UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[TheFallOfUriGeller]

my friend has just joined a "Free Thinkers Group" (*rolls eyes back* )

he has just posted this link regarding ufo's..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta1P5Q0UnBQ

now i dont know what to make of it i will be honest and say i dont understand what is being said. maybe some of you chaps or ladies on here could have a look?
what i do know through watching Randi's lectures is just because a scientist has a really good title i.e Astrophysicist doesnt mean they are always on the ball.

was going to post this as a new thread but thought it might be better here.
thanks all

 

[ufology]

]
No reliable, verifiable evidence for the above has ever been put forward. As far as I'm concerned it's ufologist's make believe. Anecdotes, on which the above claim is based, are unreliable as proof of extraordinary claims.

Tauri:

Thousands of people have seen them but you haven't, so we're all living in the land of "make believe". How perfectly programmed of you. The reality is that it's actually the other way around. At least some of the skeptics have reserved judgement pending the falsification of thier "null hypothesis". You've just skipped right to a state of denial.

 

[Stray Cat]

my friend has just joined a "Free Thinkers Group" (*rolls eyes back* )

he has just posted this link regarding ufo's..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta1P5Q0UnBQ

now i dont know what to make of it i will be honest and say i dont understand what is being said. maybe some of you chaps or ladies on here could have a look?
what i do know through watching Randi's lectures is just because a scientist has a really good title i.e Astrophysicist doesnt mean they are always on the ball.

was going to post this as a new thread but thought it might be better here.
thanks all

I doubt anyone is going to watch a WooTube video that is over an hour long on a subject that has been discussed in this thread already and reasonable explanation have been given for.

David Sereda is another UFO nut with ties to the ultra idiots at Project Camelot, who has nothing to back up his many claims. He still promotes Billy Meier's photos as genuine, has started making silly claims about Elenin and as far as I know, no one has been able to verify his qualifications or education background.

 

[Stray Cat]

Tauri:

Thousands of people have seen them but you haven't, so we're all living in the land of "make believe". How perfectly programmed of you. The reality is that it's actually the other way around. At least some of the skeptics have reserved judgement pending the falsification of thier "null hypothesis". You've just skipped right to a state of denial.

Actively seeking out information that would/should falsify the null hypothesis is the opposite of denial.

So far, no information has been presented that would do such a thing.

 

[ufology]

my friend has just joined a "Free Thinkers Group" (*rolls eyes back* )

he has just posted this link regarding ufo's..

now i dont know what to make of it i will be honest and say i dont understand what is being said. maybe some of you chaps or ladies on here could have a look?
what i do know through watching Randi's lectures is just because a scientist has a really good title i.e Astrophysicist doesnt mean they are always on the ball.

was going to post this as a new thread but thought it might be better here.
thanks all

Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas. The cognitive application of freethought is known as 'freethinking,' and practitioners of freethought are known as 'freethinkers.

Free thinking is OK.

As for the Sereda video, I've seen the NASA space creature videos explained, even how the objects seem to pass behind the tether in the distance. But some of what he says makes some sense. There is such a thing as H3 in Moon dust that could hypothetically be used as fuel. His UFO sighting is interesting, but the object didn't pull any maneuvers so it might have been an airship. I don't know how it could vanish though. Maybe it was some sort of projection. Or maybe it was the real deal. I dunno. Try to encourage your friend to stick to the free thinking principles in the definition above and he'll be just fine.

 

[TheFallOfUriGeller]

I doubt anyone is going to watch a WooTube video that is over an hour long on a subject that has been discussed in this thread already and reasonable explanation have been given for.

David Sereda is another UFO nut with ties to the ultra idiots at Project Camelot, who has nothing to back up his many claims. He still promotes Billy Meier's photos as genuine, has started making silly claims about Elenin and as far as I know, no one has been able to verify his qualifications or education background.

well ive never heard of him or his claims till now, that is why i brought it to this thread in the hope other people have and could in laymens terms just give me the jist of it. (i thought that was the point of this forum?) ive watched a bit so far and his claims are "outhere" to say the least, well from what i understand of it. so i gather so far this fella is just all speculation no proof lol

as for the reasonable explanation of that video im not aware of it, not been here for long apologise if goin over old ground.
never even heard of project camelot lol .. maybe im the lucky one? do i really want to know what that is haha

 

[Stray Cat]

well ive never heard of him or his claims till now, that is why i brought it to this thread in the hope other people have and could in laymens terms just give me the jist of it. (i thought that was the point of this forum?) ive watched a bit so far and his claims are "outhere" to say the least, well from what i understand of it. so i gather so far this fella is just all speculation no proof lol

as for the reasonable explanation of that video im not aware of it, not been here for long apologise if goin over old ground.
never even heard of project camelot lol .. maybe im the lucky one? do i really want to know what that is haha

Yes sorry, I wasn't giving you the brush off.
It would help if you had specific questions though.
There is an awful lot of nonsense packed into that very long video and to sort out the wheat from the chaff would take another month or two... most likely leading to a conclusion that it was all chaff.
Needless to say that NASA don't consider the video to be anything beyond mundane explanation.

Google "Project Camelot" you'll find some very interesting guff... errr, I mean stuff... no I was right the first time. Characters such as Richard Dolan and Bob Dean (with his hoaxed NASA UFO photos) and Hoagland all touting unsubstantiated nonsense as fact... It's a bit like a spin off of Greers Disclosure Project.

 

[Sideroxylon]

well ive never heard of him or his claims till now, that is why i brought it to this thread in the hope other people have and could in laymens terms just give me the jist of it. (i thought that was the point of this forum?) ive watched a bit so far and his claims are "outhere" to say the least, well from what i understand of it. so i gather so far this fella is just all speculation no proof lol

as for the reasonable explanation of that video im not aware of it, not been here for long apologise if goin over old ground.
never even heard of project camelot lol .. maybe im the lucky one? do i really want to know what that is haha

I watched enough of it to see the same mistakes we have seen in this thread - assumptions about the unknown object being related as facts, including size, distance, height, materials ... the "energy field" surrounding the object.

Then we get the usual ad-hoc government cover-up narratives.

What I didn't see is anything resembling honest inquiry.

 

[Resume]

Tauri:
Thousands of people have seen them but you haven't, so we're all living in the land of "make believe". How perfectly programmed of you. The reality is that it's actually the other way around. \

All that's needed is just one piece of corroborative physical evidence and a skeptic is helpless but to believe.

Got any?

 

[RoboTimbo]

What is not plausible about alien craft?

They've never been shown to be here. There is no evidence for alien craft unless you've suddenly uncovered some since you last posted.

It is certainly more plausible than suggesting meteors come up from the ground, hover and then fly off.

I agree with that. However, I don't agree that what you allegedly witnessed did what your faulty memory says so meteors coming up and hovering and then flying off is a moot point.

I do agree with you that fireflies are much more plausible but which mundane explanation it really was doesn't matter. Your anecdote is unfalsifiable. No matter what plausible explanation anyone gives, your faulty memory will add details that will make that explanation impossible. In the end, the only explanation your will accept is aliens because you've started with your conclusion, like every pseudoscientist.

Would you like to stop running away from the questions now:

Why are UFOs [using your definition] sometimes later found to be mundane?

Do you think there are people who have misperceived something mundane and thought it was an alien spaceship?

 

[Astrophotographer]

What is not plausible about alien craft? It is certainly more plausible than suggesting meteors come up from the ground, hover and then fly off.

I never stated that was the case. However, according to your original story on the website, the light descended and then disappeared behind trees or hills. It only reappeared some time later and did all this hovering. It is my suggestion that it was possible the original sighting was a bright meteor. If you ever provided a date and I found a bright meteor that was reported to one of the meteor societies from that general area, I would consider it confirmed that part of your sighting was probably a bright meteor. Would you be so willing to accept such a confirmation? I doubt it since you seem so entrenched in your belief that what you saw was truly exotic and, probably, an alien spaceship.

