• 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.
Still waiting for an answer, ufology:

How can you tell which UFOs are alien flying saucers and which are misperceptions, hoaxes, faulty memory, etc?
 
Paul2 said:
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?"
Click to expand...


Paul:

I didn't come here to prove my position. I came here to elicit opinions on various cases for the purpose of providing a skeptical view for some of the writeups I do on my website. I've been engaging in the conversation and debate because it can be enjoyable when it's not all adversarial.

If you are sincere about really wanting to understand how others arrive at their conclusions, sometimes you have to try the same things they've done. After all, that is how scientists verify other people's claims ... by doing the same things to see if they get the same result. There is no shortcut I can post here to replace that.

So I've offered you a starting point. You can probably find the book at your local used book store. It's about 600 pages thick, so you can see why I'm not going to start posting it here ( not to mention copyright ). I trust you've already read the classics by Ruppelt, Keyhoe, Edwards, Hynek, Vallee, Klass and Condon.

Also, ( if you haven't already ), take an astronomy course, read-up on meteorology and aviation and start looking up more often when you are outside. Get an idea of what kinds of cloud formations are at what altitudes and how aircraft look from various angles in the day and at night, and what stars, planets, satellites, the moon and metor showers look like. Don't just take it for granted and look at pictures on the internet ... get outside and observe. Check out an air show, do some storm chasing, watch a meteor shower and a lunar eclipse. Last but not least talk to people, and if they are kind enough to tell you their story, try to listen without getting all judgmental. These activities can all be quite enjoyable and educational.

Once you've done all the above and talked in-person with a few dozen people who have stories to tell, then that's your ufology 101. It may have still not changed your view regarding proof, but it should at least make you realize it's not all nonsense and that perhaps it's worth further consideration and investigation.

Now for all I know, maybe you've done all that ... most people haven't, even many UFO believers. What exactly makes them believe? I don't know, but you asked me why I do, and I can't give you a better answer. If you want the easy fix, you're going to have to wait until the aliens come down and open up a mothership cruise agency, and I wouldn't hold my breath for that.
 
Archer17 said:
Need a rod with that?

;)
Click to expand...
Archer

The linky you show points to a site called Roswell Rods, but nothing on the site indicates what they are pushing. The shape in the upper left on the 'about' page reminds me of something I kept seeing in primarily magazines at least ten maybe 15 years ago. Do you know what they are pushing?

Let me know by PM please, as I don't want to detract from the popcorn box level of entertainment going on here right now.

PD
 
ufology, you've still not answered the question:

How can you tell which UFOs are alien flying saucers and which are misperceptions, hoaxes, faulty memory, etc?
 
ufology said:
I didn't come here to prove my position.
Click to expand...

ufology said:
I've been engaging in the conversation and debate because it can be enjoyable when it's not all adversarial.
Click to expand...

So you view a debate as not adversarial, and you are in a debate but you don't want to prove your position. I'm stumped right there.

By the way, conversation doesn't have to be adversarial, but a debate does, unless you want to redefine the word debate, too. Being adversarial isn't necessarily a bad thing, also.

ufology said:
If you are sincere about really wanting to understand how others arrive at their conclusions, sometimes you have to try the same things they've done.
Click to expand...

Only if they refuse to engage in conversation with you in a forum designed for conversation.
ufology said:
After all, that is how scientists verify other people's claims ... by doing the same things to see if they get the same result. There is no shortcut I can post here to replace that.
Click to expand...

Sure there is, it's something scientists do all the time: they answer each others' questions with writing and conversation.
 
ufology said:
Well ... if investigation isn't the right answer, then what would you propose, not to investigate? What is your point?
Click to expand...

You've said that UFOs are non-mundane. That means that they aren't mundane. Then you've said that subsequent investigation may uncover a mundane cause.

You've never mentioned investigation uncovering a non-mundane cause. So how do you tell the difference between the mundane ones and the non-mundane ones? What do you look for the investigation to reveal? Since nobody has any way to rule out all mundane explanations, how do you arrive at your position that UFOs are non-mundane when none of them have ever been?

Is your position that UFOs (using your cherry picked definition) don't exist?
 
Last edited:
Failing to answer that, you could just list the characteristics that distinguish alien flying saucers from hoaxes, misperceptions, faulty memory such as yours, etc.
 
RoboTimbo said:
You've said that UFOs are non-mundane. That means that they aren't mundane. Then you've said that subsequent investigation may uncover a mundane cause.

You've never mentioned investigation uncovering a non-mundane cause. So how do you tell the difference between the mundane ones and the non-mundane ones? What do you look for the investigation to reveal? Since nobodey has any way to rule out all mundane explanations, how do you arrive at your position that UFOs are non-mundane when none of them have ever been?

Is your position that UFOs (using your cherry picked definition) don't exist?
Click to expand...


Robo:

OK, I see what you are saying. The short answer is that you can't really be sure of anything, only establish a reasonable probability. So then the question boils down to what is reasonable to believe, not what is certain. The only way to determine what is reasonable is through investigation, be it scientific and/or based on critical thinking. The more information you have for a case, the higher the probability becomes that your conclusions will be correct. In ufology we look for independent corroboration ( human and/or technical ), try as best we can to establish the facts ( locations, times, numbers of observers etc. ) and use a process of elimination based on the information to rule out things that would not be possible or likely.

In past investigations, non-mundane cases were called "unknowns", which meant that the investigators believed it was reasonable to believe that the events that took place had no known natural or manmade explanation. Of course this does not prove a material reality according to laboratory standards, but the vast number of cases makes the probability that there is a material reality involved so high as to be virtually the same certainty anyway. And to me that is what makes it reasonable to believe that UFOs are real. Does that prove they are real? I guess you'd have to let a statistician and an engineer argue that one out. They're both scientists ... which one is right? One or both?
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Robo:

OK, I see what you are saying. The short answer is that you can't really be sure of anything, only establish a reasonable probability. So then the question boils down to what is reasonable to believe, not what is certain. The only way to determine what is reasonable is through investigation, be it scientific and/or based on critical thinking. The more information you have for a case, the higher the probability becomes that your conclusions will be correct. In ufology we look for independent corroboration ( human and/or technical ), try as best we can to establish the facts ( locations, times, numbers of observers etc. ) and use a process of elimination based on the information to rule out things that would not be possible or likely.

In past investigations, non-mundane cases were called "unknowns", which meant that the investigators believed it was reasonable to believe that the events that took place had no known natural or manmade explanation. Of course this does not prove a material reality according to laboratory standards, but the vast number of cases makes the probability that there is a material reality involved so high as to be virtually the same certainty anyway. And to me that is what makes it reasonable to believe that UFOs are real. Does that prove they are real? I guess you'd have to let a statistician and an engineer argue that one out. They're both scientists ... which one is right? One or both?
Click to expand...

Have anyone told you before that a multitude of anecdotes does not equal data?

(You could think of how many have seen Elvis working as a frycook, or Jesus in a piece of toast.)
 
Akhenaten said:
Lightning? Hmm . . .

Why not compare apples with apples and make it as good as the evidence that I'm sure we're all willing to accept for the Kyūshū J7W1 Shinden.
Click to expand...

OMG! This proves that Bert Rutan plagiarized his design for the Vari-Viggen from the Japanese and not the Swedes.
 
ufology said:
OK, I see what you are saying. The short answer is that you can't really be sure of anything, only establish a reasonable probability. So then the question boils down to what is reasonable to believe, not what is certain. The only way to determine what is reasonable is through investigation, be it scientific and/or based on critical thinking. The more information you have for a case, the higher the probability becomes that your conclusions will be correct. In ufology we look for independent corroboration ( human and/or technical ), try as best we can to establish the facts ( locations, times, numbers of observers etc. ) and use a process of elimination based on the information to rule out things that would not be possible or likely.
Click to expand...
But the quality of the investigation must count for something, no? In your exchange with Astrophotographer about the case involving the Beligion Air Force and radar data, your investigation seems particularly weak. You said this was one of the most impressive cases because of the evidence. And yet after looking over what was presented here, I have to say you seem to be convinced by what was after all very little. Not very impressive in the investigation or critical thinking departments.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Robo:

OK, I see what you are saying. The short answer is that you can't really be sure of anything, only establish a reasonable probability. So then the question boils down to what is reasonable to believe, not what is certain. The only way to determine what is reasonable is through investigation, be it scientific and/or based on critical thinking. The more information you have for a case, the higher the probability becomes that your conclusions will be correct. In ufology we look for independent corroboration ( human and/or technical ), try as best we can to establish the facts ( locations, times, numbers of observers etc. ) and use a process of elimination based on the information to rule out things that would not be possible or likely.
Click to expand...
Then you've found that hoaxes, misperceptions, etc. are more likely than aliens in flying saucers? Especially considering all the evidence for the one and none for the other. Remember the problems with your memory concerning your own alleged sighting.

In past investigations, non-mundane cases were called "unknowns", which meant that the investigators believed it was reasonable to believe that the events that took place had no known natural or manmade explanation.
Click to expand...
Ok, so it was just their belief then. And they never found any that weren't mundane either?

Of course this does not prove a material reality according to laboratory standards, but the vast number of cases makes the probability that there is a material reality involved so high as to be virtually the same certainty anyway.
Click to expand...
Well, no. It is considerably less than a virtual certainty. It is actually nearly a virtual certainty that there are no space aliens in flying saucers in our skies.

And to me that is what makes it reasonable to believe that UFOs are real. Does that prove they are real? I guess you'd have to let a statistician and an engineer argue that one out. They're both scientists ... which one is right? One or both?
Click to expand...
Of course UFOs are trivially real. People see them all the time. I've seen some myself. But there isn't anything reasonable about believing space aliens are flying saucers in our skies. There is no evidence for them and the only ones that have ever had an explanation turned out to be mundane. Do you know of any that were confirmed non-mundane?

For extraordinary claims such as aliens in flying saucers, we'd need extraordinary evidence.
 
Toke said:
Have anyone told you before that a multitude of anecdotes does not equal data?

(You could think of how many have seen Elvis working as a frycook, or Jesus in a piece of toast.)
Click to expand...


For a statistician, data may include anecdotal evidence provided by investigators. So to use your Elvis analogy, if there was no evidence that Elvis was actually dead ( no body to confirm one way or the other ), and 10,000 people say they saw Elvis, and each report was investigated by trained agents who found independent corroborating witnesses including police officers who observed some some really unique traits, like matching ID, it would be reasonable to think Elvis wasn't really dead after all, and the more of such reports that surfaced the higher the likelihood of it being true would be. Eventually if you keep investigating, you might even catch him.
 
ufology said:
For a statistician, data may include anecdotal evidence provided by investigators. So to use your Elvis analogy, if there was no evidence that Elvis was actually dead ( no body to confirm one way or the other ), and 10,000 people say they saw Elvis, and each report was investigated by trained agents who found independent corroborating witnesses including police officers who observed some some really unique traits, like matching ID, it would be reasonable to think Elvis wasn't really dead after all, and the more of such reports that surfaced the higher the likelihood of it being true would be. Eventually if you keep investigating, you might even catch him.
Click to expand...

No, Elvis is dead.
 
ufology said:
In past investigations, non-mundane cases were called "unknowns", which meant that the investigators believed it was reasonable to believe that the events that took place had no known natural or manmade explanation.
Click to expand...

What are the characteristics of the non-mundane ones? And why are they sometimes later found to be mundane?
 
ufology said:
For a statistician, data may include anecdotal evidence provided by investigators. So to use your Elvis analogy, if there was no evidence that Elvis was actually dead ( no body to confirm one way or the other ), and 10,000 people say they saw Elvis, and each report was investigated by trained agents who found independent corroborating witnesses including police officers who observed some some really unique traits, like matching ID, it would be reasonable to think Elvis wasn't really dead after all, and the more of such reports that surfaced the higher the likelihood of it being true would be. Eventually if you keep investigating, you might even catch him.
Click to expand...

And this is where it breaks down for you.
You do simply not have those "hard" reports*, all you have is hearsay and rumours.
(The term GIGU mean that statistics will not help you if your data is flawed.)
*Or the ufo-community have managed to keep them secret from the rest of the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom