• 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:
Hey Paul:

I see you are itching to get back to the evidence part of the thread and not all these boring criteria for research. Unfortunately I can't answer your question until you provide me with the criteria that your people or whoever you mean by "we" would accept as evidence. Would it have to be as good as the evidence we have for natural transient weather phenomena like ball lightning?
Click to expand...

Let's not quibble about the definition of "evidence" now. It's obvious that there won't be a universally agreed criterion (definition) for what constitues 'evidence' in a ufological context, it's probably the biggest disconnect between those that have differing views on the subject.

I say just throw out a report/incident that you or anyone else feels best reflects the premise that the explanation lies outside this world. The alternative is another gazillion pages of what we just had with "evidence" replacing "UFO" as the semantical snit.
 
ufology said:
Hey Paul:

I see you are itching to get back to the evidence part of the thread and not all these boring criteria for research. Unfortunately I can't answer your question until you provide me with the criteria that your people or whoever you mean by "we" would accept as evidence. Would it have to be as good as the evidence we have for natural transient weather phenomena like ball lightning?
Click to expand...

What's YOUR evidence that's sufficient for YOU to conclude, etc., etc., etc.?

C'mon.
 
Akhenaten said:
I've never pretended otherwise. It's the biggest joke on the forum outside of the bigfeets threads. You're the one who wants it to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...


Actually I can do both. And that makes the non-"serious" stuff even more enjoyable.
 
ufology said:
Actually I can do both. And that makes the non-"serious" stuff even more enjoyable.
Click to expand...


So how do we know when you're being serious or not?

Oh, let me guess--that whole "redefining every term I can come up with" spiel--that was all a joke, right?
 
Paul2 said:
What's YOUR evidence that's sufficient for YOU to conclude, etc., etc., etc.? C'mon.
Click to expand...


Paul:

OK, that's a completely different question than the first one. My evidence for me is my own experience of seeing one firsthand. But even if I'd never seen one myself, I'd still say that it isn't reasonable to propose that everyone else I've talked to or read about who says they have seen one is the victim or perpetrator of a hoax or had misidentified something mundane. Plus there are the opinions of people like Hynek, a genuine astronomer who began as a biased skeptic and debunker and was transformed by decades of involvement and investigation into someone who believed UFOs are real and deserve to be investigated. So all those things combined, for me personally, make me certain that craft of alien origin have visited Earth. Are they still here as of this very moment? I don't know.

Will we ever be given access to sufficient physical and/or repeatable conditions to draw a conclusion using the scientific method? This area gets a bit gray ( pardon the pun ). Much of what we accept to be scientific fact isn't based on perfectly repeatable conditions or physical evidence that can be contained in a lab. The weather for example isn't controlled, only observed. We have to make repeated observations of similar phenomena, not identical phenomena, and draw conclusions based on probability in order to study it. Ball lightning is a weather phenomena believed by some meteorologists to be a real ... is there adequate scientific proof? I'd say there is probably less proof for ball lightning than for UFOs. But if we accept that it's genuine science and a real phenomenon because we have a few witnesses, theories and probabilities, then we can make the same case for UFOs and it should be considered to be just as legitimate.

Transient astronomical or aquatic phenomena pose the same challenge. but I'm sure I've said enough for you to come up with your own examples.
 
Last edited:
ufology, I've asked this numerous times without receiving an answer:

How can you tell which UFOs are alien flying saucers and which are misperceptions, hoaxes, faulty memory, etc?
 
ufology said:
Paul:

OK, that's a completely different question than the first one. My evidence for me is my own experience of seeing one firsthand. But even if I'd never seen one myself, I'd still say that it isn't reasonable to propose that everyone else I've talked to or read about who says they have seen one is the victim or perpetrator of a hoax or had misidentified something mundane. Plus there are the opinions of people like Hynek, a genuine astronomer who began as a biased skeptic and debunker and was transformed by decades of involvement and investigation into someone who believed UFOs are real and deserve to be investigated. So all those things combined, for me personally, make me personally certain that craft of alien origin have visited Earth. Are they still here as of this very moment? I don't know.