The problem with all your observations are we have no data that can be verified. So far, it seems to be highly unreliable in that you can't produce a given date and the estimates seem to vary as you tell the story. You might as well have stated you saw a flying dragon or the wicked witch of the west. There is just as much evidence for them existing as there are for alien craft.

 

[Archer17]

Tauri:

Thousands of people have seen them but you haven't, so we're all living in the land of "make believe". How perfectly programmed of you. The reality is that it's actually the other way around. At least some of the skeptics have reserved judgement pending the falsification of thier "null hypothesis". You've just skipped right to a state of denial.

Even if we don't count outright fabrications or hoaxes the "thousands" that have seen UFOs haven't seen the same thing. What your basic ufologist overlooks or ignores is that a UFO sighting is a singular event. Trying to lump "thousands" of sightings into one UFO=ET basket needs more than the letter 'U,' an alternate "definition" of what "unidentified" means, or noncritical acceptance of anecdote. The only "make believe" is by a group of folks that know UFO=ET without even knowing what (if anything) is inside or controlling the 'object' they claim the sighting represents. Otherwise tell me what planet(s)/dimension your "thousands" of "UFOs" hail from. You can't, can you? Why do you suppose that is? Think about it.

 

[ufology]

They've never been shown to be here. There is no evidence for alien craft unless you've suddenly uncovered some since you last posted.

Would you like to stop running away from the questions now:

Why are UFOs [using your definition] sometimes later found to be mundane?

Do you think there are people who have misperceived something mundane and thought it was an alien spaceship?

Robo:

UFOs may have not been shown to be here to your satisfaction, but they have been shown through documentation and instrumentation. However even if that was not the case, the issue was one of plausibility, not proof. So the comment that UFOs aren't plausible because they haven't been shown to be here doesn't answer the question. When compared to the hovering maneuvering meteor explanation, it is obvious which of the two are more plausible regardless of the reality of the situation, and that is the point I was making.

The comment that I'm running away from questions is a misrepresentation and a proclaimation based on some kind of prejudicial bias. I answer questions from the skeptics here as I am able given the time I have to do so.

Q. Why are UFOs [using your definition] sometimes later found to be mundane?

A. For the most part, it's a matter of context. When talking about UFOs in a UFO report, were talking about the subject of a written report, not a UFO itself. During the screening process, when an object is deemed to have been mundane, it is not necessarily because they have been proven to be mundane, but are presumed to have been mundane based on probability because something mundane was near the visual coordinates at about the same time the object was seen, or that the report included properties that were indicative of an aircraft or some mundane object. As mentioned before, the bias in screening favors mundane objects.

Q. Do you think there are people who have misperceived something mundane and thought it was an alien spaceship?

A. When it comes to witenesses, I think that it is probable that there are people who have mistaken mundane objects for UFOs, but I've never met any. It's more likely that you have some publicity seeking reporter turn an incident into a UFO sighting when in fact the witness may have just been reporting what he or she saw. The classic Kenneth Arnold case in point. I've talked to hundreds of people over the years and when they describe to me what they saw, they typically say they don't know what it is they saw, but that it was something strange.

 

[ufology]

Even if we don't count outright fabrications or hoaxes the "thousands" that have seen UFOs haven't seen the same thing. What your basic ufologist overlooks or ignores is that a UFO sighting is a singular event. Trying to lump "thousands" of sightings into one UFO=ET basket needs more than the letter 'U,' an alternate "definition" of what "unidentified" means, or noncritical acceptance of anecdote. The only "make believe" is by a group of folks that know UFO=ET without even knowing what (if anything) is inside or controlling the 'object' they claim the sighting represents. Otherwise tell me what planet(s)/dimension your "thousands" of "UFOs" hail from. You can't, can you? Why do you suppose that is? Think about it.

