Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Your category is UFO's
please choose a question on the following
birds, ducks, squid, blimps, unproven alien space craft, Air force black projects, misidentified mundanity, stars, planets, alcohol, dreams, lightning bugs, meteors, comets, FSM, hot air balloons, small balloons, hoaxes, breached logging contracts, imagination, cute dogs, falling over and hitting your head, drugs, streetlights, office lights, oil well fires, the Archangel Gabriel, early depictions of the zodiac, N.A.S.A. lies, the insane.........
You realize that your comments are insulting my intelligence ... right? What makes you think your opinion, never having been there to see what I saw gives you any justification to utter such innuendo, or make such sweeping statements about human experience? It's pure arrogant, judjmental prejudice to assume such things, and it has no place in a fair inquiry.
Back in June, when I was stilly trying to have a rational debate with Rramjet, he was insisting that Scientific American would have fact-checked the Cowgill letter we discussed previously in this thread. I had pointed out that fact-checking wasn't likely at that time and with the distance and difficulty involved, not to mention the short span of time between the letter being written and getting published.
But, to humor him, I asked Scientific American.
They finally got back to me:
Dan Schlenoff said:
The 1886 article was not fact-checked in the sense that it is unlikely anybody would have telegraphed the Venezuelan consulate or sent them a letter.
He does say that he thinks they would have taken Cowgill as at his word due to his station, with the understanding that it is exactly what Cowgill suggested - an electrical eccentricity.
He wanders around a bit and it's personal musings rather than anything scientific for the most part... and then we get to a really interesting link he provides. It seems that the area in question has a history of strange, prolonged lightning events.
So that's pretty neat, and adds another possible explanation to this (non-UFO) story.
You realize that your comments are insulting my intelligence ... right? What makes you think your opinion, never having been there to see what I saw gives you any justification to utter such innuendo, or make such sweeping statements about human experience? It's pure arrogant, judjmental prejudice to assume such things, and it has no place in a fair inquiry.
Good point there Ufology.
I had an unusual experience today and 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 Elvis riding a unicorn down the main street, so some sceptics opinion on that point isn't relevant to me.
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 ?
Please don't quote me out of context for the purpose of misrepresenting my position. The Elvis analogy was purely for illustrative purposes because the poster who made the comment used the Elvis analogy in his statement.
You realize that your comments are insulting my intelligence ... right? What makes you think your opinion, never having been there to see what I saw gives you any justification to utter such innuendo, or make such sweeping statements about human experience? It's pure arrogant, judjmental prejudice to assume such things, and it has no place in a fair inquiry.
How can there be any inquiry when you have no intention of presenting any evidence upon which an inquiry can be based? From what I've read you've simply engaged in semantic games to get posters to accept your definition of various terms so you can claim some sort of victory.
This thread is called 'UFOs: The Research, the Evidence; are you going to change your mind and present some? Or waffle on about your subjective experience and get upset because people point out how little probative value it has?
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.
.... ( more fair comment ) ...
All very good comments Astro. As I've mentioned before, I have great respect for the work that astronomers do. When people come to me with an interst in UFOs, one of the things I do is encourage them to take an astronomy course, get a backyard astronomer's guide, and a pair of binoculars ... a telescope too if they can afford one, and do some sky watching. Contrary to much skeptical opinion, ufologists have ( or at least should have ) a healthy respect for all the sciences that may be related to their studies.
What inquiry? You made it clear yesterday:
How can there be any inquiry when you have no intention of presenting any evidence upon which an inquiry can be based? From what I've read you've simply engaged in semantic games to get posters to accept your definition of various terms so you can claim some sort of victory.
This thread is called 'UFOs: The Research, the Evidence; are you going to change your mind and present some? Or waffle on about your subjective experience and get upset because people point out how little probative value it has?
Understanding the lexicon and using proper semantics reduces confusion and misinterpretation because it puts what we are talking about at any given moment with respect to the research into its proper context. So it's perfectly logical to get the definitions established. It is essential for the reasearch part of the thread.
However I do appreciate the spirit of what you are saying. The evidence is still the core of the subject matter. That just isn't my main focus because the evidence is largely anecdotal and you can read hundreds of books on it without coming here.
