UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

No, you are incorrect. First hand accounts are, in fact, anecdotal. ... bla bla bla ...

Timbo:

You are one of the main reasons I keep having to quote the dictionary. You just don't know what you're talking about half the time, and the rest of the time your being critical or making unfounded statements. Please take note:

==================

Enacarta:


an·ec·dot·al

[​

ànnək dṓt’l] or an·ec·dot·ic [ànnək dṓtik] adjective
1.based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation.


====================


When someone is telling their own story here they are giving a firsthand account based on firsthand experience. You will notice the definition clearly says "secondhand account" and the "or" in the definition means that all parts of the definition apply, ( firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation ) and is not limited only to "scientific investigation".

This has already been established here before ... why are you bringining it up again?



​

 

[RoboTimbo]

Timbo:

bla bla bla

bla bla bla

whine whine whine

... why are you bringining it up again?

You brought it up. You telling me your first hand account makes it an anecdote. Why are you having such difficulty comprehending that?

You still have a question to answer:

If they aren't mundane, how is it that they are sometimes later discovered to be mundane?

 

[Toke]

This has already been established here before ... why are you bringining it up again?

Because you did not get the first time around.

Your first hand account is just an anecdote to me.
See, easy.

 

[Garrison]

Garrison:

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.

It really isn't, you either have clear evidence for extraterrestrial visitations or you don't. Your efforts to redefine words has come across as a mix of stall tactics and trying to alter basic definitions such that mere anecdotes count as such proof.

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 essentially you've wasted everyone's time because all you have is the same junk trotted out by every other so called UFO investigator.

Sometimes you get firsthand accounts here, which are technically not anecdotal

Yes they are, without any supporting evidence they are no more than camp fire tales.

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.

All they have to fear is that their misconceptions will be shattered, and they will be given a rational interpretation of their experience.

Personally I hope to change that by lending an ear to their stories and providing constructive and friendly feedback ...

And do you know why that's a bad thing?

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.

And your choice of words makes it clear you are anything but a 'buffer'

 

[Jocce]

When someone is telling their own story here they are giving a firsthand account based on firsthand experience. You will notice the definition clearly says "secondhand account" and the "or" in the definition means that all parts of the definition apply, ( firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation ) and is not limited only to "scientific investigation".

Your first hand experience becomes second hand information to me. I.e. an anecdote.

 

[AdMan]

Timbo:

You are one of the main reasons I keep having to quote the dictionary. You just don't know what you're talking about half the time, and the rest of the time your being critical or making unfounded statements. Please take note:

==================

Enacarta:


an·ec·dot·al

[​

ànnək dṓt’l] or an·ec·dot·ic [ànnək dṓtik] adjective
1.based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation.
​

Here again you get to pick and choose your definitions?

Why did you choose Encarta, a dictionary that isn't even online anymore?

Merriam-Webster is still online however. Here's that definition.

I think number 2 fits particularly well in this case: "based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers <anecdotal evidence> "​

 

[RoboTimbo]

Here again you get to pick and choose your definitions?

Why did you choose Encarta, a dictionary that isn't even online anymore?

Merriam-Webster is still online however. Here's that definition.

I think number 2 fits particularly well in this case: "based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers <anecdotal evidence> "

In addition to promoting his little online pseudoscience club, he's also wanting to start a new dictionary.

 

[Resume]

Timbo:

You are one of the main reasons I keep having to quote the dictionary. You just don't know what you're talking about half the time, and the rest of the time your being critical or making unfounded statements. Please take note:

==================

Enacarta:


an·ec·dot·al

[​

ànnək dṓt’l] or an·ec·dot·ic [ànnək dṓtik] adjective
1.based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation.


====================


When someone is telling their own story here they are giving a firsthand account based on firsthand experience. You will notice the definition clearly says "secondhand account" and the "or" in the definition means that all parts of the definition apply, ( firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation ) and is not limited only to "scientific investigation".

This has already been established here before ... why are you bringining it up again?



​

And let me bring up again the fact that when you relate your . . . story, it becomes an anecdote to your audience. A claim. A claim that may or may not demand corroborating evidence. For instance a claim of an Alien Starship would require a great deal of corroborating evidence; not stories, not photos of tossed hubcaps, not misremembered 40 year old recollections.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Then essentially you've wasted everyone's time because all you have is the same junk trotted out by every other so called UFO investigator.

While at the same failing to demonstrate awareness of criticisms of these examples as being evidence of alien craft. Why is it that the UFO investigator has to be referred to critiques of cases that he himself brings to the table for discussion?

 

[John Albert]

...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.

There's another typical, run-of-the-mill pseudoscience argument: "The skeptics are too closed-minded to accept what I have to say."

Skeptics are not "closed-minded." Skeptics are not "hard-liners." True skeptics are willing to amend their views in light of real, conclusive evidence.

On the contrary, believers like yourself often say things like:

There is nothing anyone can say [to] convince me that what I saw wasn't some kind of alien craft

Your attitude, not the skeptics', is the uncompromising, closed-minded, hard-line one. Your mind is already made up. As your own words have said, "nothing anyone can say" will convince you otherwise, even though you have no actual conclusive evidence to back up your beliefs.

 

[John Albert]

Timbo:

You are one of the main reasons I keep having to quote the dictionary. You just don't know what you're talking about half the time, and the rest of the time your being critical or making unfounded statements. Please take note:

==================

Enacarta:


an·ec·dot·al

[​

ànnək dṓt’l] or an·ec·dot·ic [ànnək dṓtik] adjective
1.based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation.


====================


When someone is telling their own story here they are giving a firsthand account based on firsthand experience. You will notice the definition clearly says "secondhand account" and the "or" in the definition means that all parts of the definition apply, ( firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation ) and is not limited only to "scientific investigation".

This has already been established here before ... why are you bringining it up again?



​

Here again you get to pick and choose your definitions?

Why did you choose Encarta, a dictionary that isn't even online anymore?

Merriam-Webster is still online however. Here's that definition.

I think number 2 fits particularly well in this case: "based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers <anecdotal evidence> "

What's wrong with all these definitions? They were within the top page or two of most popular results from a Google search:

UFO (yf-)
n. pl. UFOs or UFO's
An unidentified flying object.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/UFO

UFO   [yoo-ef-oh or, sometimes, yoo-foh]
noun, plural UFO's, UFOs.
any unexplained moving object observed in the sky, especially one assumed by some observers to be of extraterrestrial origin.

Also called unidentified flying object.

Compare flying saucer.

Origin:
1950–55; u ( nidentified ) f ( lying ) o ( bject )

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ufo

UFO
(yū'ĕf-ō')
n., pl., UFOs, or UFO's.
An unidentified flying object.

http://www.answers.com/topic/unidentified-flying-object

UFO
noun pl. or
any of a number of unidentified objects or phenomena frequently reported, esp. since 1947, to have been observed or tracked in the sky and variously explained as being atmospheric phenomena, hallucinations, misperceptions of actual objects, alien spacecraft, etc.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ufo

UFO noun \ˌyü-(ˌ)ef-ˈō\
plural UFO's or UFOs

Definition of UFO

: an unidentified flying object; especially : flying saucer

Origin of UFO

unidentified flying object

First Known Use: 1953

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ufo

What does UFO stand for?

UFO Unidentified Flying Object

http://www.acronymfinder.com/UFO.html

UFO (UFOs plural)

A UFO is an object seen in the sky or landing on earth which cannot be identified and which is often believed to be from another planet. UFO is an abbreviation for `unidentified flying object'.

http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/UFO

 

[Paul2]

Still need an answer to this, ufology:

What are the characteristics of the non-mundane ones? And why are they sometimes later found to be mundane?

Ufology, you answered the first question, but not the second. I'm looking forward to you answer to Robo's second question.

 

[John Albert]

URL="http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Murphy-02a.htm"]J. Randall Murphy[/URL] (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.

I see that I succeeded in getting your attention!

You've ignored my last 4 or 5 posts in which I systematically disassembled your faulty and dishonest reasoning and laid the guts out for everyone to see.

In light of your insistence on following lies with more lies by accusing me of false witness, shall I go ahead and cite examples from your very own posts to prove that my allegations are true and accurate?

 

[tsig]

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this nonsense, ufology, it's never going to be true.





UFO is not a word, it's an acronym

We are not in the USAF.

It's 2011.


So simple these things are. So unable to grasp them he is.

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Cherries.jpg[/qimg]​

If you wish to try and press your claims, whatever they be, in the language of comic books and television shows then go right ahead, but don't bleat when people refuse to take you as seerwiously as you'd like.





Twaddle.





You can either prattle on endlessly about being the only one here using the correct definition for UFOs or you can cut to the chase and just present the evidence that some of them, however they're defined, are in fact alien flying saucers. Your obsession with the former stongly suggests that you lack the latter.





Quite a rant, but:

• 
  As a group, the skeptics you wish to rail against (despite a fervid wish to be counted among them) do not have a 'self' to be served. This attempt to turn a phrase (that you read in one of my posts) back on your opponents is, like all your other attempts to do so, an abject failure.
  
  
• It's 'proclamations', not 'proclaimations'.
  
  
• Your reference to "non-official sources" is baloney.
  
  
• Accusing the skeptics of citing "only impartial sections of the official definitions" is almost defintely not what you wanted to do.
  
  
• Replacing "superseded" with "out of date" is yet one more example of the willy-nilly redefinition of words which is at the heart of the objections that people are currently raising in respect of your arguments. It's looking increasingly like this is in fact your only tactic when caught short of evidence and it's getting really tired.

Your penchant for dropping out of conversational mode and adopting the rôle of narrator for your invisible friend is quite amusing, but it's really not a good look in terms demonstrating a willingness to actually debate the issues.

I realise that the issue in this case is only a dead horse, but still . . .

Actually it's dead horse jerky by now.

 

[ufology]

It really isn't, you either have clear evidence for extraterrestrial visitations or you don't.

What part about the difference between the reasearch aspect and the evidence aspect is confusing you? You can't talk about the reasearch without understanding it in its proper context.

 

[Resume]

What part about the difference between the reasearch aspect and the evidence aspect is confusing you? You can't talk about the reasearch without understanding it in its proper context.

You keep using that word . . . etc.

 

[tsig]

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.

So you're operating from a faith based position , makes any kind of debate rather pointless .

 

[Marduk]

What part about the difference between the reasearch aspect and the evidence aspect is confusing you? You can't talk about the reasearch without understanding it in its proper context.

you can't even spell research


had to point that out, I know its puerile, but there it is all the same, it just had to be said

 

[tsig]

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.

Trust me, you would not like the zombie Elvis.

 

[Garrison]

What part about the difference between the reasearch aspect and the evidence aspect is confusing you? You can't talk about the reasearch without understanding it in its proper context.

No you examine the evidence and then place it context, you don't predetermine the context and shoehorn the evidence to fit. That you seem to want to do exactly that, especially with your effort to redefine terms, doesn't say a lot for the quality your research.