• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
ufology said:
So when we are talking about a UFO, we are not talking about some twinkling light in the distance. Such a light could be a star or an aircraft on approach. However if the light suddenly darts back and forth many miles across the sky pulling maneuvers that no natural or manmade object we know about can do, then it becomes a UFO.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Very wrong. You over complicate in order to bamboozle and try and get your own way. This will not work. If someone sees a light/object in the sky and they are unable to identify it, irrespective of what it might be doing in terms of figures of eight or Mach 10, it is a UFO.

ufology said:
The reason that the skeptics don't like to accept the above is because one of their tactics is to portray UFOs as simply anything based on the literal interpretation of the words that make up the acronym.
Click to expand...
That's because, that is what is literally means.

ufology said:
This muddies the debate and gives them maneuvering room. If they are not called on it right away they'll do it almost every time.
Click to expand...
Muddies the debate to give us maneuvring room?! :confused: Pot, kettle.....

Let me ask you again because I don't think you've addressed any of my questions for weeks. A mysterious object that was previously unidentified due to lack of information becomes identified when more information comes to light. It turns out the object was something mundane. Perhaps it was Venus, a mating firefly doing a figure of 8, gooses or the fires from oil well platforms out to sea, What are these objects, ufology? Are they 'Once A UFO But Not A UFO Anymore'? Or were they never UFOs, despite the observers at the time believing that what they were witnessing (but, as it turns out mistakenly) - quote - "maneuvers that no natural or manmade object we know about can do".

Or, to put it another way, when you realise is was a firefly and not a spaceship, you have that facepalm moment where you realise what the firefly was doing not something that "no natural or manmade object we know about can do".

ufology said:
I grant it that some good information has been forwarded here though, and for that I'm appreciative. I just wish I could get it without having to walk through barbed wire every time.
Click to expand...
Good. If you could just get on and present us with some more information then we'll get right back to it. How are you getting on compiling those other pre 30-31st March sightings in Belgium to which you referred in your post to Astrophotographer? Can we have a look at the evidence for those please?
 
RoboTimbo said:
ufology, let's see where this particular bit of your lying started. You are the one who introduced Oxford's definition:




Which was particularly funny considering that I then looked up and posted the Oxford online dictionary's full definition.


Showing where you had left out the part about unidentified flying object.

Perhaps you should just give up not only the redefintion fallacy but also the lying about other people.
Click to expand...

Why do you think an omission must automatically be a *lie* -- i.e. *deliberate* deception? Perhaps he saw it, but saw it was labeled "Origin", and so didn't consider it part of the definition.
 
Last edited:
23_Tauri said:
Let me ask you again because I don't think you've addressed any of my questions for weeks. A mysterious object that was previously unidentified due to lack of information becomes identified when more information comes to light. It turns out the object was something mundane. Perhaps it was Venus, a mating firefly doing a figure of 8, gooses or the fires from oil well platforms out to sea, What are these objects, ufology?

Are they 'Once A UFO But Not A UFO Anymore'? Or were they never UFOs, despite the observers at the time believing that what they were witnessing (but, as it turns out mistakenly) - quote - "maneuvers that no natural or manmade object we know about can do".

Or, to put it another way, when you realise is was a firefly and not a spaceship, you have that facepalm moment where you realise what the firefly was doing not something that "no natural or manmade object we know about can do".

Good. If you could just get on and present us with some more information then we'll get right back to it. How are you getting on compiling those other pre 30-31st March sightings in Belgium to which you referred in your post to Astrophotographer? Can we have a look at the evidence for those please?
Click to expand...


Tauri:

I assure you there is no intent on my part to bamboozle anyone. My reasoning has been backed up with verifiable, if not self-evident examples, extending all the from the origin of the word UFO to the present day. By now you should be getting a better idea how to see things in their proper context, but I will offer the following to help clarify.

To deal with your first part, simply being mysterious isn't good enough. That implies that you just don't have enough data to identify the object. It might even seem a bit unusual, but falls well within the range of the mundane. A distant scintillating light on the dusk horizon for example. Such objects are not UFOs because they could be planets or stars or aircraft. Flares are similarly mundane. Fireflies should also be fairly obvious to most people, but at least they have the potential to seem to be doing crazy maneuvers, so perhaps some inexperienced camper might be looking up from her sleeping bag into a starry sky and misinterpret a firefly for something extraordinary ... a UFO. But once someone shows her it's just a firefly, then it's no longer a UFO but a firefly.

