UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

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?

Robo:

I've answered that question in the past and your tone of disrespect and constant innuendos are not appreciated. Consequently you can expect that I will not be paying much attention to your questions now or in the future until that changes.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Non-critically accepted as what?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo:

I've answered that question in the past and your tone of disrespect and constant innuendos are not appreciated. Consequently you can expect that I will not be paying much attention to your questions now or in the future until that changes.

If you've already answered it, a link to the post showing the answer would be appreciated.

 

[23_Tauri]

Thousands of people have seen them but you haven’t, so we’re all living in the land of ‘make believe’.

Not the thousands of people who have witnessed UFOs, no, but the ufologists who collate those thousands of reports and leap to the conclusion that quantity is synonymous with quality. It’s the ufologists who leap to unsubstantiated conclusions about , so as to bolster their beliefs about alien visitation. Believing something without evidence? Isn’t this the definition of make-believe? You like definitions, let’s have a look:

Merriam-Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/make+believe?show=1&t=1316097197
“make–be•lieve: a pretending that what is not real is real”

You give me proof that objects that defy mundane explanation exist and I’ll retract the make-believe comment.

How perfectly programmed of you.

Shucks, I am such a sheeple.

The reality is that it’s actually the other way around.

I’m the one pretending that what is not real is real? Is that what you mean?

At least some sceptics have reserved judgement pending the falsification of their ‘null hypothesis’. You’ve just skipped right to a state of denial.

Stories are not proof of something existing in the universe. All ufology (the pseudoscience) has is stories. Interesting, but not proof of anything. This is how the world works. I’m not in a state of denial as I readily admit that people see things in the sky that they can’t identify and then other people come along as believe that what those people saw are “OMG-aliens!”

In a similar vein, some people believe that they have seen Elvis (post 16th August 1977) and tell a story about it. Subsequently, other people, who have an emotional investment in believing that Elvis is still with us, believe on the basis of those stories that The King lives! Wow! More stories about Elvis working down the local chip shop doesn’t make it more likely that he is still with us, only that the myth of Elvis is stronger and more alive than ever.

Do you see the parallels with UFO lore?

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

But your description varies and considering the way the story is being retold, there is enough margin for error to suggest the possibility of a bright meteor being the cause of the initial sighting. My point was, if I did discover a bright meteor happening in the time period (assuming you gave a time and date) in that area, would you accept it was possible that part of your sighting might have been caused by the meteor? I think not since you have convinced yourself of certain aspects of the event were exotic.

 

[ufology]

I’m the one pretending that what is not real is real? Is that what you mean?

Tauri:

No. That is not what I mean. You aren't pretending not to believe something you know to be true. You simply believe something isn't true when it is because you personally have no scientific or personal evidence. This is perfectly understandable and rational. However, you also take it one step further and judge those who have had a UFO experience to be fabricating it somehow ( "make believe" ). It would serve you better to accept that until science can offer proof, or you have a convincing experience yourself, that reserving judgement is the non-biased thing to do.

 

[23_Tauri]

Tauri:

No. That is not what I mean. You aren't pretending not to believe something you know to be true. You simply believe something that isn't true because you personally have no scientific or personal experience to personally believe it is true. This is perfectly understandable and rational. However, you also take it one step further and judge those who have had a UFO experience to be fabricating it somehow ( "make believe" ). It would serve you better to accept that until science can offer proof, or you have a convincing experience yourself, that reserving judgement is the non-biased thing to do.

I have seen a UFO, so I do have personal experience. It's just I don't assume the extraordinary, that being that it was aliens from outer space/another dimension in their craft of advanced capabilities. More likely it was my eyes playing tricks on me.

I don't think people are fabricating that they saw something in the sky that they couldn't identify, but if they or someone else (like a ufologist) jumps to the conclusion that it must've been an alien spaceship when no UFO has ever been positively identified as an alien spaceship, well, that's make believe, IMO.

On the subject of mass sightings, why is it that if more than one person misidentifies an object (Campeche, for example) it makes it more plausible to ufologists that the object was non-mundane?