Sometimes you get firsthand accounts here, which are technically not anecdotal, but they are rare on the JREF, probably because of the fear of ridicule ( as I've experienced personally here ). So I don't blame people for being fearful of coming forward here, which ironically means that the very people the JREF are trying to reach ( the believers ), are just being polarized away.
Personally I hope to change that by lending an ear to their stories and providing constructive and friendly feedback ... a buffer if you like between the abrasive hard liners and the believers who are open minded enough to seek out a possible alternative to what they believe or have experienced.
Understanding the lexicon and using proper semantics reduces confusion and misinterpretation because it puts what we are talking about at any given moment with respect to the research into its proper context. So it's perfectly logical to get the definitions established. It is essential for the reasearch part of the thread.
However I do appreciate the spirit of what you are saying. The evidence is still the core of the subject matter. That just isn't my main focus because the evidence is largely anecdotal and you can read hundreds of books on it without coming here.
Sometimes you get firsthand accounts here, which are technically not anecdotal, but they are rare on the JREF, probably because of the fear of ridicule ( as I've experienced personally here ). So I don't blame people for being fearful of coming forward here, which ironically means that the very people the JREF are trying to reach ( the believers ), are just being polarized away.
Personally I hope to change that by lending an ear to their stories and providing constructive and friendly feedback ... a buffer if you like between the abrasive hard liners and the believers who are open minded enough to seek out a possible alternative to what they believe or have experienced.
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.
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.
The quote above demonstrates that J. Randall Murphy, proprietor of online bookstore Ufology Society International, advocates the workaday techniques of private investigators (investigating witnesses, perusing public records, eyeballing suspects) to prove the existence of extraordinary beings that our most sophisticated science has thus far been unable to detect. Apparently, he's incapable of understanding the difference between mythological creatures of popular folklore, and real flesh-and-blood humans with definite, measurable physical characteristics, cataloged vital records, known acquaintances, and detailed personal histories.
There is no "and/or" about it. Science is based on critical thinking, and UFOlogy is not. Even the best examples of UFOlogy amount to nothing more than weak attempts at inductive reasoning. What UFOlogists do is not critical thinking, no matter how many times you try to assert that it is.
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.
And that little bit of ambiguity is all the wiggle room a pseudoscientist like J. Randall Murphy (proprietor of online bookstore Ufology Society International) feels he needs to justify making the nuttiest extraordinary claims without an iota of evidence.
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.
You're building cases on the flimsiest possible evidence, using confirmation bias to emphasize any correlations that might support your pet beliefs, while excluding all details that disprove them. As you've been told numerous times already, your "process of elimination" is an ass-backwards approach, an illogical pretense to justify a jump to your preferred conclusion of outer space aliens.
J. Randall Murphy (proprietor of online bookstore Ufology Society International), your claim to "rule out things that would not be possible or likely" is an outright lie. In nearly all your discussions of UFO cases on these forums, you have done precisely the exact opposite.
Whenever a "possible or likely" cause has been suggested to explain the sighting of a UFO, you have vehemently argued against it. You have ignored or dismissed crucial details, deliberately obfuscated and sidetracked the discussion, dishonestly redefined words outside their correct usage, asserted technical opinions on your own authority that are blatantly false, explained away physical impossibilities by means of made-up pseudoscientific nonsense gleaned from Star Trek, and wrongly accused your opponents of lying. In other words, you have argued against all "possible or likely" explanations in favor of your pet belief in extraterrestrial visitation.
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.
If those investigators concluded, based on a lack of information, that the events in question were actually the result of "non-mundane," (ie. extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural) causes, then those investigators committed a logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
If they based their conclusions on faulty reasoning for the purpose of forwarding a predetermined agenda, that would mean that they were actively engaged in the practice of pseudoscience.
This is wrong. The plural of anecdotes is not evidence.
Why is it that pseudoscientists like J. Randall Murphy of Ufology Society International are incapable of comprehending the simple logic that large numbers of wild stories influenced by popular culture are insufficient to prove an extraordinary claim?
Even after 60+ years and tens of thousands of reported UFO sightings, the "investigators" in the alleged "study" of UFOlogy have not uncovered a single speck of evidence to confirm the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Anyone care to hazard a guess off the top of your head, as to why that is?
Well that's your own personal opinion, and you're entitled to it. What you are not entitled to is your own personal facts. Personal facts are known by a common, popular term: "lies."
Go ahead and redefine the word "lies" for us, so I can have a new quote to add to my sig. Go on, I dare you.
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 GIGO 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.
This little book is a great read. With a lot of fun and humor, it explains a number of common ways whereby statistics are dishonestly manipulated to make the numbers appear to indicate conditions that they don't actually prove. This book is just a basic primer on statistical dishonesty, but the techniques described can be applied in some very sophisticated ways to fool even the scientifically and mathematically astute.
Regarding government work, it's a simple rule of bureaucracy that the appearance of positive results will generally increase job security. Pseudoscience "researchers" working on highly-paid, easy government assignments (especially work for the CIA and military) have been well known to fudge results to give the statistical appearance of success and thereby perpetuate their studies. Examples of this include projects "Grill Flame," "Sunstreak," and "Stargate," and the "First Earth Battalion."
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.
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"
It's a complete misrepresentation, and when one is aware of it, one can see right through it. Tyson does deserve some kind of acting award for it though because he must be aware of what he's doing, and I wouldn't be surprized if the person who asked the question was an audience plant, or at least knew the response he would get from past performances.
Dr. Tyson has been a major player in the Grand Global Conspiracy ever since he successfully performed his initiation ritual of convincing the world that Pluto isn't a planet. Ever since that minor coup, he's held the title of Assistant Director of the ET Disinfo Division of the Department of Propagandic Media Relations. That's some fine investigative work there, J. Randall Murphy of Ufology Society International.
You are already aware of a number of classic USAF definitions where they attempted to screen mundane objects from UFO reports so that the reports submitted would only be of UFOs and not mundane objects. Such definitions include characteristics that involve appearance and performace abilities that do not match known natural or manmade objects or phenomena.
You are also already aware of the CUFOS definition by J. Allen Hynek which does much the same thing as the USAF definitions, but carries it a bit further to include post investigative conclusions.
Typical characteristics are shapes that do not match aircraft, or any indication that the object, if it is not visible ( at night for example ), such as lights or sounds that are common to aircraft, and/or movement that cannot be explained by the the performance charateristics or movement associated with known natural or manmade objects such as birds, balloons, clouds, stars, planets, kites etc.
An example would be the glowing spheres that the USAF pilot reported during the DC sightings that surrounded his jet and then streaked off at phenomenal speed.
You realize that your comments are insulting my intelligence ... right? What makes you think your opinion, never having been there to see what I saw gives you any justification to utter such innuendo, or make such sweeping statements about human experience? It's pure arrogant, judjmental prejudice to assume such things, and it has no place in a fair inquiry.
You realize that your comments are insulting my intelligence ... right? What makes you think your opinion, never having been there to see what I saw gives you any justification to utter such innuendo, or make such sweeping statements about human experience? It's pure arrogant, judjmental prejudice to assume such things, and it has no place in a fair inquiry.
Oooh, de-fen-sive! Now calm down, dear, and let's look at what Iaca really said and see if he/she attacked the argument or the arguer, shall we? Hmmm?
You 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, so your consensus on that point isn't relevant to me.
Iaca pointed out that this was the hallmark of woo, pseudoscience and kookery.
You have leapt to the conclusion that you saw an alien spaceship and no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever stop you believing that. Ufology, such a stance is the absolute antithesis of science and critical thinking. It is nothing short of blind faith belief. You could believe you saw Jesus, Mohammad, Elvis or aliens waving to you from their flying saucer it would all amount to the same religiousity.
Far from insulting your intelligence, Iaca was absolutely correct. There is no evidence for it being aliens and yet you believe it nonetheless. That's woo. You come over all sciency and tell us that the object was doing figure of eights and went from standstill to Mach whatever in 25 seconds based on no data. That's pseudoscience.
Your intelligence has nothing to do with the belief system that you hold. Christians aren't necessarily stupid, it's just that in relation to their spiritual beliefs they have absolute faith and do not require proof of the existence of Jesus Christ or the sancity of the bible. With you, it's aleeyuns. No difference. Except the beard.
Understanding the lexicon and using proper semantics reduces confusion and misinterpretation because it puts what we are talking about at any given moment with respect to the research into its proper context. So it's perfectly logical to get the definitions established. It is essential for the reasearch part of the thread.
Then you understand the need for UFO to be defined as Unidentified Flying Object and Alien Flying Saucer as Alien Flying Saucer, even if that doesn't support your beliefs.
However I do appreciate the spirit of what you are saying. The evidence is still the core of the subject matter. That just isn't my main focus because the evidence is largely anecdotal and you can read hundreds of books on it without coming here.
Then you should start a thread titled "ufology's Redefined Words" rather than cluttering up this thread which is supposed to be about Evidence.
Sometimes you get firsthand accounts here, which are technically not anecdotal, but they are rare on the JREF, probably because of the fear of ridicule ( as I've experienced personally here ). So I don't blame people for being fearful of coming forward here, which ironically means that the very people the JREF are trying to reach ( the believers ), are just being polarized away.
No, you are incorrect. First hand accounts are, in fact, anecdotal. First hand anecdotal accounts are appreciated and shared here. There was another thread where people were relating them. I think what you meant to say is that the demand by critically minded people for evidence from people who jump to the conclusion of OMG PsuedoAliens but who are impotent to provide such evidence can be misconstrued by the believers as attacking them personally.
Personally I hope to change that by lending an ear to their stories and providing constructive and friendly feedback ... a buffer if you like between the abrasive hard liners and the believers who are open minded enough to seek out a possible alternative to what they believe or have experienced.
As I said, there is already a thread about anecdotes if you want to resurrect it. That seems to be something you're good at. This thread is supposed to be about Evidence.
Now, back to the actual compelling Evidence for any Unidentified Flying Objects being Alien Flying Saucers....
You are already aware of a number of classic USAF definitions where they attempted to screen mundane objects from UFO reports so that the reports submitted would only be of UFOs and not mundane objects. Such definitions include characteristics that involve appearance and performace abilities that do not match known natural or manmade objects or phenomena.
You are also already aware of the CUFOS definition by J. Allen Hynek which does much the same thing as the USAF definitions, but carries it a bit further to include post investigative conclusions.
Still not asking about definitions. UFO means Unidentified Flying Object.
Typical characteristics are shapes that do not match aircraft, or any indication that the object, if it is not visible ( at night for example ), such as lights or sounds that are common to aircraft, and/or movement that cannot be explained by the the performance charateristics or movement associated with known natural or manmade objects such as birds, balloons, clouds, stars, planets, kites etc.
An example would be the glowing spheres that the USAF pilot reported during the DC sightings that surrounded his jet and then streaked off at phenomenal speed.
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.
J. Randall Murphy (proprietor of online bookstore Ufology Society International), your claim to "rule out things that would not be possible or likely" is an outright lie. In nearly all your discussions of UFO cases on these forums, you have done precisely the exact opposite. Whenever a "possible or likely" cause has been suggested to explain the sighting of a UFO, you have vehemently argued against it. You have ignored or dismissed crucial details, deliberately obfuscated and sidetracked the discussion ...
I see that you persist with your malicious false accusations. The debunking of the MIG video was much appreciated, as was the counterpoint for the Belgian case. I also pointed out a possible explaination for Ramjet's sighting. The definitions I've used have come from the very people who created the word UFO, a respected scientist who studied the phenomenon, independent contemporary sources, and self-evident popular culture.
Lastly, I do offer people interested in ufology a variety of resources to explore the phenomenon, including books and videos covering a wide range of topics including astronomy, aviation, meteorology, ufology, skepticism and fiction. Many people visit my site and enjoy it. Please keep promoting it. The Ufology Society International welcomes anyone with a genuine interst in UFOs, including skeptics, to participate.
If those investigators concluded, based on a lack of information, that the events in question were actually the result of "non-mundane," (ie. extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural) causes, then those investigators committed a logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Basing their conclusions on faulty reasoning for the purpose of forwarding a predetermined agenda would mean that they were actively engaged in the practice of pseudoscience.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
