• 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.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
ufology said:
Correa:

You were doing so good until you trailed off into nonsense again. Simply because ufology has it's own jargon doesn't make it a pseudoscience. Rock n' Roll has it's own jargon too ... as does art and history. You just can't help but slap the pseudoscience label on ufology because you are so programmed to do it so buy your pseudoskeptical friends that you have forgotten how to see the logic ... the actual truth of the matter. Ufology is neither science nor pseudoscience. It is a simply a topic of interest that many people enjoy.
Click to expand...
Well, the above post is nothing but nonsense and evasion.

Show me, where at the post of mine which you are replying to (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7588841&postcount=12560) I said UFOlogy is pseudoscience because it has a jargon. The real reasons I labell UFOlogy as pseudoscience, by the way, can be found at the "Is UFOlogy a Pseudoscience Thread" and also at the last paragraph of this post.

I also noticed ufology has not touched the issues I actually wrote about. Instead dealing with them, he answered to something I have not wrote, claimed, whatever. I wonder what were his reasons.

Below, you can find those issues again, closely tied to UFO evidence and the flawed methods used by UFOlogists.

UFOlogy is the "study" of a specific type of unidentified flying objects, claimed to be non-mundane (extraterrestrial, another universe, from another time, from inside the Earth, etc.). UFOlogists will tend to assign such interpretations to the acronym "UFO", since UFOs must not be mundane to be the subject of UFOlogic studies. The conclusion (belief) was obtained before the evidence is gathered, evidence are selected to fit the conclusion...

UFOlogists will mostly use flawed investigation methods (pseudoscientific methods actually, since they are presented in a way to look rigorous and scientific) ways and their "gut feelings" to declare a report and or some piece of imagery is related to an alien craft (or can't be of a mundane origin). Their next step is to start building space operas with it.
 
ufology said:
Robo:

That's what you just did ... how clever of you. We've already been through the issue of evidence and it's the opinion of the skeptics here that there is no evidence. So what's the point in discussing evidence that you simply deny has value?
Click to expand...

That would be because you haven't supplied any.

You have supplied some stuff you claim to be evidence, but it meets no criteria. So of course the sceptics are of the opinion you haven't supplied any. For the same reasons they are of the opinion that the null hypothosis matters.

So are you ever going to supply something that is actual evidence for UFOs being alien? At all?
 
It's not much of an evidence thread, is it.
Finest on the forums, sir.
Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.
Well, it's so clean, sir.
It's certainly uncontaminated by evidence.
 
Perhaps the largest problem with UFOlogy is the self confirming nature of many of the "studies". I happen to have a vague interest in a number of quirks of history: The Jack the Ripper murders in Whitechappel and the mythology that surrounds it, the JFK assassination (and surrounding mythology) and others. These are areas where the historical study and pseudo historical studies sometimes intertwine. Normally you can tell the difference between somebody researching a suspect of the Ripper murders based on the surviving notes of investigating officers close to the case, for example, and Patricia Cornwell thinking it was Walter Sickert because he read newspaper stories about the case and painted pictures that were a bit Ripper-ish in her subjective opinion.

By the same token, we can see the difference between somebody (Person A) researching the JFK shooting and saying "Because the autopsy at the local morgue and post mortem photographs of JFK feature different wounds to the head (seriously, check this out on Google) it is reasonable to assume that the most likely cause is this: The images are of two bodies. The autopsy probably mistook one of the secret service agents who was known to have a passing resemblance to his boss for JFK, but the Post Mortem got it right." Or somebody else (Person B) saying: "The government deliberately switched bodies to fool us because of the conspiracy." One is making a supposition based on limited available evidence for the most plausible (in his subjective opinion) but far from proven possibility. The other is declaring (on no real evidence) what MUST have happened, the "Truth".

UFOlogy goes a step worse. It usually states "As Person B has proven the bodies were switched we can go further and suggest..." Despite Person B proving nothing of the sort.

Ufology (the forum user not the field) seems to expect us to believe that a U2 was looking for evidence of an alien UFO, based on a the opinion of a man standing several miles away. We have no confirmation that there was a plane, that it was searching for a UFO, or that UFO was alien. Yet we are asked to prove it did not happen. Why? There is no proof it DID happen. There is no proof the man identified the U2 correctly, let alone the motive and purpose of the flight.

And even IF, and it is a big IF, the flight happened what does it prove? That a U2 looked for an unknown subject? It does not prove the U2 FOUND an alien cause. It remains entirely possible that even IF it did happen an utterly mundane cause was found.

Until we get proof any of the events took place, we can only say somebody saw something he thought was a spyplane, in unfavourable conditions.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Ufology (the forum user not the field) seems to expect us to believe that a U2 was looking for evidence of an alien UFO, based on a the opinion of a man standing several miles away. We have no confirmation that there was a plane, that it was searching for a UFO, or that UFO was alien. Yet we are asked to prove it did not happen. Why? There is no proof it DID happen. There is no proof the man identified the U2 correctly, let alone the motive and purpose of the flight.

And even IF, and it is a big IF, the flight happened what does it prove? That a U2 looked for an unknown subject? It does not prove the U2 FOUND an alien cause. It remains entirely possible that even IF it did happen an utterly mundane cause was found.

Until we get proof any of the events took place, we can only say somebody saw something he thought was a spyplane, in unfavourable conditions.
Click to expand...

That was actually edge, not ufology.
 
Garrison said:
Just for contrast here's an article about how real science goes about tracing strange things seen in the sky:

The hunt for rocks from space
Click to expand...

Devil's Advocate: "But using the scientific method, like disproving a null hypothesis in the study of asteroids really isn't logical because a null hypothesis is meant to be used in conjunction with controlled experiments in order to provide consistent measurable statistical results. How can an asteroid hurtling through space be consistent and measurable?"

Just kidding - that's pretty cool.
 
here's a thought
why not change the evidence standard for UFO so it just means "Alien craft"
I come up with these great original ideas all the time yanno
:D
 
carlitos said:
Devil's Advocate: "But using the scientific method, like disproving a null hypothesis in the study of asteroids really isn't logical because a null hypothesis is meant to be used in conjunction with controlled experiments in order to provide consistent measurable statistical results. How can an asteroid hurtling through space be consistent and measurable?"

Just kidding - that's pretty cool.
Click to expand...

It certainly is. :) And this one quote jumped out at me when I read it the first time:

"With just word of mouth descriptions, it's not enough."
Click to expand...

A truth that ufology and co. could do with taking on board.
 
ufology said:
Robo:

That's what you just did ... how clever of you. We've already been through the issue of evidence and it's the opinion of the skeptics here that there is no evidence. So what's the point in discussing evidence that you simply deny has value?
Click to expand...

Not all the skeptics here, ufology. I don't know if there is any evidence to support the hypothesis that we are being visited by extraterrestrials or not.
I have asked you to offer evidence, but so far you have failed to offer anything but (if I may boil it down for the sake of bandwidth)," A lot of people saw something strange, so what they observed must be extraterrestrial in origin".
This hardly meets the quantum of proof by any reasonable standard. A lot of people witnessed acts of sorcery and witchcraft during the Inquisition, but no one (including the Catholic Church, as of late) would argue that the mere volume of sightings constitutes evidence of Satanic influence.

Worse, your definitions are filled with so many qualifiers they have no real meaning.
If you were a prosecuting attorney in a murder trial, and opened your case with, "I would like to enter into evidence this pistol, believed to be the murder weapon, presumably used in the heinous act, and possibly found in the possession of the defendant", how long do you think it would be before you found yourself making closing statements that end with, "And would you like fries with that order"?
Again, remove everything after the qualifiers from your definitions, and they define UFO's as nothing more than unexplained phenomena.

I'd be more than happy to review any evidence you have to offer. But I'm afraid I'll need more than eyewitness testimony, which is provably unreliable without corroborating physical evidence (irrespective of volume), or radar returns which are only evidence of electromagnetic anomalies without proof that they we caused by any specific phenomenon.
 
Akhenaten said:
And yet you seem to know about it.
Click to expand...

How could anyone know about what is blacked out?
What I do know is before I ever seen anything remotely that resembled a classic UFO/flying saucer/object, that there were already many hoaxes.
Till my own sightings occurred at which point I was thoroughly convinced that a certain amount of others that had sightings had to be telling the truth...and that they in essence seen something that was related to my own experiences involving sightings of unknown origins with a greater understanding of physics of which we have no clue about.
So watching an old Ragan speech to the U.N. tends to make me reach the same conclusion, they are already here and been here.

MKay Mister drivel?:D
 
RoboTimbo said:
When I click the check spelling icon, it wants me to download ieSpell. I use IE.
Click to expand...

If you load Google Chrome the spell checker in the forum works then, only problem is I didn't like Google Chrome.

The IEspell didn't work for me, I use Word.
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
Not all the skeptics here, ufology. I don't know if there is any evidence to support the hypothesis that we are being visited by extraterrestrials or not. I have asked you to offer evidence, but so far you have failed to offer anything ...
Click to expand...

Hey Chuck:

The only evidence I can offer to support the assertion that Earth has been visited by alien craft are case summaries found in books and my own experience, both of which have been referenced and discussed already. So I'm not going through it all again. Instead, if historical cases are sufficient to qualify as evidence for you. Instead of asking me, pick up a copy of Beyond Top Secret by author Timothy Good. It's about 600 pages thick. Also check out the classics by Ruppelt, Hynek, Edwards, and Keyhoe. If none of that is any good for you to believe something extraordinary has been taking place, then you'll just have to have an experience yourself or wait for disclosure or discovery.
 
Marduk said:
here's a thought
why not change the evidence standard for UFO so it just means "Alien craft"
I come up with these great original ideas all the time yanno
:D
Click to expand...

Marduk:

You're smarter than you know. If we could just get our hands on an alien craft, that's about all the evidence we'd really need isn't it?
 
Garrison said:
It certainly is. :) And this one quote jumped out at me when I read it the first time:

A truth that ufology and co. could do with taking on board.
Click to expand...


Garrison:

Science is based on observation of measurable and repeatable experiments. Not all science is done under strictly controlled conditions, and not all science requires a null hypothesis. However if you are going to invoke a null hypothesis for a particular scientific study, then you need to establish what conditions allow you to make subsequent scientifically valid comparisons of the data so that a statistical probablity can be extrapolated. If you can't do that then using a null hypothesis is pointless. With asteroids, there are a number of known constant quantifiers that can be used. When combined with repeatable instrumented observation useful data can be collected.

UFOs do not allow for such repeatable observation and we don't know what constants apply to them. So again, the null hypothesis is ill suited to the study of them. The best we can do is record the observations of the phenomena as it happens or soon thereafter and then compare that to other similar information. But all that really amounts to is personal study and investigation. There just isn't enough reliable scientific evidence to perform a conclusive scientific study ( IMHO ).
 
Last edited:
When I read some of these accounts of strange objects in the sky, the mind starts to entertain the possibility that it might be an alien spacecraft. But, there is no way that I can swallow the patent bollocks that Timothy Good et al would have me believe. The alien bases on earth ... the human genetic manipulation (a claim with testable consequences). It's all just a world of conflicting myths built from a few unexplained objects in the sky. On top of this mental events like abductions and trips to Venus and Saturn are built. There must be some appeal in belonging to the special club of alien believers pretending to be engaged in research, while perhaps even turning a buck or too from your books and websites. It's like being a Trekie or a Star Wars tragic, only its real, man.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom