UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Puddle Duck]

Ufology

You have Ruppelt's book on your site. Take a look at what you've referred to as case #1, the F-86 chase, Pages 1-5 in the book.

What do you make of the story? How valid is it? True? Problems? Do you have any comments about it?

PD

 

[ufology]

Exactly. You are claiming that reports about alien visits are being withheld. You're the one who claims that UFO=alien so I can't interpret it in any other way. Or are you now changing your definition?

So now it's just your opinion that they probably have evidence of aliens visiting earth? Can you please make up your mind. Is it your opinion or an undeniable fact?

Jocce:

You're cofusing the context of UFOs themselves with UFO reports. UFOs and UFO reports are two entirely different things. One is a thing in and of itself ( an alien craft ). The other is a written document where some unidentified object or phenomena was reported. Technically it is inccorrect to say something like, "The UFO in the UFO report was saucer shaped." It would be correct to say, "The object in the UFO report was saucer shaped." The object doesn't really become a UFO until after screening and investigation has ruled out many other possibilities, and even then it may not be proven to be a UFO, only that it is reasonable to assume so.

This brings us back to the issue that kicked this off. When someone says, "Look! There's a UFO", they are conveying the idea that they see an extraordinary craft presumed to be alien in nature, not simply some unidentified light in the distance. Unidentified lights and other unusual phenomena that don't fall under the definition of UFO ( alien craft ) are called UAP ( unidentified aerial phenomena ).

 

[carlitos]

This brings us back to the issue that kicked this off. When someone says, "Look! There's a UFO", they are conveying the idea that they see an extraordinary craft presumed to be alien in nature, not simply some unidentified light in the distance. Unidentified lights and other unusual phenomena that don't fall under the definition of UFO ( alien craft ) are called UAP ( unidentified aerial phenomena ).

What did you call the lights you saw again?

 

[Garrison]

Jocce:

You're cofusing the context of UFOs themselves with UFO reports. UFOs and UFO reports are two entirely different things. One is a thing in and of itself ( an alien craft ). The other is a written document where some unidentified object or phenomena was reported. Technically it is inccorrect to say something like, "The UFO in the UFO report was saucer shaped." It would be correct to say, "The object in the UFO report was saucer shaped." The object doesn't really become a UFO until after screening and investigation has ruled out many other possibilities, and even then it may not be proven to be a UFO, only that it is reasonable to assume so.

This brings us back to the issue that kicked this off. When someone says, "Look! There's a UFO", they are conveying the idea that they see an extraordinary craft presumed to be alien in nature, not simply some unidentified light in the distance. Unidentified lights and other unusual phenomena that don't fall under the definition of UFO ( alien craft ) are called UAP ( unidentified aerial phenomena ).

No one here that I've seen accepts your definition that UFO=Alien craft. You can either accept that, move on, and present some actual case evidence or you can refuse to do so and be dismissed as a crank.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Jocce:

You're cofusing the context of UFOs themselves with UFO reports. UFOs and UFO reports are two entirely different things. One is a thing in and of itself ( an alien craft ).

ufolgy, you're confusing the term UFO with Alien Space Ship. One is an unknown thing, the other is a known thing that has never been shown to be here.

The other is a written document where some unidentified object or phenomena was reported. Technically it is inccorrect to say something like, "The UFO in the UFO report was saucer shaped."

No, it might be entirely correct to say the UFO was saucer shaped if it was perhaps a party balloon designed to look like a flying saucer. Why would you think otherwise?

It would be correct to say, "The object in the UFO report was saucer shaped."

Do you understand that a UFO report is a report about a UFO? Are you really so desperate that you have to stoop to outright stupid arguments like that?

The object doesn't really become a UFO until after screening and investigation has ruled out many other possibilities, and even then it may not be proven to be a UFO, only that it is reasonable to assume so.

No, you are incorrect. A UFO is Unidentified, appears to be Flying, and appears to be an Object. I'm not sure why you would claim that something has to be proven to be a UFO when it is Unidentified, appears to be Flying, and appears to be an Object.