To answer the second part. As you can see, the validity of usage is highly dependent on context, mostly temporal ( before and after ). If you see an extraordinary airborne object that you personally have good reason to believe isn't anything natural or manmade, then you have enough reason to call it a UFO at the time of your observation. Further investigation may further confirm that what you saw was a UFO ... or perhaps also disprove it. The point is that when you go to tell someone what you saw, they don't presume you were describing something mundane. Whether or not it turns out to be mundane or not isn't the point.

As for the rest of the Belgian incidents, it was only the F-16 radar lock that the General describes in the video that I was using as an example for a previous poster who had asked for some non-anecdotal evidence. I don't really have any other questions about the Belgian sightings. I do have a question about this other video here though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dAsABIPmhM

I was thinking this might be explained as a rocket fired from the test range as seen with the kind of sensor and filters used in the camera, but constructive skeptical commentary would welcome.
　​
 
Last edited:
Ufology, can't you just accept that most people use the term UFO in a different way than you do and move on? I've been reading this thread over the last couple of weeks and I've not seen any real evidence presented, and the only research appears to involve checking dictionaries.
 
ufology said:
Did I not say the denials, proclaimations, hand waving, name calling and mockery would follow?

. . .


You will also note the above poster's hypocrisy.

. . .

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?
Click to expand...


This invisible friend of yours . . . do you talk to him/her anywhere other than in this forum?
 
Garrison said:
Ufology, can't you just accept that most people use the term UFO in a different way than you do and move on? I've been reading this thread over the last couple of weeks and I've not seen any real evidence presented, and the only research appears to involve checking dictionaries.
Click to expand...


I can appreciate you wanting to get on with the evidence side of the discussion, but why should I accept your suggestion when it is neither true nor accurate? Most people use the term UFO exactly the way I do, to denote an extraordinary airborne object. Here is someone describing an incident in which when asked what he thinks the object was, he uses the word UFO correctly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IqYUPQ2BAc&feature=related
 
ufology said:
Garrison said:
Ufology, can't you just accept that most people use the term UFO in a different way than you do and move on? I've been reading this thread over the last couple of weeks and I've not seen any real evidence presented, and the only research appears to involve checking dictionaries.
Click to expand...


I can appreciate you wanting to get on with the evidence side of the discussion, but why should I accept your suggestion when it is neither true nor accurate?
Click to expand...


Yay! Special pleading is off the menu for a bit and we're having some delicious petitio principii.

A change is a as good as a holiday, they say.


ufology said:
Most people use the term UFO exactly the way I do, to denote an extraordinary airborne object.
Click to expand...


You don't know most people, so your assertion is made without evidence and may therefore be safely ignored.

This thread, however, provides ample evidence that the opposite of your claim is true. You are alone in your belief that UFO = "OMG . . . aliens!"


ufology said:
Here is someone describing an incident in which when asked what he thinks the object was, he uses the word UFO correctly:

<attempted humour?>
Click to expand...


Forget the dictionaries, the AFRs, the comics and the cartoons - we're going to get our definitions from YouTube!


 
ufology said:
I can appreciate you wanting to get on with the evidence side of the discussion, but why should I accept your suggestion when it is neither true nor accurate? Most people use the term UFO exactly the way I do, to denote an extraordinary airborne object. Here is someone describing an incident in which when asked what he thinks the object was, he uses the word UFO correctly:

<link removed so post will go through>
Click to expand...

Yes many people use it to designate what they think was an extraordinary airborne object but the sad fact is that over the years the majority of those people have been shown to be mistaken or lying and the remainder appear to be cases where there is insufficient evidence to draw any clear conclusion as to what was seen.
And before you say it yes I know you disagree with that interpretation but instead of simply repeating your disagreement for the umpteenth time how about presenting the evidence and research that supports your version?
 
ufology said:
I do have a question about this other video here though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dAsABIPmhM

I was thinking this might be explained as a rocket fired from the test range as seen with the kind of sensor and filters used in the camera, but constructive skeptical commentary would welcome.
Click to expand...
It's an object that's flying, that due to the crappy quality of the footage can not be identified... That would make it a UFO then.

Bearing in mind that it is most likely to be something mundane (and there is zero evidence to falsify the null hypothesis), then according to your definition, it isn't a UFO... so why is it tagged as "Official UFO footage"?

Also, the provenance of this footage is very dubious, so we can cast doubt on the "Official" part too.... at least the "footage" part is right so it does have one redeeming quality... It's some footage.
 
ufology said:
Misuing the word, as skeptics often do, in their attempts to marginalize it, in no way helps us advance our understanding of the topic.
Click to expand...


Understand the topic? UFOs?

The sky is full of stuff. For various reasons, we can't always tell what some of this stuff is.​

My cat understands this, ufology.


ufology said:
Furthermore it misrepresents the true nature of the topic to the public, and that is intellectually disingenouous.
Click to expand...


The way it's been presented in this thread, it appears that the topic of ufology consists of nothing more than its proponents engaging in endless semantic gymnastics in order to create the illusion that their quasi-religious belief in flying saucers has some kind of validity.

What's to misrepresent?


ufology said:
Such tactics should not be part of exploring the truth, but unfortunately are a part of the "us vs. them" adversarial attitude that goes on here, and which I defend against.
Click to expand...


melodrama [ˈmɛləˌdrɑːmə]
n

1. (Performing Arts) a play, film, etc., characterized by extravagant action and emotion

2. (Performing Arts / Theatre) (formerly) a romantic drama characterized by sensational incident, music, and song

3. overdramatic emotion or behaviour

4. (Performing Arts / Theatre) a poem or part of a play or opera spoken to a musical accompaniment

[from French mélodrame, from Greek melos song + drame drama]

melodramatist [ˌmɛləˈdræmətɪst] n
melodramatic [ˌmɛlədrəˈmætɪk] adj
melodramatically adv​
 
Garrison said:
Yes many people use it to designate what they think was an extraordinary airborne object but the sad fact is that over the years the majority of those people have been shown to be mistaken or lying and the remainder appear to be cases where there is insufficient evidence to draw any clear conclusion as to what was seen.
And before you say it yes I know you disagree with that interpretation but instead of simply repeating your disagreement for the umpteenth time how about presenting the evidence and research that supports your version?
Click to expand...




A belated welcome to you, Garrison.

Are you one of those former lurkers that ufology thinks he's addressing with his little narrative asides about the meanie skeptics?
 
ufology said:
Sideroxylon:

To be clear, the definitions I've used to illustrate my position are not my definitions. My own proposed definition is located here:

http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/UFO-01a.htm
Click to expand...
That's where it can stay. What you pseudoscientists play at in your club is your own business but your cherry picked definitions won't work here. A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object.

The other definitions I've used, that you correctly refer to as my "favoured definition" not simply a reference to any one definition, but to several definitions and circumstances that together are historically and factually accurate. Together they are overwhelmingly supportive of the idea that UFOs as historically defined and commonly understood are not mundane objects. This offers us a better understanding of the topic because it clears up the ambiguity.
Click to expand...
No, you are incorrect. No UFOs have ever been shown to be non-mundane but if you have extraordinary evidence that one has been, this is the thread to present it in. Will you be doing that soon?

So when we are talking about a UFO, we are not talking about some twinkling light in the distance. Such a light could be a star or an aircraft on approach. However if the light suddenly darts back and forth many miles across the sky pulling maneuvers that no natural or manmade object we know about can do, then it becomes a UFO.
Click to expand...
No, you are incorrect. When we talk about UFOs we are speaking about sometimes twinkling lights in the distance, sometimes fireflies, sometimes oil well fires, and sometimes outright lies and hoaxes, as you should well know.

The reason that the skeptics don't like to accept the above is because one of their tactics is to portray UFOs as simply anything based on the literal interpretation of the words that make up the acronym. This muddies the debate and gives them maneuvering room. If they are not called on it right away they'll do it almost every time.
Click to expand...
No, you are incorrect. UFOs are Unidentified Flying Objects and that's what we mean when we use that acronym. If you want to talk about flying saucers, just say flying saucers.

The tactic is masterfully acted out in a video posted way back there someplace that initiated this part of the debate. Here it is again: "Don't forget what the "U" stands for in "unidentified" ... bla bla bla"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

It's a complete misrepresentation, and . . . bla bla bla.
Click to expand...
No, you are incorrect. You have been doing nothing but misrepresenting in this thread. Please be honest going forward.

Unfortunately in this forum we have sympathizers of such tactics and when called on it, they immediately respond with the hand waving. Then when that fails, they start the accusations, name calling and mockery. It's getting all quite predictable.
Click to expand...
No, you are incorrect. It is predictable because your dishonesty is predictable.

I grant it that some good information has been forwarded here though, and for that I'm appreciative. I just wish I could get it without having to walk through barbed wire every time.
Click to expand...
None of the good information has been provided by you. Your misrepresentations and cherry picked quoting of outdated and superceded definitions won't work here.

UFOs remain Unidentified Flying Objects.

Now, about that extraordinary evidence for alien flying saucers that you should be working on providing, will you be doing that soon?
 
ufology said:
I can appreciate you wanting to get on with the evidence side of the discussion,
Click to expand...
No, you really don't.

but why should I accept your suggestion when it is neither true nor accurate?
Click to expand...
No, it was spot on.

