libelous name calling. Furthermore it was I who posted the official definitions, which you rejected because they were created in the 1950s. Then you take the definition and use it out of the context of the discussion to make some unrelated point. Do you not see your hypocrisy? Your tactics ( if that's even what they are ) are an embarrassment to the forum. Try working on not being so intransigent.

I didn't define it, I got that from your Oxford dictionary. Earlier in this thread I had posted the entire definition with a link. You are the one who said that Oxford didn't define UFOs as Unidentified Flying Objects. I showed that you were wrong, and not for the first time. That you didn't acknowledge it when I first posted it and then that you continued to say that Oxford defined it some other way is a misrepresentation on your part. I do see your hypocrisy and I'm happy to be able to point it out to you. I also advise you to not lie about me in future.

Cease your dishonesty and start discussing things honestly. Your attempts at redefining aliens and flying saucers into existence aren't working. Try something else. You might find that if you start behaving in an honest manner that you won't be depressed after posting.

 

[ufology]

No, I won't note it either because I have never read anything of RoboTimbo's that I would consider to be hypocrisy.


That is an obtuse statement. You are implying that because the word UFO was first coined in the 1950s, then the word must have originated from the USAF (presumably the 1958 USAF definition in particular, but you didn't make that overt). Are you misrepresenting on purpose, or did you not realise the fallacy you just committed?

I'm not implying the word UFO originated with the USAF, I've stated it as a proven fact in past posts along with references. Anyone who knows anything about ufology knows this to be true. Again, this is another example of the supposed JREF experts on UFOs not knowing the most fundamental of facts and misrepresenting them to the public.

 

[Sideroxylon]

So why all this instance on your favoured definition? What does it bring to efforts at understanding the subject at hand?

 

[23_Tauri]

ufology, how you are getting on with listing those "previous dates no similar radar problems were encountered" to which you alluded to in your post to Astrophotographer? On Astrophotographer's website, he notes:

By late March, F-16 interceptors had already been scrambled on several UFO sightings in December but with no positive results being obtained. On one occasion, it turned out that lights from a local disco produced the UFO reports. As a result of these false starts, the BAF set minimum requirements for these UFO scrambles. It would require reports from reliable witnesses in conjunction with other evidence to warrant such use of manpower and material. These conditions were met late on the evening of March 30, 1990.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Belg.htm

Perhaps if you could provide us with those dates on which you believe there is evidence for alien spaceships over the Ardennes and then posters here can examine how they differed from the night of 30-31 March 1990, and also examine the evidence itself. Thank you.

 

[R.A.F.]

...this is another example of the supposed JREF experts on UFOs not knowing the most fundamental of facts and misrepresenting them to the public.

Lord I'm getting tired of this crap...

 

[R.A.F.]

Do you not see your hypocrisy?

Just who are you trying to convince?? None but you believe this garbage, so why keep posting it?

Do you really think repetition will "convince" ANYONE, when it hasn't already?


You keep repeating the same, yet expect a different answer...


...and YOU are an authority? You're not even an "authority" on how to rationally discuss anything.

 

[23_Tauri]

I'm not implying the word UFO originated with the USAF, I've stated it as a proven fact in past posts along with references. Anyone who knows anything about ufology knows this to be true. Again, this is another example of the supposed JREF experts on UFOs not knowing the most fundamental of facts and misrepresenting them to the public.

It was "suggested in 1952 by Cpt. Edward J. Ruppelt" and then "adopted by the United States Air Force".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object#Terminology

The word then entered the popular vocabulary of the day. Not quite the same thing as the USAF inventing it. But we split hairs. Got any evidence for aliens visiting planet Earth to share with us?