This brings us back to the issue that kicked this off. When someone says, "Look! There's a UFO", they are conveying the idea that they see an extraordinary craft presumed to be alien in nature, not simply some unidentified light in the distance.

No, that's a stupid argument. When someone says, "Look! There's a UFO!" how could they possibly convey the idea that they know what something is when they've just called it Unidentified?

Unidentified lights and other unusual phenomena that don't fall under the definition of UFO ( alien craft ) are called UAP ( unidentified aerial phenomena ).

That's again an idiotic argument. Your mistake is in saying that all UFOs are alien craft when NONE have ever been shown to be alien craft. If you mean Alien Space Ship just call it that.

 

[ufology]

No one here that I've seen accepts your definition that UFO=Alien craft. You can either accept that, move on, and present some actual case evidence or you can refuse to do so and be dismissed as a crank.

Garrison:

Too bad you are still missing the point. And your threats that I'll be called names if I don't agree with the deniers and name callers is laughable. I've been through far worse here already.

 

[John Albert]

You're cofusing the context of UFOs themselves with UFO reports. UFOs and UFO reports are two entirely different things.

Yeah, one's an unidentified thing in the sky, and the other is a written report about it.

We see an awful lot of examples of the latter, but nary a specimen of the former. Ever seriously ask yourself why that might be?

One is a thing in and of itself ( an alien craft ).

This is incorrect. There has never been any evidence of an "alien craft" ever visiting Earth at any time in history. You have no factual basis to make such a claim, and have been duly warned by nearly everyone participating in this discussion.

I'm sure you UFOlogists have some super-secret pseudosciencey terminology for that kind of statement, but here in the real world we just call it a "lie."

Why do you keep on repeating these lies as if nobody is going to call you out on it every single time?

Who do you think you're fooling with this nonsense?

Just who do you think your audience is here on the JREF forums?

The other is a written document where some unidentified object or phenomena was reported.

Yes, because the written document in question is a UFO report, in other words a story about an unidentified flying object.

Technically it is inccorrect to say something like, "The UFO in the UFO report was saucer shaped." It would be correct to say, "The object in the UFO report was saucer shaped."

There you go, mincing words again, trying to obfuscate meanings in order to bolster your fantasy of expertise in pseudoscientific charlatanism. It's a good thing we have guys like you around, or else somebody might get the idea that UFOs are just unidentified flying objects.

The object doesn't really become a UFO until after screening and investigation has ruled out many other possibilities, and even then it may not be proven to be a UFO, only that it is reasonable to assume so.

Proven to be a UFO?!?

Precisely how "many other possibilities" must be ruled out in order to designate your jump to a conclusion of "OMG aliens"? Is there a set number, or do you just decide that arbitrarily?

Who are the "scientific experts" tasked with this determination, what is their codified procedure, and what are their qualifications?

I don't expect any answers, of course. I'm just asking loaded questions in order to point up how full of **** you are.

When someone says, "Look! There's a UFO", they are conveying the idea that they see an extraordinary craft presumed to be alien in nature, not simply some unidentified light in the distance.

No, what you're saying is gobbledygook. By your logic, the nomenclature "UFO" doesn't even make sense.

There's no possible way anyone could identify an object as an alien space ship, because nobody has ever seen a confirmed alien spaceship in order to know what one would look like.

Even if someone did somehow happen to know an alien spaceship when they saw one, then it wouldn't be a UFO, would it? The "UFO" nomenclature would cease to apply as soon as the person recognized it as an alien craft, and it would become an IFO: a positively-identified alien spaceship (ASS).

The fact of the matter is very simple. When somebody sees a "UFO," they're looking at something in the sky which they cannot identify, period.

You can varnish the acronym "UFO" with any woo-woo connotation you like, but in reality it means exactly what the initials signify. A UFO is an "unidentified flying object," your cherry-picked, anachronistic, superseded, 53-year-old definition notwithstanding.

