UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ehcks]

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.

When I say "There is no evidence" there is an implied "that I have seen." Obviously I can't judge evidence I don't know exists. If you have any like that, you should show it.

As for "testimony" handwritten or verbal or otherwise, that is not evidence. That is the claim. "I saw a UFO that looked like this at this location and this time" is the claim; it can not be its own evidence.

A story of a UFO is an anecdote. Anecdotes are claims. Claims are not their own evidence.

 

[edge]

Ah and now you know about my life! Wow! How bloody amazingly clever you are.

Funnily enough, yes I have seen a UFO. No, I don't believe it was an alien vessel any more or less than any other possible explination. Why? Because I have no idea what an alien vessel would like. It was a light, in the sky, I couldn't identify.

Oh, and I have experienced a "ghost" too. But amazingly I don't presume to know it was the soul of a dead person based on information I don't have.


You know what, you not having a reason to lie does not remove the possibilty. You are claiming "privileged information". Not good enough. Either you have evidence they are vehicles, or you are working on a flawed, subjective assumption that what you saw appeared to be a vessel in your own opinion. As you have no evidence, why do we have a reason to believe you? Your own statement cuts both way: We have no reason to assume you are telling the truth.

What ever can be claimed with out evidence can be dismissed likewise.

Then all you could see was a light in the sky.
Not much to go on.
I don't know what a ghost is but that would fit into another category altogether.
So your answer is no.
Understand, if what I have seen was as mundane as what you have seen then I wouldn’t be here.

 

[Garrison]

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

And a great many other people have said the same, only for their sightings to be explained in mundane terms haven't they?

 

[carlitos]

My sighting of intraspacial fishes and the Virgin of Guadalupe has left me with no personal doubt whatsoever.

As ever, if ufology were being honest, he would explain how his "logic" and "pRrocess of elimination" is different from witnesses to religious phenomena and bigfoot.

 

[ufology]

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.

Carlitos:

You make an interesting point with respect to the glowing orb UFOs. They may be structured craft that give off a lot of light, but we aren't certain, and in the absence of the maneuvers the object pulled off, I would have to agree that the object would fall squarely under the UAP category, perhaps an "earthlights" type of phenomenon.

However the precision and repitition of it's flight path when preparing for and making the infinity ( slanted figure eight ) maneuvers, and the manner in which it rose vertically, hovered and departed between the mountains to the north, were not indicative of random movement or earthlight behavior. This was very obviously an intelligent or intelligently controlled object. No human technology we know of has ever produced such an object, so it was a UFO ... a "nocturnal light" classed as an NL-1 or possibly an NL-2 under the Hynek system. The NL-2 presumes the object interacted with the surrounding environment when it landed, but the only interaction I could make out was the light shining on and through the trees. Technically because I also saw the object in the morning light, it wasn't strictly nocturnal either, and so far as I know there is no classical category for daytime lights that exhibit the performance characteristics I observed. Again, this makes it a UFO rather than a UAP. The sighting category falls into the MA-1 category under the Hynek/Vallee system.

 

[Astrophotographer]

So now that I know that some are real conveyances the next question is whose flying them?

The question remains. What do you plan to do next besides talk about your experiences endlessly, which accomplishes absolutely nothing (other than giving you a feeling of self-importance)? This is what it is all about. What do you (and UFOlogy) intend to do to help prove your point. So far, all I have seen is a whole lot of nothing as if you are afraid to discover that you may be wrong.

 

[carlitos]

....and any intelligent earthling would wonder why a spaceship would give off a lot of light.



on edit - oops wrong youtube. The effects at the end of this one are totally replicable by tired human eyeballs attached to a tired human brain.

 

[Akhenaten]

Carlitos:

You make an interesting point with respect to the glowing orb UFOs. They may be structured craft that give off a lot of light, but we aren't certain, and in the absence of the maneuvers the object pulled off, I would have to agree that the object would fall squarely under the UAP category, perhaps an "earthlights" type of phenomenon.

The only category it can defiinitely be said to belong to is 'anecdotes'.

<snip>

Again, this makes it a UFO rather than a UAP.

Or a FOYI. We'll never know, now will we?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Carlitos:

You make an interesting point with respect to the glowing orb UFOs. They may be structured craft that give off a lot of light, but we aren't certain, and in the absence of the maneuvers the object pulled off, I would have to agree that the object would fall squarely under the UAP category, perhaps an "earthlights" type of phenomenon.

However the precision and repitition of it's flight path when preparing for and making the infinity ( slanted figure eight ) maneuvers, and the manner in which it rose vertically, hovered and departed between the mountains to the north, were not indicative of random movement or earthlight behavior. This was very obviously an intelligent or intelligently controlled object. No human technology we know of has ever produced such an object, so it was a UFO ... a "nocturnal light" classed as an NL-1 or possibly an NL-2 under the Hynek system. The NL-2 presumes the object interacted with the surrounding environment when it landed, but the only interaction I could make out was the light shining on and through the trees. Technically because I also saw the object in the morning light, it wasn't strictly nocturnal either, and so far as I know there is no classical category for daytime lights that exhibit the performance characteristics I observed. Again, this makes it a UFO rather than a UAP. The sighting category falls into the MA-1 category under the Hynek/Vallee system.

Being Unidentified, appearing to be Flying and appearing to be an Object makes it a UFO.

The figure 8 makes it a firefly.

 

[ufology]

....and any intelligent earthling would wonder why a spaceship would give off a lot of light.

Well ... our own spaceships give off a lot of light as part of their propulsion mechanism. Maybe it's the same idea but a different kind of engine. The object got really bright before it did its instant accelleration maneuver during departure.

BTW: Thanks for posting the firefly video. It helps demonstrate why there is no way you could see one of those interesting little bugs over 3Km away. It also demonstrates how someone staring up at the open sky might perceive one to be a UFO. Without any background or other cues to gauage distance, it is possible they could be misperceived as something larger and farther away.

 

[RoboTimbo]

....and any intelligent earthling would wonder why a spaceship would give off a lot of light.



on edit - oops wrong youtube. The effects at the end of this one are totally replicable by tired human eyeballs attached to a tired human brain.

That firefly video pretty clearly illustrates how it could easily have been a firefly.

 

[carlitos]

You can't perceive distance of a light in the night sky, genius.


ETA - "departure" "object" "acceleration maneuver" - ufology, you are a fantasist, but a funny one, I'll give you that.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well ... our own spaceships give off a lot of light as part of their propulsion mechanism. Maybe it's the same idea but a different kind of engine. The object got really bright before it did its instant accelleration maneuver during departure.

And maybe it was covered with luminous space algae.

BTW: Thanks for posting the firefly video. It helps demonstrate why there is no way you could see one of those interesting little bugs over 3Km away.

No, it helps demonstrate why what you're claiming to have seen wasn't anything like 3 km away.

 

[Garrison]

Well ... our own spaceships give off a lot of light as part of their propulsion mechanism. Maybe it's the same idea but a different kind of engine. The object got really bright before it did its instant accelleration maneuver during departure.

BTW: Thanks for posting the firefly video. It helps demonstrate why there is no way you could see one of those interesting little bugs over 3Km away.

That assumes your recollections of distance and interaction with the environment are accurate, which is impossible to objectively assess, which in turn is why such anecdotal accounts have so little value as evidence.
In essence all you have to offer is a story and your personal assurance it is absolutely accurate, not nearly enough to expect anyone to accept it was an alien spacecraft.

 

[R.A.F.]

...It also helps to illustrate what I had said about moving the goalposts.

No, not that at all...when I say "evidence", I generally accept that other person will know what I am talking about.

In YOUR case, I don't know that at all, so I must carefully explain what I mean or you will twist it. (As you are attempting to do know.)

If I am wrong...

With you, that has become a "given".

...what written testimony from crediblepeople will the skeptics here accept?

So the assumption you are making is, a credible person can never be mistaken? Sounds like a rather naive opinion to me.

 

[GeeMack]

You make an interesting point with respect to the glowing orb UFOs. They may be structured craft that give off a lot of light, but we aren't certain, and in the absence of the maneuvers the object pulled off, I would have to agree that the object would fall squarely under the UAP category, perhaps an "earthlights" type of phenomenon.