Archer:

Not all UFO reports are by lone witnesses. Additionally, the massive numbers of sightings, regardless of them being different incidents, still speaks to the reality of the phenomena on a wide scale. Certainly corroboration of individual sightings also provides more information for individual sightings as well.

Also, "non critical acceptance" of the UFO phenomenon is not something that is supported by the evidence. Official and civilian investigators use methods to screen out a wide range of natural or manmade objects or phenomena before classing an object as a UFO. UFO reporting forms are proof of such screening. No responsible UFO investigator simply assumes that all objects described in the reports represent UFOs ( alien craft ).

Lastly, it has been my experience that few people simply accept UFO reports at face value. There has always been an element of curiosity combined with a personal reservation or outright skepticism. I do however agree with the spirit of the comment in that blind faith is not something to base proof upon.

 

[ufology]

I never stated that was the case. However, according to your original story on the website, the light descended and then disappeared behind trees or hills. It only reappeared some time later and did all this hovering. It is my suggestion that it was possible the original sighting was a bright meteor. If you ever provided a date and I found a bright meteor that was reported to one of the meteor societies from that general area, I would consider it confirmed that part of your sighting was probably a bright meteor. Would you be so willing to accept such a confirmation? I doubt it since you seem so entrenched in your belief that what you saw was truly exotic and, probably, an alien spaceship.

The problem with all your observations are we have no data that can be verified. So far, it seems to be highly unreliable in that you can't produce a given date and the estimates seem to vary as you tell the story. You might as well have stated you saw a flying dragon or the wicked witch of the west. There is just as much evidence for them existing as there are for alien craft.

Astro:

I appreciate that you had an idea that perhaps you could verify that some meteor report happened then. However if you are wanting proof of my experience I've already told you that I have no scientific evidence, so why keep reminding me of that fact? I can't prove it to you. All I can do is describe it. I've also pointed out how a meteoric explanation is not plausible for every instance the object was observed, and that the liklihood of several such identical meteors in the same place is beyond reason. This was not a shooting star. When it first appeared it came up from behind a mountain, over the top, and down the other side.

If you were to verify anything, it would be the huge fireball we did see coming north up the Columbia valley. Could it have been the 1972 Fireball?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo:

UFOs may have not been shown to be here to your satisfaction, but they have been shown through documentation and instrumentation. However even if that was not the case, the issue was one of plausibility, not proof. So the comment that UFOs aren't plausible because they haven't been shown to be here doesn't answer the question. When compared to the hovering maneuvering meteor explanation, it is obvious which of the two are more plausible regardless of the reality of the situation, and that is the point I was making.

No, they haven't been shown to be here to anyone's satisfaction. People may start with a conclusion that they're here and then try to shoehorn in anything they can and say it's aliens but that isn't the same thing. Why are you comparing them to hovering meteors? Compare them to fireflies and faulty memory and misperception, which are things that we do know exist. Which is more plausible now?

The comment that I'm running away from questions is a misrepresentation and a proclaimation based on some kind of prejudicial bias. I answer questions from the skeptics here as I am able given the time I have to do so.

No, it is not a misrepresentation. It is based on you not answering questions. Answer questions and there won't be any drawing everyone's attention to it.

Q. Why are UFOs [using your definition] sometimes later found to be mundane?

A. For the most part, it's a matter of context. When talking about UFOs in a UFO report, were talking about the subject of a written report, not a UFO itself. During the screening process, when an object is deemed to have been mundane, it is not necessarily because they have been proven to be mundane, but are presumed to have been mundane based on probability because something mundane was near the visual coordinates at about the same time the object was seen, or that the report included properties that were indicative of an aircraft or some mundane object. As mentioned before, the bias in screening favors mundane objects.

No, it is not a matter of context at all. And you didn't answer the question. Here it is again:

Why are UFOs [by your definition] sometimes later found to be mundane?

The question you answered was "Why are some UFO reports dismissed?" but that isn't the question I asked. Please answer the question I asked.

Q. Do you think there are people who have misperceived something mundane and thought it was an alien spaceship?

A. When it comes to witenesses, I think that it is probable that there are people who have mistaken mundane objects for UFOs, but I've never met any. It's more likely that you have some publicity seeking reporter turn an incident into a UFO sighting when in fact the witness may have just been reporting what he or she saw. The classic Kenneth Arnold case in point. I've talked to hundreds of people over the years and when they describe to me what they saw, they typically say they don't know what it is they saw, but that it was something strange.

Yes, that describes UFOs. So you do think that there are people who have misperceived something mundane and thought it was an alien spaceship. Here's a follow up question then:

Do they sometimes continue to believe that the UFO they saw was an alien spaceship when more mundane and plausible explanations are available?

 

[ufology]

Do they sometimes continue to believe that the UFO they saw was an alien spaceship when more mundane and plausible explanations are available?

Q. Do people sometimes continue to believe that the UFO they saw was an alien spaceship when more mundane and plausible explanations are available?

A. I expect that some people would. Simply having a mundane explanation available doesn't mean the explanation is suitable. Also, it is possible that mundane objects and UFOs can be observed near the same visual coordinates. Therefore a witness still may have seen a UFO separately from the possible mundane explanation.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Archer:

Not all UFO reports are by lone witnesses. Additionally, the massive numbers of sightings, regardless of them being different incidents, still speaks to the reality of the phenomena on a wide scale. Certainly corroboration of individual sightings also provides more information for individual sightings as well.

Correct, the Mexico City sightings were by large crowds of people as was Campeche.

Also, "non critical acceptance" of the UFO phenomenon is not something that is supported by the evidence.

Actually, it is. Non-critical acceptance that "Some UFOs are alien in origin" is a pseudoscientific null hypothesis that some pseudoscientific UFOlogists subscribe to.

Official and civilian investigators use methods to screen out a wide range of natural or manmade objects or phenomena before classing an object as a UFO.

If you are claiming that this screening process eliminates all mundane explanations, you're going to need to do a better job of arguing it than Rramjet's spectacular failure to do so.

UFO reporting forms are proof of such screening. No responsible UFO investigator simply assumes that all objects described in the reports represent UFOs ( alien craft ).

And nobody said that they did. That is your strawman which everyone has already brought to your attention. It is dishonest of you to cling to it. And does it matter that reporting forms are proof of a screening process that weeds out the more obvious mundane explanations? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that sentence.

Lastly, it has been my experience that few people simply accept UFO reports at face value. There has always been an element of curiosity combined with a personal reservation or outright skepticism. I do however agree with the spirit of the comment in that blind faith is not something to base proof upon.

It has been my experience that many people accept that some UFOs are alien in origin despite there being zero evidence of that. Those people are not thinking critically so we agree on that then?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Q. Do people sometimes continue to believe that the UFO they saw was an alien spaceship when more mundane and plausible explanations are available?

A. I expect that some people would. Simply having a mundane explanation available doesn't mean the explanation is suitable. Also, it is possible that mundane objects and UFOs can be observed near the same visual coordinates. Therefore a witness still may have seen a UFO separately from the possible mundane explanation.

Then we agree, some people do continue to cling to their beliefs that they saw an alien flying saucer when all confirmed explanations to date have turned out to be mundane.

Also, would you answer the question you've continued to run away from?

Why are UFOs [by your definition] sometimes later found to be mundane?

 

[ufology]

And does it matter that reporting forms are proof of a screening process that weeds out the more obvious mundane explanations? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that sentence.

Timbo:

I'm proving with that sentence that the assetion that sightings are merely non-critically accepted is false as evidenced by the fact that we have forms and screening procedures which apply critical analysis to the avaialbe information prior to assessment. Mere non-critical acceptance would not involve such procedure.