Most people use the term UFO exactly the way I do, to denote an extraordinary airborne object.
Click to expand...
No, they don't. Most people know that UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. This is a forum devoted to critical thinking and that's the definition we use. At your pseudoscientists club you can play your flying saucer games all you want but it won't work here.

Here is someone ... bla bla bla
Click to expand...
Was it one of the cartoons you watch?
 
ufology said:
I grant it that some good information has been forwarded here though, and for that I'm appreciative. I just wish I could get it without having to walk through barbed wire every time.
Click to expand...

You "lay out" the "wire" yourself with your irrational "stance" to a relatively simple question.


You want to re-define words, but we're not going to allow that, so you might as well get used to it, or leave this thread.
 
ufology said:
Tauri:

I assure you there is no intent on my part to bamboozle anyone. My reasoning has been backed up with verifiable, if not self-evident examples, extending all the from the origin of the word UFO to the present day. By now you should be getting a better idea how to see things in their proper context, but I will offer the following to help clarify.
Click to expand...
But dishonestly skipping over the 1966 definition of UFO, even after it had been explained to you. I assure you that your intent to bamboozle everyone isn't working.

To deal with your first part, simply being mysterious isn't good enough. That implies that you just don't have enough data to identify the object. It might even seem a bit unusual, but falls well within the range of the mundane. A distant scintillating light on the dusk horizon for example. Such objects are not UFOs because they could be planets or stars or aircraft. Flares are similarly mundane. Fireflies should also be fairly obvious to most people, but at least they have the potential to seem to be doing crazy maneuvers, so perhaps some inexperienced camper might be looking up from her sleeping bag into a starry sky and misinterpret a firefly for something extraordinary ... a UFO. But once someone shows her it's just a firefly, then it's no longer a UFO but a firefly.
Click to expand...
Such objects are UFOs because they are Unidentified, appear to be Flying, and appear to be Objects. And you may wish to note that it seems that fireflies aren't fairly obvious to everyone. Sometimes credulous people think they are distant alien flying saucers performing maneuvers and flying really fast. Once someone shows them it's a firefly, to them it's still an alien flying saucer.

To answer the second part. As you can see, the validity of usage is highly dependent on context, mostly temporal ( before and after ). If you see an extraordinary airborne object that you personally have good reason to believe isn't anything natural or manmade, then you have enough reason to call it a UFO at the time of your observation. Further investigation may further confirm that what you saw was a UFO ... or perhaps also disprove it. The point is that when you go to tell someone what you saw, they don't presume you were describing something mundane. Whether or not it turns out to be mundane or not isn't the point.
Click to expand...
In the context of this forum, UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. Further investigation has never shown any of them to be alien flying saucers.

As for the rest of the Belgian incidents, it was only the F-16 radar lock that the General describes in the video that I was using as an example for a previous poster who had asked for some non-anecdotal evidence. I don't really have any other questions about the Belgian sightings. I do have a question about this other video here though:

bla bla bla the Rramjet offense of throw another case against the wall.

I was thinking this might be explained as a rocket fired from the test range as seen with the kind of sensor and filters used in the camera, but constructive skeptical commentary would welcome.
Click to expand...
Easy peasy. The null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​
has never been falsified. Did you think a YouTube video would do it? Do you have any extraordinary evidence that it is non-mundane?
 
ufology said:
I can appreciate you wanting to get on with the evidence side of the discussion, but why should I accept your suggestion when it is neither true nor accurate? Most people use the term UFO exactly the way I do, to denote an extraordinary airborne object. Here is someone describing an incident in which when asked what he thinks the object was, he uses the word UFO correctly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IqYUPQ2BAc&feature=related
Click to expand...

I will do your link one better. This is an article written by Kingston George who was in charge of the BU telescope project. He says the story told by Jacobs is total bunk!

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

I have debated this with Robert Hastings and his research is less than accurate about the event. There are no records of any problems with the flights of Butterfly net or Buzzing Bee (the two candidate launches). Butterfly net is what Hastings and Jacobs state was the launch but the launch was after sunrise and the BU telescope did not have the capability to track the warhead in daylight (this was mentioned in progress reports). However, they did have the ability to track Buzzing Bee after MECO (main engine cutoff), which is what George states was the launch described by Jacobs. That launch was a sucess and there was no loss of warhead. In fact, records show that the warhead on Butterfly net made it to the impact area.

That means that Bob Jacobs is either a liar or he is mistaken about what was seen. I want to believe that he was mistaken but his memories have become tainted by UFO belief. He saw the event Kingston George described but he felt that parts of decoys were some sort of unusual event. BTW, he did not know what they were so they were "Unidentified Flying Objects" (UFOs) to him. For Kingston George, he knew exactly what they were so, to him, they were not UFOs.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom