UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

Still waiting for an answer, ufology:

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

Easy. All UFOs are alien craft as per the definition of UFO. It's just a matter of figuring out what kind of alien craft it is.

 

[laca]

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.

You do realize that this is the hallmark of pseudoscience, woo and kookery, right?

 

[Akhenaten]

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?

Investigation.

That's not how you spell retrofitting.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

How to become a pseudoscientist:
1. believe that your favourite woo really exists.
2. believe some more, practice is important
3. after believing for some years, you will be able to jump to conclusions without that pesky evidency thing, use sciency sounding words, drop in some quantum mechanics, making up pseudoscientific hypotheses as you need, believe many anecdotes turn by an alchemic process into data, believe in your ability to know that people who are sincere can't have misperceptions, believe you know who tells the truth, believe in perfect self-correcting memory and many other nice delusions.
4. after achieving the status of true believer you will be convinced that your first hand experience cant' be a misperception, optical illusion, hallucination (drug induced or natural), sign of metal illness, hoax or simple a wake dream.
5. now you have the authority of the true believer, so you can treat anybody who doubts your believe as meanie/know-it-all/uninformed whatever fits your taste.
6. step up to pontificate on the internet.
7. never, never, really never post at the JREF forum, this guys and gals won't fall for it.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

The only thing that keeps this from being regarded as the final nail in the coffin in which your credibility lies is that it's been obvious to most of us since you first started posting here that this close-minded belief in aliens and flying saucers is far more important to you than any kind of serious investigation or critical thought.

Your entire position is one of starting with a faith-based conclusion and attempting, through pseudoscience, to work backwards towards a validation of that conclusion that you hope will be accepted by skeptics.

Even now, with your arguments lying in tatters around you it seems you remain unable to accept that it's been an abject failure.

I can't help but feel a bit embarrassed for the folks who were fooled into thinking you were here for the purpose of honest debate and who engaged you on that basis.

 

[23_Tauri]

In past investigations, non-mundane cases were called "unknowns", which meant that the investigators believed that it was reasonable to believe that the events that took place had no known natural or manmade explanation.

So now you're trying to redefine the word "unknown". It doesn't wash, ufology. Unknown means not known, usually due to insufficient information. It does not mean alien spaceship.
when has sufficient information ever allowed you to confidently conclude 'alien spaceship'[

 

[Akhenaten]

Here we have another one of those tricky usage issues:

Describing your own determination to adopt different meanings for words as "tricky usage issues" is transparently dishonest.

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

You would have us adopt a meaning for UFO that even MUFON admits is incorrect 90% of the time?

Because there is so much out of context and innacurate usage, I'm skeptical of the above numbers.

Of course you are. They disagree with your belief system. Are we supposed to pretend to be surprised?

Were these so called "reported UFOs" truly extraordinary in appearance and behavior but fooled the observer anyway?

Who cares? That's not how UFOs are defined.

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.

That's called data mining, or sometimes cherry picking. It's news to nobody that you can come up with whatever numbers you want to support your preconceived notions.

 

[Akhenaten]

Paul:

I didn't come here to prove my position.

There's a lucky break.

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.

Excellent.

Which writeup includes the null hypothesis that all UFOs are of mundane origin? I'd like to read it.

I've been engaging in the conversation and debate because it can be enjoyable when it's not all adversarial.

Unfortunately, sidestepping, ignoring or attempting to redefine the bits that you determine as adversarial have created a lasting impression that actually debating the issues is the last thing you want to do.

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.

I'm somewhat inclined to agree with this, although I have no desire whatsoever to develop an unshakable belief in alien flying saucers. On the other hand, given that you obviously subscribe to the theory I have to wonder if you've ever considered giving scepticism a try.

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.

Of course there is. You just make stuff up.

Pseudoscience is good like 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.

In other words, read some flying saucer books, trawl through as many subjects as possible that mention something happening in the sky to establish a convincing vocabulary, collect some anecdotes and give the whole mish-mash a nice scientific-sounding name.

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.

It seems to me that you are the one who needs his views on proof changed, but that's got nothing to do with whether or not we regard a belief in flying saucers as worth adopting.

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.

No you probably can't . . .

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.

but it's a bit of a mystery why you think it's a good 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.

Balderdash.

 

[Akhenaten]

OMG! This proves that Bert Rutan plagiarized his design for the Vari-Viggen from the Japanese and not the Swedes.

I've never doubted it for a second, although I thought his design for the Beechcraft Starship was the ultimate expression of what the Shinden might have become.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...
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.

I'll decloak just to say you just received a 10K points bonus for:

a. Talking about a very cool design, one of my favorite "this-could-have-caused-some-problems" WWII planes.

b. Talking about a very cool design, one of those magnificient examples of how some oldies indicate the shape of things to come.

c. Talking about a very cool design, unknown to most people, something which clearly shows the claims by some UFO buffs of "knowing and being able to recognize everything in the sky" are bogus.

d. Talking about a very cool design.

 

[Akhenaten]

Talking about a very cool design . . .

Magnificent Lightning

Mundane?​

 

[Correa Neto]

Oh, sure. Mundane. The SNCASO SO-8000 "Narwhal" was not that different, except fot the big tail and more rounded nose.

Take the SNCASO Griffon II. The design is not exactly unheard nowadays. Sure, back in its' time it was not. But hey, mundane, depends on the beholder's standards, right? Ain't such thing as extraordinary. Everything is mundane.

Have I mentioned I have a soft spot for those SNCASO designs?

 

[23_Tauri]

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.

More of the same. The oil well flares at Campeche: they have been demonstrated to be mundane but nevertheless some UFOlogists continue to insist that what those Government pilots saw was something mysterious and with capabilities that defied a mundane explanation. Where does that fit into your assertion that "flares are similarly mundane"? Does this include Campeche, which is the incident I was referring to?

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.

Do they not? I think until the null hypothesis is falsified it pays any critical thinker to assume that the object is of mundane origin until proven otherwise This is known as 'The Burden of Proof'.

Whether or not it turns out to be mundane or not isn't the point.

Yes it is. No UFO has been identified to the point where you or anyone else can categorically say "that UFO does NOT have a mundane origin! It must come from outer space!"

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.

Really? You read the new (to you) analysis of the events of the night of 30-31 March 1991 on Astrophotographer's website and you "don't really have any other questions about the Belgian sightings"? Even though you still believe the myth of the Belgian UFO flap of that time is evidence of alien visitation of Earth? Wow. I am amazed at this, considering you have in your recent posts purported to rely on investigation in order to sort out the alien spaceships from the other objects in the sky.

Where's the investigation? Where is your evidence of sightings from other nights that lead you to the conclusion "alien spaceships"?

 

[carlitos]

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.

As others have noted - this is a faith-based belief system, like religion.

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.

Yup.

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

He missed the first page of the thread, comment #14:

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

You do realize that this is the hallmark of pseudoscience, woo and kookery, right?

He does not. He thinks that he has talked with rabbits, been in near-miss car accidents with "Men in Black" driving a vintage, limited edition Cadillac, has "lost time" and that he can dowse for water. He's not exactly examining his own beliefs skeptically. That would presumably be bad for business at the online bookstore / ufology website. You know, the website that he has been pimping since his very first posts here, the one he hoped that "skeptics" would provide content for without compensation or credit. It's not like his motives weren't out there for everyone to see.

 

[Astrophotographer]

All of this discussion about "investigations" still misses the point I continue to raise with all UFOlogists. That being that "investigations" of events that have already transpired usually results in absolutely nothing significant. It could be 4 hours, 4 days, 4 months, or 4 years since the event and nothing new is usually learned from the initial reports (unless they do some serious skeptical examination and find the source of the report). All they end up with is a mystery with no definitive answer.

I already demonstrated how amateur astronomers have learned to identify transient phenomena and obtain hard evidence for it. It takes real hard work and dedication to collecting data. Do you think it was lucky chance that Wesley and Go recorded on video an impact event on Jupiter? Sure luck had something to do with but I know what these guys are doing. There are thousands of hours of video they are recording and watching every second of it. They go out every clear night they can. They are dedicated to their work.
Compare this to the UFOlogists, who are only dedicated to making a name for themselves by hyping ages old cases as "evidence" even though reasonable explanations are available. OR they tend to declare "I know what I saw" if they have a personal UFO "experience". They rarely, if ever, are proactive. If the phenomena was something exotic and real, there would be a lot more evidence than what is available. Scientific surveys like PANSTARRS and amateur meteor networks would have surely recorded at least one of these massive floating triangles UFOlogists like to hype. The lack of any real evidence is telling. Either UFOlogists secretly know there isn't anything to UFO reports or they are afraid to learn there isn't anything to these UFO reports other than misindentifications. It is time for UFOlogists to prove the skeptics wrong. The technology for recording UFOs effectively is readily available for every UFO group in the world. They just are afraid to use it.

 

[Toke]

All of this discussion about "investigations" still misses the point I continue to raise with all UFOlogists. .......

An excellent description of the difference between amateur scientist/astronomers and flying-saucerologists.

And Nominated.

 

[Marduk]

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.

so you're saying Alien spaceships and Elvis have the same chance of being here, now on this planet and we can find out by asking people who probably haven't witnessed either


Jeeesus H Christ man, have you read what you're writing ?

 

[EHocking]

so you're saying Alien spaceships and Elvis have the same chance of being here, now on this planet and we can find out by asking people who probably haven't witnessed either


Jeeesus H Christ man, have you read what you're writing ?

A case of being so open-minded that his brain has fallen out?

 

[edge]

Still waiting for an answer, ufology:

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

Flying saucers are just one of the conveyances that we see, they are made to go through an atmosphere quickly.
When you bring in alien to the subject then there are only five or six explanations.
So far we haven't been able to say that they are from one source or type.
Or we could be witnessing all of them, all of the explanations of what they are and they all are similar in some respect as in the way they appear and vanish.
In outer space there is no need to be streamline is there?
But if you want a closer look then you need streamline craft.
I got a feeling that we are lumping several objects to one category.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hiya, edge! Thought you were busy dousing.

Flying saucers are just one of the conveyances that we see, they are made to go through an atmosphere quickly.

Do you have a link showing a confirmed flying saucer? We hear about them and I've seen hoaxed photos of them but none that were actual.

When you bring in alien to the subject then there are only five or six explanations.

Are you referring to the different types of aliens? I'd like some evidence that aliens have or are visiting us. I'll need more than claims of aliens, I'll need actual evidence.

So far we haven't been able to say that they are from one source or type.

I've seen where people have said they are of different sources and types. I've just not seen any evidence to back up what they say.

Or we could be witnessing all of them, all of the explanations of what they are and they all are similar in some respect as in the way they appear and vanish.

Or it could be hallucinations, hoaxes, misperceptions, outright lying and other mundane explanations which we have no way of eliminating if we don't even know what they are.

In outer space there is no need to be streamline is there?

Don't most visual sightings by lay people appear to occur in our atmosphere, not in outer space?

But if you want a closer look then you need streamline craft.

Well, I'd certainly like a closer look.

I got a feeling that we are lumping several objects to one category.

I got a feeling UFOlogy lumps uncounted discrete events into one category, OMG PseudoAliens!