The current official USAF definition of "UFO" reads:

"Any aerial phenomenon or object which is unknown or appears out of the ordinary to the observer."​

You're living in the past with that obsolete definition of yours. Why don't you get in the groove, Daddy-O, and step into the futuristic world of the mid-1960s?

Unidentified lights and other unusual phenomena that don't fall under the definition of UFO ( alien craft ) are called UAP ( unidentified aerial phenomena ).

I take it that's yet another entry for J. Randall Murphy's personal Dictionary of Redefinitions?

 

[GeeMack]

You're cofusing the context of UFOs themselves with UFO reports. UFOs and UFO reports are two entirely different things.

Yes.

One is a thing in and of itself ( an alien craft ).

No. From a position of reasoned consideration that is not true. As far as we know, since the null hypothesis, "all UFOs are of mundane origin," has never been falsified, UFOs are simply things which appear to be flying objects but which have not been identified as some particular known thing.

The other is a written document where some unidentified object or phenomena was reported. Technically it is inccorrect to say something like, "The UFO in the UFO report was saucer shaped." It would be correct to say, "The object in the UFO report was saucer shaped." The object doesn't really become a UFO until after screening and investigation has ruled out many other possibilities, and even then it may not be proven to be a UFO, only that it is reasonable to assume so.

Leaving aside the persistent effort to redefine UFO to mean alien craft, it will only be reasonable to assume an unidentified flying object might be an alien craft after the existence of such a thing is objectively demonstrated. Until then, that assumption is folly. It is beyond the bounds of known reality. Gods putting images in your mind in order to mess with your head must be given exactly equal consideration.

This brings us back to the issue that kicked this off. When someone says, "Look! There's a UFO", they are conveying the idea that they see an extraordinary craft presumed to be alien in nature, not simply some unidentified light in the distance.

No. They, most people, people with a clear head and without a propensity to indulge in fantasies, are conveying the idea that they believe they are seeing something which at that moment they are unable to identify as some particular known thing. Period.

Unidentified lights and other unusual phenomena that don't fall under the definition of UFO ( alien craft ) are called UAP ( unidentified aerial phenomena ).

They are all UFOs as long as they remain unidentified. After they are identified, they are what they are. If they are known to be some particular thing, alien craft for instance, they are not UFOs. And as far as we know, no UFO has ever turned out to be an extraterrestrial or alien craft. None. Never.

 

[edge]

Yes.




No. From a position of reasoned consideration that is not true. As far as we know, since the null hypothesis, "all UFOs are of mundane origin," has never been falsified, UFOs are simply things which appear to be flying objects but which have not been identified as some particular known thing.




Leaving aside the persistent effort to redefine UFO to mean alien craft, it will only be reasonable to assume an unidentified flying object might be an alien craft after the existence of such a thing is objectively demonstrated. Until then, that assumption is folly. It is beyond the bounds of known reality. Gods putting images in your mind in order to mess with your head must be given exactly equal consideration.




No. They, most people, people with a clear head and without a propensity to indulge in fantasies, are conveying the idea that they believe they are seeing something which at that moment they are unable to identify as some particular known thing. Period.




They are all UFOs as long as they remain unidentified. After they are identified, they are what they are. If they are known to be some particular thing, alien craft for instance, they are not UFOs. And as far as we know, no UFO has ever turned out to be an extraterrestrial or alien craft. None. Never.

They are a conveyance of sorts.
They demonstrate a physics that we are investigating, Electromagnetic propulsion systems.
The x secretary of the Naval intelligent and of the CIA, Bob Inman after retiring has started this facility; SAIC anti gravitational propulsion systems San Diego, trying to find the technology that he believes is being demonstrated.

In yellow: After witnessing some of these vehicles within 100 to 500 yards or so, for me they are no longer UFOs.
What remains a mystery is who is piloting these vehicles?
Alien is what it is, with 5 or 6 possibilities.
When you figure that out then we’ll know.
Sure some could be military, that’s one.

 

[GeeMack]

They are a conveyance of sorts.

