UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ehcks]

Robo:

Again you have it backwards. The skeptics constantly misrepresent the word UFO as has been amply evidenced with independent references and logic that are far from cherry picking. And it is the skeptics here who do the cherry picking, name calling, misrepresentation and denial.

If you want to say that UFO means "alien craft," you must first show that alien craft exist. Otherwise the term describes something imaginary, and is as unrealistic as unicorn, or dragon.

Either you must have evidence of actual alien craft, or your claim is that UFOs do not exist at all.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I agree that when we speak of UFOs themselves we are making reference to alien craft, or as you say to a conveyances. Other designations such as UAP ( Unidentified Aerial Phenomena ) deal with more ambiguous phenomena. During the modern era in ufology scientists and investigators have been trying to figure out exactly how UFOs work and where they come from.

The pseudoscientific ones do. Normal people know we're talking about Unidentified Flying Objects. Only the credulous claim to identify the Unidentified.

Any real progress in those areas we are not privy to.

UFOlogy has made no progress in the last 60 years. It's a pseudoscience.

Such evidence may or may not exist, and that leaves us only to speculate.

Such evidence for coins turning into butterflies and fairies in your garden? How much time do you devote to speculating on those?

Speculation is acceptable as a part of research in general, but it shouldn't be confused with proof or science, or the skeptics here will eat you for dinner. All we can reasonably say is that these are our opinions based on speculation. An exception for you would be whatever you directly observed based on your firsthand experience.

Can you post a link to something credible that also says that speculation is research?

ASIDE: May I ask you specifically to list what points in your observation make you believe that what you saw was not a manmade or natural object or phenomenon?

Or fairies or gods or misperceived aluminum foil or fautly memory?

Lastly, We can use logic to distill out alternate dimensions, time travel and deities.

Interesting. That's the same way we distill out Alien Space Ships. I'm glad you can finally admit it.

However we can't say with any certainty which of the remaining is accurate.

Not logically. Doesn't seem to stop the credulous pseudoscientists from claiming to "know" it's ayleeuns.

Therefore I simply use the term alien, as in alien to human civilization. This may include terrestrial technology of undisclosed origin, possibly made by humans who are not part of or connected with any aspect of human civilization as we know it.

So you claim that you have identified the Unidentified? Which planet are they from?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo:

Again you have it backwards. The skeptics constantly misrepresent the word UFO as has been amply evidenced with independent references and logic that are far from cherry picking. And it is the skeptics here who do the cherry picking, name calling, misrepresentation and denial.

No, you have it backwards. It was shown how you cherry picked an outdated and superseded definition and when your dishonesty was shown for what it was, you have since waffled and attempted to obfuscate again. How did it go with all the other pseudoscientists shooting down your cherry picked definition on that other forum? Did you ever convince any of them that UFO meant Alien Space Ship?

Your dishonesty will be pointed out every time you resort to it.

 

[ufology]

Again you could silence all your critics with one well evidenced case, your failure to offer such evidence says more than all your dancing around semantics.

Garrison:

Semantics is what we use to accurately convey what we mean. It is perfectly legitimate to discuss semantics as it relates to understanding the true nature of the research. Failure to accept how the research and study is carried out because skeptics would sooner deny how it is done rather than how they want to believe it's done exposes their bias. So it is only natural that you would want to shift the discussion away from that bias by switching the topic. Fair enough.

I've stated in the past that there is no availabale evidence that the skeptics here will accept. Indeed the skeptics here constantly claim, contrary to the difinition of evidence, that no evidence even exists. To this I again offer the definition of evidence ( Encarta ):

ev·i·dence [évvid’ns] noun


1.sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

•　There is no evidence that the disease is related to diet.​

2.proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime
•　The police have no evidence.​

3.statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry.
​

Given the definition above, there is plenty of evidence that "give signs" and "that helps", and such evidence consists of "oral and written statements of witnesses and other people". The issue with the skeptics here is that they fail to accept the definition of evidence above and have moved the goalposts so far out of bounds that no evidence can be presented here that they will accept other than scientific proof. This has been amply evidenced by their constant denials of the evidence already been presented. Consequently asking for scientific proof as evidence is a pointless exercise. Now if you think I am wrong, please tell me what "oral or written statements of witnesses and other people", the skeptics here will accept. Some of it? None of it? If any, what is required for it to be considered acceptable?

 

[GeeMack]

Unfortunately you choose to deny the overwhelming dicumented evidence in support of what the word UFO means to convey, and choose self-servingly to portray it using not the actual definition(s) or even the common understanding, but the mere word origin in the form of the individual words that makeup the acronym. So long as you continue misrepresenting the meaning of the word in this way, we have nothing further to discuss on the word origin, meaning or usage.

UFOs are simply things which appear to be flying and seem to be objects, but which have not been identified as some particular known thing. There's nothing self-serving about it. Like it or not, that's just the way the English language works. If you're trying to communicate the concept of alien craft, it would be most appropriate if you would use a term like maybe "alien craft", for example. If it's something identified, it's not a UFO. If you're trying to wish aliens into existence by requiring other people to accept your dishonestly redefined terms, you'll fail going forward same as you've failed in the past. Totally. Completely. 100%.

As for you saying that UFOs ( alien craft ) have never been demonstrated to exist. all you can say with any certainty is that they have never been demonstrated to you. They have however been demonstrated to me and many other people. I freely admit that I cannot replicate my observation and therefore cannot provide scientific proof.

With that acknowledgement that you aren't able to support your claim with objective evidence, maybe your job here is done.

Therefore you may reasonably choose to dismiss that evidence and/or reserve judgement, ( reject the null hypothesis ), but going beyond that by claiming that because alien craft have never been proven to exist, it therefore proves they don't exist, is an argument from ignorance. Therefore you cannot make your claim with any certainty without revealing your bias.

The persistent dishonest tactic of deflecting the burden of proof is noted. I make no claims here other than this: The null hypothesis, "all UFOs are of mundane origin," has not been falsified. The null hypothesis is an extension of your claim that some UFOs are actually not UFOs at all, but identified or identifiable as alien or extraterrestrial craft. I'll repeat that because that notion of the null hypothesis, how it is derived and how it applies, seems to escape your understanding. The null hypothesis, "all UFOs are of mundane origin," is a component of your claim. It is created when you create your claim. It is derived with the specific purpose of allowing you to prove your claim. Without it your claim is just words on a page, meaningless drivel. When the null hypothesis is falsified, it demonstrates your claim to be true.

Lastly, your analogy between UFOs and gods is false, and comparing the phenomena to fairy tales is equally false logic.

There is exactly equal amounts of objective evidence to support the claim that gods exist as there is to support the claim that some of the unidentified things that are perceived to be flying objects are actually alien craft.

Simply because unicorns or Santa Clause are fairy tales is not proof that UFOs are also fairy tales, and to make that assertion with such certainty once again only reveals your prejudice and bias.

The dishonest distortion of my position and generally twisting logic into a blatant straw man is noted. And as an argument, as always, it fails.

Consequently, it seems we have nothing further to discuss.

Can we take this as an acknowledgement that you have failed here and that you are unable to support your claim that some unidentified flying objects are alien craft?

Perhaps I'll run across some video or case study that you can help debunk and I'll look forward to your responses at that time.

Debunk a "ufologist's" arguments from ignorance, straw men, special pleading, and dishonest attempts to abandon his/her burden of proof? No debunking necessary. If you can't support your claim with objective evidence, you can't support it. If you do have objective evidence to support your claim, I would be as interested to see it as anyone. But try as you might, redefining reality to accommodate your fantasy is a strategy which is bound to fail.

 

[ehcks]

Encarta wasn't a dictionary, it was an encyclopedia. And it was discontinued three years ago.

Dictionary.com

ev·i·dence
   [ev-i-duhns] noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Notice that witness testimony is under the Law tag.

 

[carlitos]

When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.

UFOs ( alien craft )

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

At midnight a glowing blue-white orb sprung up from behind the mountain range across the lake and bounced down the side of the mountain in three big arcs...

Semantics is what we use to accurately convey what we mean.

For certain definitions of "we," apparently.

 

[ufology]

... But try as you might, redefining reality to accommodate your fantasy is a strategy which is bound to fail.

I've not redefined anything to accomodate any fantasy. Now you are just resorting to name calling. I've also freely admitted from the start that I have no scientific proof of alien visitation, so to try to suggest that I have lost or failed to prove my position is misleading. However my "job here" isn't done. You will find that the record reveals that I came here to network with skeptics for the purpose of revealing hoaxes and identifying misperceptions and other things in UFO sighting claims and videos. I'm also here as a fair minded member of the JREF forum to discuss in a friendly and lively way, people's personal UFO sightings and beliefs about them.

 

[AdMan]

Unfortunately you choose to deny the overwhelming dicumented evidence in support of what the word UFO means to convey, and choose self-servingly to portray it using not the actual definition(s) or even the common understanding, but the mere word origin in the form of the individual words that makeup the acronym.

Just like MUFON and even Rramjet do, you mean? Awful skeptics!

 

[R.A.F.]

Semantics is what we use to accurately convey what we mean.

Then why are you having such trouble understanding the concept that an "unidentified flying object", is not the same as an "alien spaceship"?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've not redefined anything to accomodate any fantasy.

Yes, that's exactly what you're doing. You aren't being successful at it, but that's what you're trying to do. You've dishonestly cherry picked an outdated and superseded definition to support your fantasy that some UFOs are Alien Space Ships.

Answer the question which has been asked numerous times: If you mean Alien Space Ship why do you not say Alien Space Ship?