 

[AdMan]

Tauri:

No. That is not what I mean. You aren't pretending not to believe something you know to be true. You simply believe something isn't true when it is because you personally have no scientific or personal evidence. This is perfectly understandable and rational. However, you also take it one step further and judge those who have had a UFO experience to be fabricating it somehow ( "make believe" ). It would serve you better to accept that until science can offer proof, or you have a convincing experience yourself, that reserving judgement is the non-biased thing to do.

And that is why a number of UFOs remain unidentified and haven't become mundane IFOs.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It would serve you better to accept that until science can offer proof, or you have a convincing experience yourself, that reserving judgement is the non-biased thing to do.

No, it isn't. It is a silly thing to do. The critically thought out thing to do is not to believe in every crackpot, unevidenced thing out there that every creduloid believes in. You want to give the impression that aliens visiting and aliens not visiting is a 50/50 proposition, both chances are equal. They aren't.

A coin flip has a 50/50 chance of being heads/tails and a very, very slim chance of landing on its edge. It does not have a 50/50 chance of turning into a butterfly or not turning into a butterfly on the way down.

"No coins will turn into butterflies"​

because as far as we know, no coins have turned into butterflies.

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

because as far as we know, no UFOs have been non-mundane.

Does that help you understand better?

Do you see why you would need extraordinary evidence to falsify either null hypothesis?

 

[Archer17]

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.

Regarding your first sentence, the "event" is singular whether there is one or a host of "witnesses." Earlier I related how I saw a "UFO" that, thanks to binoculars, was determined to be 2 balloons tethered together. It's quite possible that more than one of my neighbors saw them sans binoculars so "multiple witnesses" to an event doesn't necessarily put ET in the driver's seat.
Your second sentence underscores what I already posted about the practice of lumping singular events together based on them being unidentified. All UFOs aren't the same object.
Corroboration can help rule out fabrication in some instances and provide more information regarding the 'event' but that doesn't always help those peddling the ETH. The 1952 DC flap comes to mind. It's ETH angle certainly wasn't helped by the conflicting "information" provided by the various players. You'd have to allow for an "invasion" by the Federation of Planets (including denizens from the planet Invisible) to explain the supposed "extraterrestrial" UFOs that buzzed our nation's capital back then.

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 ).

I beg to differ. You, based on the words you post, are an example of 'non-critical acceptance' and you're not alone. Regarding "screening" a UFO report, unless the "UFO" can be reproduced somehow (Campeche, Carter's Venus come to mind), it's just speculation and that varies depending on who does the "screening." There is also no foolproof way to screen for lies or delusion. I was never too sold on most post-mortem UFO "investigation anyway - the "thingie" is long gone and, outside of a few successful debunkings like my previous examples, we are always left with that pesky 'U.'

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.

Well it's good to see we're not at logger-heads on everything.
Just to clarify my POV, I'm skeptical regarding the ETH. FWIW I believe that a technologically advanced ETI is "out there" somewhere but need more than UFO reports to accept that they have been dickering around here for decades/centuries as some claim. It's a big universe and despite what some sci-fi programs show to make traveling to other stars a simple matter of "warping," the distance factor is formidable. That doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible for hypothetical ETI to get here but it does make one wonder why, if 'they' come all this way, they just fart around doing stupid stuff like playing peek-a-boo year after year. I think it's much more likely that any given UFO is just something a lot closer to home that the observer can't identify for one reason or another. What I find telling is how the descriptions of "UFOs" often mimic contemporary expectations. We had chariots, wheels, shields, then "airships" that looked like blimps, "ghost rockets," and thanks to the media, "flying saucers."

 

[ufology]

But your description varies and considering the way the story is being retold, there is enough margin for error to suggest the possibility of a bright meteor being the cause of the initial sighting. My point was, if I did discover a bright meteor happening in the time period (assuming you gave a time and date) in that area, would you accept it was possible that part of your sighting might have been caused by the meteor? I think not since you have convinced yourself of certain aspects of the event were exotic.

Astro:

I grant that the story came out in bits and pieces as questions were asked, and the various interpretations have caused some confusion. Someone even pointed out that I had made a directional error when describing it. So I can accept that under those circumstances your suggestion that perhaps a meteor was involved is reasonable. No harm done. I also appreciate that you may have even been able to look up records of such if I had an exact date.

Lastly, not all my responses were to you personally. I think there were instances of other people quoting you and and in a sense answering for you. I won't hold you to their standards.

 

[ufology]

I beg to differ. You, based on the words you post, are an example of 'non-critical acceptance' and you're not alone. Regarding "screening" a UFO report, unless the "UFO" can be reproduced somehow (Campeche, Carter's Venus come to mind), it's just speculation and that varies depending on who does the "screening." There is also no foolproof way to screen for lies or delusion. I was never too sold on most post-mortem UFO "investigation anyway - the "thingie" is long gone and, outside of a few successful debunkings like my previous examples, we are always left with that pesky 'U.'

Archer:

Good comments. However I submit that with respect to the above, attempting to screen out mundane objects from UFO reports does indeed represent an element of critical thinking as opposed to the suggestion that offhanded non-critical acceptance is the case.

You also say that I am an example of such non-critical acceptance, when it has been I who posted the various definitions outlining the screening criteria and pointed out that there are forms to help discern what objects may have been. I've also provided reasons that reflect my own experience, and reasons for believing it is unlikely that I'm the only one to have had such an experience. I've also provided possible terrestrial explanations for sightings on this very thread, one fairly exotic but still within our technical grasp. I've also stated that the bias in screening UFO reports favors the mundane.

All these factors clearly demonstrate that neither I nor all ufologists or all UFO investigators offhandedly accept that every unidentified object in a UFO report represents a UFO ( alien craft ).

Lastly, it's is not necessary for critical thinking to furnish proof, only that logic and reason are employed in an effort to rationally determine what the truth may or may not be given our observations, scientific or otherwise.

 

[RoboTimbo]

All these factors clearly demonstrate that neither I nor all ufologists or all UFO investigators offhandedly accept that every unidentified object in a UFO report represents a UFO ( alien craft ).

There's that strawman that I just mentioned above. You do like to cling to things, don't you?

Lastly, it's is not necessary for critical thinking to furnish proof, only that logic and reason are employed in an effort to rationally determine what the truth may or may not be given our observations, scientific or otherwise.

No, you are incorrect. It is necessary to provide extraordinary evidence for any extraordinary claim. Until then, the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

applies since it hasn't been falsified.

When will you stop running away from the question:

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

 

[carlitos]

There was another guy who used to post in this topic who also kept answering "proof" when asked for "evidence." They must have the same playbook.

 

[ufology]

There was another guy who used to post in this topic who also kept answering "proof" when asked for "evidence." They must have the same playbook.

Calitos:

I've provided evidence according to the definition of evidence, but it has been rejected because it isn't scientific. Or are you saying that Scientific proof and scientific evidence are two different things? I suppose that would be technically correct, but merely academic. Scientific evidence includes statistical studies of case reports, but those have also been dismissed as invalid with respect to proof. So that's why I say I have no proof ... so what is your problem?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Calitos:

I've provided evidence according to the definition of evidence, but it has been rejected because it isn't scientific. Or are you saying that Scientific proof and scientific evidence are two different things? I suppose that would be technically correct, but merely academic. Scientific evidence includes statistical studies of case reports, but those have also been dismissed as invalid with respect to proof. So that's why I say I have no proof ... so what is your problem?

I've asked you this before and you haven't answered yet.

Evidence of what?

 

[Resume]

Calitos:

I've provided evidence according to the definition of evidence, but it has been rejected because it isn't scientific.

You've presented claims. Lots of hearsay and anecdote.

 

[Archer17]

Archer:

Good comments. However I submit that with respect to the above, attempting to screen out mundane objects from UFO reports does indeed represent an element of critical thinking as opposed to the suggestion that offhanded non-critical acceptance is the case.

While I can certainly see why you might see it that way, I disagree. You fail to appreciate the necessity of non-critical acceptance to "screen in" the non-mundane. One can't give credence to something just because it's not something else. When the object in question is unidentified one must respect that 'U' at all times. This goes for flying saucer believers and "debunkers" alike. Speculation by both sides is fine but it's irrefutable evidence that is needed to replace the 'U' with the 'I,' nothing less.

You also say that I am an example of such non-critical acceptance, when it has been I who posted the various definitions outlining the screening criteria and pointed out that there are forms to help discern what objects may have been. I've also provided reasons that reflect my own experience, and reasons for believing it is unlikely that I'm the only one to have had such an experience. I've also provided possible terrestrial explanations for sightings on this very thread, one fairly exotic but still within our technical grasp. I've also stated that the bias in screening UFO reports favors the mundane.

You erred big time with your reliance on "definitions" and would need to think outside of your box to see why. Suffice it to say that you could have differentiated various aspects of sightings without creating an unnecessary semantical sidebar here. JREF isn't Project Blue Book.
I'm not totally comfortable with any screening method involving something that we label "unidentified." It might be one thing to eliminate "UFOs" that resemble landing-lights that are seen in the vicinity of airports but when a presumption that extraordinary characteristics of a UFO report are to be accepted non-critically and used as a template to rule out more mundane alternatives then you and I have a major disconnect.

All these factors clearly demonstrate that neither I nor all ufologists or all UFO investigators offhandedly accept that every unidentified object in a UFO report represents a UFO ( alien craft ).

That's debatable. What you need to do is realize that you can't know that any UFO is ET. There's nothing wrong with allowing the possibility but 'knowing' is a different story. We don’t know.

Lastly, it's is not necessary for critical thinking to furnish proof, only that logic and reason are employed in an effort to rationally determine what the truth may or may not be given our observations, scientific or otherwise.

When it comes to “proof” of the ETH, ET holds all the cards. Where critical thinking comes in is to know that and recognize the difference between conjecture and fact. If one wants to employ logic and reasoning here one must factor in all variables, including the very real fallibility of human observation and the limitations of radar. It also wouldn’t hurt to take anecdote with a grain of salt. If something sounds too amazing to be true, maybe it isn't.

 

[ufology]

While I can certainly see why you might see it that way, I disagree. You fail to appreciate the necessity of non-critical acceptance to "screen in" the non-mundane.

Archer:

First off, before we apply the concept to ufology, let's examine your assertion that you can't give credence to something just because it's not something else.

Not only is your assertion illogical, it is also untrue. Logic dictates that if something is not a part of one set, then it cannot be something within that same set. Therefore it must be something else. Let's begin with some familiar examples:

Consider the art and practise of gold panning. A process of screening and observation is used to remove what isn't the gold and concentrate the sample down to where only the nuggets remain. Similarly coin sorters screen coins by their individual properties. Gravel screens do the same thing by removing what isn't from what is. Data can be similarly screened to eliminate a wide range of irrelevant information. For example, if we take a sample of 10,000 people and are lookiing for only 25 year old females, we can just as easily remove the ones who aren't to get the information as we could look for the ones who are. Using Boolean operations, you can run a data searches for things that "don't contain the words" just as easily as you can search for things that do. Lastly, we have the process of Deductive Reasoning:

From Wikipedia:

Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic, is reasoning which constructs or evaluates deductive arguments. Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises or hypotheses. A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises, i.e., if the conclusion must be true provided that the premises are true. A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are true. Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, sound or unsound, but are never false nor true. Deductive reasoning is a method of gaining knowledge.

Consequently your assertion that such thinking does not represent critical thought is in error. The process is widely used and recognized. It may or may not provide proof, but that isn't rellevant to the point you had made. It is still most certainly a form of critical thinking. Therefore when it is being used, regardless of the subject matter, it cannot be maintained that mere "non-critical acceptance" is taking place.

If you don't agree, please state your reasons.

 

[Stray Cat]

Good comments. However I submit that with respect to the above, attempting to screen out mundane objects from UFO reports does indeed represent an element of critical thinking as opposed to the suggestion that offhanded non-critical acceptance is the case.

I don't think anyone really has an issue with 'screening' out certain things.
Where UFOlogy massively fails is this 'screening' process isn't good enough (and never will be good enough) to rule out all mundane possibilities.
Every so often I read of UFO reports which due to investigation are found to have mundane causes and even after 60 years, new mundane explanations are being found.

As a result of UFOlogy relying on a flawed screening system, any resemblance to critical thinking is lost when a few things are ruled out, nothing is 'ruled in' and yet the conclusion can still somehow be "OMG - Aliens"