That is not true. A UFO is something which appears to be a flying object but which has not been identified as some particular known thing. UFOs aren't necessarily actual objects, much less conveyances. Some UFOs have turned out to be reflections, bugs, helium balloons, and pelicans, none of which are conveyances.

In yellow: After witnessing some of these vehicles within 100 to 500 yards or so, for me they are no longer UFOs.
What remains a mystery is who is piloting these vehicles?

So they remain unidentified. And more importantly, there is no objective evidence to suggest there's any truth to your anecdote. We may dismiss it from consideration.

Alien is what it is, with 5 or 6 possibilities.

Since there is no objective evidence to support the notion that even one kind of alien exists, suggesting that an unidentified thing may fall into a narrowed range of 5 or 6 possibilities is not reasonable. It's a guess, made up from scratch, a piece of fiction.

When you figure that out then we’ll know.
Sure some could be military, that’s one.

So they remain unidentified.

 

[AdMan]

They are a conveyance of sorts.
They demonstrate a physics that we are investigating, Electromagnetic propulsion systems.
The x secretary of the Naval intelligent and of the CIA, Bob Inman after retiring has started this facility; SAIC anti gravitational propulsion systems San Diego, trying to find the technology that he believes is being demonstrated.

In yellow: After witnessing some of these vehicles within 100 to 500 yards or so, for me they are no longer UFOs.
What remains a mystery is who is piloting these vehicles?
Alien is what it is, with 5 or 6 possibilities.
When you figure that out then we’ll know.
Sure some could be military, that’s one.

This is utter nonsense.

 

[ufology]

... From a position of reasoned consideration that is not true. As far as we know, since the null hypothesis, "all UFOs are of mundane origin," has never been falsified, UFOs are simply things which appear to be flying objects but which have not been identified as some particular known thing ...

GeeMack:

It's not that I'm in dissagreement with what you are saying above. It's that it doesn't apply in the context I'm trying to get across. For example, we could say the same thing about unicorns. Although a few people claim to have seen them, unicorns probably don't exist, and a similar null hypothesis could be constructed. However the word "unicorn" still has a unique meaning and we don't need to wait to prove unicorns exist before defining what the word means. When we hear the word "unicorn" we visualize a particular mythological animal, not simply some vague four legged shape in the distance that could be a cow or a dog or almost anything.

Similarly the word "UFO" conjures up imagery of alien craft, and has done so ever since the word was invented. Tracing the word origin back we find that it was invented to replace the words "flying saucer", popularly believed to have been alien craft. Note here that I use the phrase "alien craft" synonymously with extraterrestrial spaceships or any other hypothesis that might be proposed to explain these craft other than as a natural or manmade objects or phenomenon. The typical shape is the ubiquitous domed saucer, but there are several others ( spheres, triangles, cylinders etc. ). Again, we are not talking about some vague shape in the distance that could be anything. We are conveying the idea that object we see is extraordinary and non-mundane.

As for scientifically proving these things exist, I agree that your take is reasonable within the parameters you set forth. Perhaps someday evidence that meets your criteria for acceptance will emerge. In the meantime, I choose to investigate and study the remaining evidence. I enjoy reading about UFO sightings and talking to people about their experiences. That doesn't mean I believe everything I'm told. But even what I consider to be highly contentious can be very interesting.

 

[GeeMack]

It's not that I'm in dissagreement with what you are saying above. It's that it doesn't apply in the context I'm trying to get across.

If you're still claiming that some unidentified flying objects are alien craft then yes, it does apply. The null hypothesis, "all UFOs are of mundane origin," is a direct extension of that claim and has never been falsified.

For example, we could say the same thing about unicorns. Although a few people claim to have seen them, unicorns probably don't exist, and a similar null hypothesis could be constructed. However the word "unicorn" still has a unique meaning and we don't need to wait to prove unicorns exist before defining what the word means. When we hear the word "unicorn" we visualize a particular mythological animal, not simply some vague four legged shape in the distance that could be a cow or a dog or almost anything.

Similarly the word "UFO" conjures up imagery of alien craft, and has done so ever since the word was invented. Tracing the word origin back we find that it was invented to replace the words "flying saucer", popularly believed to have been alien craft. Note here that I use the phrase "alien craft" synonymously with extraterrestrial spaceships or any other hypothesis that might be proposed to explain these craft other than as a natural or manmade objects or phenomenon. The typical shape is the ubiquitous domed saucer, but there are several others ( spheres, triangles, cylinders etc. ). Again, we are not talking about some vague shape in the distance that could be anything. We are conveying the idea that object we see is extraordinary and non-mundane.

UFOs are, by definition, things which appear to be flying objects but which have not been identified as some particular thing, the persistent and dishonest effort to redefine terms and willfully ignore how reality contradicts your argument notwithstanding. If those things were determined to be alien craft, or any particular thing for that matter, they wouldn't be UFOs. Your argument is nonsense. It continues to fail.

As for scientifically proving these things exist, I agree that your take is reasonable within the parameters you set forth.

The parameters are those imposed by reality. Reality, that's where you falsify the null hypothesis, "all UFOs are of mundane origin,", or admit that you can't and abandon the claim that some UFOs are alien craft. Any other position is dishonest. There isn't some place in the middle where arguments from ignorance and special pleading are acceptable support.

Perhaps someday evidence that meets your criteria for acceptance will emerge. In the meantime, I choose to investigate and study the remaining evidence. I enjoy reading about UFO sightings and talking to people about their experiences. That doesn't mean I believe everything I'm told. But even what I consider to be highly contentious can be very interesting.

The remaining evidence, to use the term very loosely, is a bunch of fairy tales passed around among "ufologists" for the purpose of bolstering their irrational belief that unidentified things, by nature of the fact that they're unidentified, are some particular thing, a thing that has never been demonstrated to exist. It's the foundation of a culture of pseudoscience, based on fantasy and fraud, and wholly detached from reality. Objectively it fits in the same category as gods, Santa Claus, and Bigfoot.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Garrison:

Too bad you are still missing the point. And your threats that I'll be called names if I don't agree with the deniers and name callers is laughable. I've been through far worse here already.

You appear to be confusing namecalling and having your hypothosis dismissed as one and the same. If you can't provide any evidence that any Unidentified Flying Objects are alienvessels, why would anything have to be proven to be a UFO? Why would you even insist the term UFO means an identified object unless you are writing crank posts?

I thought this thread was about evidence and research?

 

[Tomtomkent]

When we hear the word "unicorn" we visualize a particular ever since the word was invented. Tracing the word [ufo]b origin back we find that it was invented to replace the words "flying saucer", popularly believed to have been alien craft. Note here that I use the phrase "alien craft" synonymously with extraterrestrial spaceships or any other hypothesis that might be proposed to explain these craft other than as a natural or manmade objects or phenomenon. The typical shape is the ubiquitous domed saucer, but there are several others ( spheres, triangles, cylinders etc. ). Again, we are not talking about some vague shape in the distance that could be anything. We are conveying the idea that object we see is extraordinary and non-mundane.

As for scientifically proving these things exist, I agree that your take is reasonable within the parameters you set forth. Perhaps someday evidence that meets your criteria for acceptance will emerge. In the meantime, I choose to investigate and study the remaining evidence. I enjoy reading about UFO sightings and talking to people about their experiences. That doesn't mean I believe everything I'm told. But even what I consider to be highly contentious can be very interesting.

So, despite the context of this discussion, and those pesky dictionary definitions you still want to confuse UFO for alien, and even worse cherry pick the kind of description that fits a ufo.

Tosh. Piffle. Insulting garbage. Utter twollocks. A ufo is ANY object, that appears to fly, and is unidentified.

 

[John Albert]

For example, we could say the same thing about unicorns. Although a few people claim to have seen them, unicorns probably don't exist, and a similar null hypothesis could be constructed. However the word "unicorn" still has a unique meaning and we don't need to wait to prove unicorns exist before defining what the word means. When we hear the word "unicorn" we visualize a particular mythological animal, not simply some vague four legged shape in the distance that could be a cow or a dog or almost anything.

Similarly the word "UFO" conjures up imagery of alien craft, and has done so ever since the word was invented. Tracing the word origin back we find that it was invented to replace the words "flying saucer", popularly believed to have been alien craft. Note here that I use the phrase "alien craft" synonymously with extraterrestrial spaceships or any other hypothesis that might be proposed to explain these craft other than as a natural or manmade objects or phenomenon.

So then you admit that your primary interest is not serious study toward the goal of achieving a more accurate understanding, but merely to perpetuate a popular mythology of alien spaceships?

This is tantamount to an admission that your business is pseudoscience. Rather than honestly pursuing new discoveries and solving mysteries, you're more interested in cultivating false mysteries and promoting folklore.

As for scientifically proving these things exist, I agree that your take is reasonable within the parameters you set forth.

So then you must understand that your own "take" is unreasonable, because you deliberately choose to ignore the parameters of reality and reason.

Perhaps someday evidence that meets your criteria for acceptance will emerge.

But you're certainly not going to be the one to get off your complacent butt and look for any of that evidence, are you? That highfalutin' science stuff is way too much hard work, isn't it?

Nah, it's far easier to sell New Age books on eBay and pass yourself off as a knowledgeable expert on the Internet.

In the meantime, I choose to investigate and study the remaining evidence.

You have no evidence to study! Maybe that's why you consider sitting around watching reruns of Alf to be valid practice of UFOlogy.

 

[23_Tauri]

Jocce:

You're cofusing the context of UFOs themselves with UFO reports. UFOs and UFO reports are two entirely different things. One is a thing in and of itself ( an alien craft ). The other is a written document where some unidentified object or phenomena was reported. Technically it is inccorrect to say something like, "The UFO in the UFO report was saucer shaped." It would be correct to say, "The object in the UFO report was saucer shaped." The object doesn't really become a UFO until after screening and investigation has ruled out many other possibilities, and even then it may not be proven to be a UFO, only that it is reasonable to assume so.

This brings us back to the issue that kicked this off. When someone says, "Look! There's a UFO", they are conveying the idea that they see an extraordinary craft presumed to be alien in nature, not simply some unidentified light in the distance. Unidentified lights and other unusual phenomena that don't fall under the definition of UFO ( alien craft ) are called UAP ( unidentified aerial phenomena ).

Ooh, is it time for morning exercise class already?

 

[Stray Cat]

Jocce:

You're cofusing the context of UFOs themselves with UFO reports. UFOs and UFO reports are two entirely different things. One is a thing in and of itself ( an alien craft ). The other is a written document where some unidentified object or phenomena was reported. Technically it is inccorrect to say something like, "The UFO in the UFO report was saucer shaped." It would be correct to say, "The object in the UFO report was saucer shaped."

You're confusing the context of Bananas themselves with Bags of bananas. Bananas and Bags of bananas are two entirely different things. One is a thing in and of itself (a bent yellow fruit). The other is a flexible container to utilise the easy transportation from the store that is full of bent yellow fruit. Technically it is inccorrect to say something like, "The banana in the banana bag was bent shaped." It would be correct to say, "The yellow object in the bag was bent shaped."?

 

[Marduk]

ufology
do you understand what falsifiability is ?
yes/no

third time I've asked this amazingly simple question
do you have an answer yet ?

 

[23_Tauri]

Strictly speaking, Stray, bananas aren't bent, they're curved. It is incorrect to describe them as bent, as bent would imply something that had been manipulated by some external force so as to produce a shape that is unnatural when compared to the pure, uncontorted banana. The bananas in the banana bag are, therefore, curved bananas, unless someone has sat on the bag, in which case this needs to be made explicit in the description.

It's very important we get the semantics right, otherwise we won't know what we're discussing, will we?