Will we ever be given access to sufficient physical and/or repeatable conditions to draw a conclusion using the scientific method? This area gets a bit gray ( pardon the pun ). Much of what we accept to be scientific fact isn't based on perfectly repeatable conditions or physical evidence that can be contained in a lab. The weather for example isn't controlled, only observed. We have to make repeated observations of similar phenomena, not identical phenomena, and draw conclusions based on probability in order to study it. Ball lightning is a weather phnomena believed by some meteorologists to be a real ... is there adequate scientific proof? I'd say there is probably less proof for ball lightning than for UFOs. But if we accept that it's genuine science and a real phenomenon because we have a few witnesses, theories and probabilities, then we can make the same case for UFOs and it should be considered to be just as legitimate.

Transient astronomical or aquatic phenomena pose the same challenge. but I'm sure I've said enough for you to come up with your own examples.
Click to expand...

May I summarize what you said, to make sure I have it right?

Your evidence is

1. Your personal experience
2. Other things that you've read
3. People you've talked to
4. Opinions of people like Hynek

If that's a fair summary, #2, 3, and 4 are pretty general. Can you be more specific? Like actual cases and descriptions of the type of evidence?

We've already been through #1, no consensus there, unfortunately.
 
Ufology, would you mind explaining to us the logic of how you manage the jump from:

ufology said:
The word UFO is meant to convey an object that defies known explanations
Click to expand...


...to the conclusion that:

ufology said:
UFOs, by definition, are not mundane in the first place
Click to expand...


Do you really not understand the cognitive error behind that jump to conclusion?

Please allow me to point it out to you:

Just because nobody has been able to conclusively explain these sightings, that doesn't necessarily prove they are non-mundane. It is entirely possible (probable, even) that they're indeed the results of mundane causes, but nobody has been able to identify those causes.

Jumping to the conclusion of "aliens" despite a complete lack of evidence is a fallacy of affirming the consequent, or an argument from ignorance.


ufology said:
some definitions even include the presumption of an alien craft as part of the definition.
Click to expand...


A "presumption" does not make a fact.

The definition's use of the word "presumption" means that the conclusion of "alien craft" is presumptuous by nature, and therefore not to be trusted.

In other words, just because a ET believer presumes UFOs are alien spacecraft, that doesn't make his presumption factually correct.

UFOs are objects seen in the sky which have not been identified. That is the definition. Sure, there may be connotations of extraterrestrials, but that's beside the point.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
May I summarize what you said, to make sure I have it right?

Your evidence is

1. Your personal experience
2. Other things that you've read
3. People you've talked to
4. Opinions of people like Hynek

If that's a fair summary, #2, 3, and 4 are pretty general. Can you be more specific? Like actual cases and descriptions of the type of evidence?

We've already been through #1, no consensus there, unfortunately.
Click to expand...


On point 1. There is nothing anyone can say to make what I experienced not have happened or convince me that what I saw wasn't some kind of alien craft, so your consensus on that point isn't relevant to me.

On the rest, you'll have to walk your own path. I can't do it for you. I'm not going to start posting hundreds of cases here. Also, don't presume, ( if you bother to take my advice ), that I automatically believe every case I read in every book.

A good book to start with is Beyond Top Secret by Timothy Good. When talking to people, just start asking them in casual conversation if they have ever seen a UFO, or know somebody who has. After over 20 years of doing this, I've heard ( informally ) enough stories from people who in my opinion are genuine and sincere to believe they all can't have been lying or misidentifying some mundane object.

Also, take the time to look up more often. It's surprising what you'll see over time even if it's not a UFO. I've seen two fireballs ( meteors ) in the daytime. One of them was huge and some people even got it on film. One day I saw a really cool black unmarked nearly silent B2 jet fly in really low ... I mean really low over the city past our house ( also in the daytime ). I saw the space station going over in the daytime, an airliner get hit by lightning, so-called black helicopters, a twin turboprop with a bad engine, some cool birds ( hawks, eagles, owls ) and all the usual aircraft, meteor showers and such. I'm still amazed at passenger jets even though I know how they work. I can see them for many miles from my living room window on approach to the city and sometimes they fly right over my house, so I get out my 15 X 70 binoculars and go outside to check them out.

Lastly, most people who see UFOs don't plan for it. I certainly didn't. Out of all the observing I've done since my sighting in 1975, I've never seen another UFO, and I've done a lot of looking up.
 
Last edited:
John Albert said:
A "presumption" does not make a fact.

The definition's use of the word "presumption" means that the conclusion of "alien craft" is presumptuous by nature, and therefore not to be trusted.