 

[Garrison]

Now if you think I am wrong, please tell me what
"oral or written statements of witnesses and other people", the skeptics here will accept. Some of it? None of it? If any, what is required for it to be considered acceptable?

Eyewitness evidence is of relatively little value, years of experimentation by psychologists and the advent of DNA evidence in the criminal justice process have made that clear. At best they are a starting point for the gathering of useful evidence, unsupported they tell us nothing but what the eyewitness thinks they saw, influenced by preconceptions and reinterpretation as they retell their story.

 

[ufology]

Encarta wasn't a dictionary, it was an encyclopedia. And it was discontinued three years ago.

Dictionary.com


Notice that witness testimony is under the Law tag.

Here's a little screen shot and a photo of the cover of the book version clearly showing your assumption above is in error. It is a dictionary ... and there is also an Encyclopedia as well. I own both. And so what if it is discontinued? The word "evidence" has not been discontinued and it's an excellent dictionary.

 

[R.A.F.]

I've stated in the past that there is no availabale evidence that the skeptics here will accept. Indeed the skeptics here constantly claim, contrary to the difinition of evidence, that no evidence even exists.

God...get it right at least...what skeptics "state" is that there is no credible evidence for the existence of visiting alien spaceships.

...but don't let that stop you...if you have credible evidence to present, do so.

 

[R.A.F.]

I own both.

Don't care how many you own...attempting to change the definition of words will simply not work...

We are either talking about objects that can not be immediately be identified, or we are talking about alien spaceships...make a choice...

 

[ehcks]

Here's a little screen shot and a photo of the cover of the book version clearly showing your assumption above is in error. It is a dictionary ... and there is also an Encyclopedia as well.
I own both.

I guess I'm wrong. It's what I get for not researching well enough.

And so what if it is discontinued? The word evidence has not been discontinued and it's an excellent dictionary.

As for this, it means you're cherry-picking from any source you can get, even discontinued and superseded ones.

 

[R.A.F.]

Answer the question which has been asked numerous times: If you mean Alien Space Ship why do you not say Alien Space Ship?

I know I've said it before, but the simplest explanation is that UFO's "do" exist, and ology thinks that if UFO's "mean" alien spaceship's, he can say that alien spaceships exist.

I know It's irrational and childish and makes not a lick of sense, but it's the explanation that best "fits" his irrational postings.

 

[ufology]

God...get it right at least...what skeptics "state" is that there is no credible evidence for the existence of visiting alien spaceships.

...but don't let that stop you...if you have credible evidence to present, do so.

R.A.F.

I'm not going to go back and find all the posts where some skeptic here has said, "there is no evidence". But I'll accept your current position that perhaps they meant it in the spirit you suggest. It also helps to illustrate what I had said about moving the goalposts. First there is no evidence, then there is no "credible" evidence, then the goalposts get moved so far out of bounds that the only evidence that the skeptics here will accept is scientific proof ( the proof being the evidence that scientifically proves the existence of alien craft ).

If I am wrong then what written testimony from credible people will the skeptics here accept? Testimony from USAF pilots and investigators is about as good as it gets, and that has been rejected several times. The testimony of thousands of other eye witnesses deemed credible by investigators has also been entirely dismissed, as have thousands of sightings by average everyday people ... so you tell me ... what's good enough for you besides scientific proof?

When answering, bear in mind that I'm not saying I have any proof, only that I believe a reasonable case can be constructed from the evidence the skeptics here dismiss. This also leaves out the factor of my own UFO sighting which has left me with no personal doubt whatsoever.

 

[RoboTimbo]

R.A.F.

I'm not going to go back and find all the posts where some skeptic here has said, "there is no evidence". But I'll accept your current position that perhaps they meant it in the spirit you suggest. It also helps to illustrate what I had said about moving the goalposts. First there is no evidence, then there is no "credible" evidence, then the goalposts get moved so far out of bounds that the only evidence that the skeptics here will accept is scientific proof ( the proof being the evidence that scientifically proves the existence of alien craft ).

If I am wrong then what written testimony from credible people will the skeptics here accept? Testimony from USAF pilots and investigators is about as good as it gets, and that has been rejected several times. The testimony of thousands of other eye witnesses deemed credible by investigators has also been entirely dismissed, as have thousands of sightings by average everyday people ... so you tell me ... what's good enough for you besides scientific proof?

When answering, bear in mind that I'm not saying I have any proof, only that I believe a reasonable case can be constructed from the evidence the skeptics here dismiss. This also leaves out the factor of my own UFO sighting which has left me with no doubt whatsoever.

Are you claiming that a claim is evidence for itself?

 

[carlitos]

This also leaves out the factor of my own UFO sighting which has left me with no personal doubt whatsoever.

You saw a "glowing blue orb." That's a UAP, by your own definition. Not a UFO. You're even wishing your own sighting into the alien craft category.