There were a few common, mundane, known-to-exist possibilities that were suggested earlier in the thread, and you freely admitted that none of them could be reasonably eliminated as potential explanations for your experience. No UFOs, aliens, UAPs, gods, or fairies are necessary.

 

[carlitos]

And maybe it was covered with luminous space algae.

That's what the intraspacial fishes eat.

In essence all you have to offer is a story and your personal assurance it is absolutely accurate,

Yeah, but the 1974 "at cottage" after midnight with friends listening to Led Zeppelin makes it so much more believable. Tired eyeballs attached to tired brains are the best recorders of visual phenomena, don't ya know.

I love that ufology claims that he wrote his sighting tale down, but has no idea where it is now. Exactly like another of our resident fantasists, currently on hiatus, KotA.

 

[R.A.F.]

That assumes your recollections of distance and interaction with the environment are accurate, which is impossible to objectively assess, which in turn is why such anecdotal accounts have so little value as evidence.

Whenever I hear a size "estimate" for a completely unknown object, I wonder how anyone could know just how big an unknown object "was".

 

[23_Tauri]

GeeMack:

Unfortunately you choose to deny the overwhelming dicumented evidence in support of what the word UFO means to convey,

The overwhelming documented evidence in support of UFOs being alien craft? Really? Well, we're up to page 323 of this thread and we haven't had any yet so if you'd like to post some....

and choose self-servingly to portray it using not the actual definition(s) or even the common understanding,...

Project much?

but the mere word origin in the form of the individual words that makeup the acronym.

That's what an acronym is, individual words abbreviated to letters, unless you want to redefine that as well...

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.

That's exactly what other believers say about Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, Bigfoot, faeries, angels and all those other paranormal beings that you say aren't comparable to alien spaceships.

I freely admit that I cannot replicate my observation and therefore cannot provide scientific proof. Therefore you may reasonably choose to dismiss that evidence and/or reserve judgement, ( reject the null hypothesis ),

Reserving judgement would be to accept the null hypothesis as an invitation to others to come forward with evidence to falsify it. But you still don't understand that.

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.

I don't think GeeMack has said that. I think (and GeeMack, correct me if I get this wrong) that he has implied that you're claim that UFOs are alien craft is somewhat absurd taking into account the fact that no UFO has ever been shown to be an alien space craft. UFOs have, however, been found to be a multitude of other things, from gooses and blimps to Venus and oil well flares. In the light of this, whose argument is coming from a place of ignorance?

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

What makes you so certain that Santa Claus and unicorns are fairy tales? What makes alien spacecraft less of a fairy tale than a unicorn, seeing as not one of either of these curious beasts has ever been found?

Consequently, it seems we have nothing further to discuss. 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.

I could find you some videos of Santa Claus. Would those videos constitute evidence that Santa is alive and well in Lapland and getting all the little boys and girls presents ready in time for Christmas, on which night he will fly across the sky in his sleigh pulled by a dozen reindeer?

 

[John Albert]

If you mean that everyone else chooses to use the common and actual definition of UFO to mean Unidentified Flying Object, then you are correct. You are, therefore, attempting to use an outdated, cherry picked and superseded definition which nobody but you wants to use.

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.

One look inside any dictionary will prove you wrong.

Likewise, one look at the USAF regulations will also prove you wrong, because the specific wording you cite for your definition have been cherry-picked from an outdated, superseded, obsolete definition from the late 1950s.

The most recent USAF definition of "UFO" reads as follows:

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

Even the other pseudoscientists disagree with you. You're all alone on this one and you aren't going to get anyone else to agree. Here, the term UFO will mean Unidentified Flying Objects, as it is meant to be defined. What you do in your club is your business. It is simply dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

RoboTimbo is 100% right, Mr. J. Randall Murphy, sole proprietor of pseudoscience bookstore "Ufology Society International."

You're not fooling anybody with this nonsense. We can all see right through your dishonest little semantical shell game. Nobody trusts anything you say anymore, especially where word definitions, science knowledge or your own personal experiences are concerned, because you've been caught in too many lies.