In other words, just because a ET believer presumes UFOs are alien spacecraft, that doesn't make their presumption factually correct.

UFOs are objects seen in the sky which have not been identified. That is the definition. Sure, there may be connotations of extraterrestrials, but that's beside the point.
Click to expand...


Even MUFON recognizes this:

At any rate, UFO has now entered into common usage and appears in most dictionaries, along with ufology, the study of UFOs, and ufologist, one who studies UFOs. In many ways, the term is a "loaded" one in that it implies classification or designation prior to a proper analysis or thorough investigation. As commonly employed, UFO has also come to imply a spaceship, or vehicle, of extraterrestrial manufacture and origin. In reality, well over 90 percent of all reported UFOs prove to be IFOs - Identified Flying Objects - upon investigation. IFOs can be anything from distant airplane landing lights to the planet Venus, with ball lightning, weather balloons, and other astronomical and meteorological phenomena thrown in for good measure.
Click to expand...

Highlighting added.

http://www.mufon.com/FAQs.html#Q1
 
ufology said:
Transient astronomical or aquatic phenomena pose the same challenge. but I'm sure I've said enough for you to come up with your own examples.
Click to expand...


No. Transient astronomical phenomena need to be verified. If somebody says they saw a -15 magnitude fireball on a given date and time and others did not see it, the report has little merit. It is only when multiple observations of the same transient event are made is there some merit to the observations.

A wonderful example can be found in the recent issue of sky and telescope. In June 2010, amateur astronomer Anthony Wesley recorded on video an impact event on Jupiter. Had it been only his observation, people would have considered it as suspect. However, at the same time, amateur Christopher Go in the Phillipines recorded the impact. This transient event was confirmed.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/03/breaking-another-jupiter-impact/

I can list all sorts of transient astronomical events that have either been confirmed or not over the centuries. If you want to discuss them, we could go on for some time.


What is missed by your "organization" and other UFO groups is that confirmation of transient events requires dedication and hard work. This is something that UFOlogists hardly ever do. They are a passive group, waiting for things to come to them, studying old UFO cases, suspect videos and photographs, and writing about it endlessly. This is why guys like Dirk Biddle will continue to make a name for themselves pontificating about "overwhelming evidence" that wide-eyed believers suck up. If UFOlogists were more proactive, they might have a case. Instead they just keep repeating the same old routine with the same old results.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
There is nothing anyone can say to make what I experienced not have happened or convince me that what I saw wasn't some kind of alien craft
Click to expand...


Well there we have all the evidence we need to conclude that Mr. J. Randall Murphy, proprietor of online bookstore and website "Ufology Society International," is a closed-minded practitioner of pseudoscience who is completely unwilling to accept any logic or reasoning that conflicts with his faith-based belief that outer space aliens are visiting Earth.
 
ufology said:
On the rest, you'll have to walk your own path.
Click to expand...
I'm walking my own path quite well, thank you, but that doesn't have anything to do with it.

Why did you come here to discuss these things if your response to a legitimate question is "figure it out yourself?"
 
ufology said:
A good book to start with is Beyond Top Secret by Timothy Good. When talking to people, just start asking them in casual conversation if they have ever seen a UFO, or know somebody who has. After over 20 years of doing this, I've heard ( informally ) enough stories from people who in my opinion are genuine and sincere to believe they all can't have been lying or misidentifying some mundane object.
Click to expand...

You now they really can. So after all the tap dancing all you've got is the same old pile of anecdotes as every other ufologist that we have to believe because there's so many of them/they're so credible. You could at least apologize to all the posters here whose time you've wasted with the same old UFO believer junk.
 
AdMan said:
Even MUFON recognizes ... ( whatever ... I'll get to that later )
Click to expand...


Here we have another one of those tricky usage issues:

"In reality, well over 90 percent of all reported UFOs prove to be IFOs - Identified Flying Objects"

Because there is so much out of context and innacurate usage, I'm skeptical of the above numbers. Were these so called "reported UFOs" truly extraordinary in appearance and behavior but fooled the observer anyway? In other words, were they really UFOs, or were most of them just some unexplained light or object in the distance? Who supplied the data? When were these statistics compiled? We also have other studies with entirely different numbers from different times where even with USAF resources at their disposal, the unknowns were 26.94%. I've looked into the statistics and it's obvious how the different screening methods made big differences in the numbers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom