UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

But not UFO sightings, for some strange reason.

Paul,

Objective corroboration can certainly include independent sightings or whatever else may be applicable. For example if some channeller claims to be in contact with some advanced alien race, then provide some insights on how to make an antigravity device, or something so far beyond their comprehension that it would have to be taken seriously, or perhaps a real time description of some verifiable event at a distant location. So far there has been no evidence of this kind produced.

Perhaps this speaks to my own bias because the same can be said for typical witnesses. The difference in my mind is that mere witnesses don't claim to have any direct access to insider information. If the channellers and contactees and abductees have this direct access, we should be able to expect more evidence. Mere witnesses however are more detached, and many are not even believers in the first place. They are just reporting what they saw ... and since I've seen a UFO myself, it wouldn't be reasonable of me to think nobody else has.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Paul,

Objective corroboration can certainly include independent sightings or whatever else may be applicable. For example if some channeller claims to be in contact with some advanced alien race, then provide some insights on how to make an antigravity device, or something so far beyond their comprehension that it would have to be taken seriously, or perhaps a real time description of some verifiable event at a distant location. So far there has been no evidence of this kind produced.

Perhaps this speaks to my own bias because the same can be said for typical witnesses. The difference in my mind is that mere witnesses don't claim to have any direct access to insider information. If the channellers and contactees and abductees have this direct access, we should be able to expect more evidence. Mere witnesses however are more detached, and many are not even believers in the first place. They are just reporting what they saw ... and since I've seen a UFO myself, it wouldn't be reasonable of me to think nobody else has.

But they aren't detached and they aren't just reporting what they saw. They are attempting to identify what is, by definition, Unidentified. Look at you, for example.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Paul,

Objective corroboration can certainly include independent sightings or whatever else may be applicable. For example if some channeller claims to be in contact with some advanced alien race, then provide some insights on how to make an antigravity device, or something so far beyond their comprehension that it would have to be taken seriously, or perhaps a real time description of some verifiable event at a distant location. So far there has been no evidence of this kind produced.

And yet strangely you still aren't applying that same requirement to people who have claimed to see a ufo and called it a spaceship.

You know, like Paul actually said...

 

[Tomtomkent]

Perhaps this speaks to my own bias because the same can be said for typical witnesses. The difference in my mind is that mere witnesses don't claim to have any direct access to insider information.

So if you DONT have any information, and are biased, on what grounds can you claim a UFO is an alien vessel? On what grounds, with out insider information, can you claim a point of light was the size of a car?

 

[Paul2]

Paul,

Objective corroboration can certainly include independent sightings or whatever else may be applicable. For example if some channeller claims to be in contact with some advanced alien race, then provide some insights on how to make an antigravity device, or something so far beyond their comprehension that it would have to be taken seriously, or perhaps a real time description of some verifiable event at a distant location. So far there has been no evidence of this kind produced.

Perhaps this speaks to my own bias because the same can be said for typical witnesses. The difference in my mind is that mere witnesses don't claim to have any direct access to insider information. If the channellers and contactees and abductees have this direct access, we should be able to expect more evidence. Mere witnesses however are more detached, and many are not even believers in the first place. They are just reporting what they saw ... and since I've seen a UFO myself, it wouldn't be reasonable of me to think nobody else has.

Ufology, you are confusing the standards of evidence with the expected frequency or possibility of that evidence.

Whether it is necessary to have objective corroboration to accept a claim has nothing to do with whether that corroboration is likely or possible. It's the nature of the claim - including whether it is extraordinary or not - that defines the standard for the evidence needed to accept the claim. If it's easy to get that evidence, then great. If not, it's still needed to accept the claim.

 

[ufology]

And yet you show no scepticism over the very existence of alien spaceships, and insist UFO=Alien with out evidence?
And yet you show no scepticism about your own tale, where "a point of light" has become "the size of a VW".
And yet you show scepticism about unfounded claims of those who have seen UFOs, and accept their word with out question?

Tomtomkent,

You're taking a lot of things out of context, probably as presented by other skeptics here. I've made no claim to being certain UFOs are space ships, only that they are alien to our human civilization.

As for evidence. I've asked for a definition from the skeptics from any independent source along with references. If I've missed that response, please provide the link. Then we can discuss the evidence within the defined parameters.

Regarding my own sighting, I never called it a "point of light" you did. So don't misrepresent my position. And if you think that you can't judge the size of an illuminated object at a distance of 3Km then you are just plain wrong. Human vision can easily make out objects much much farther away. The object went down between the trees on the east side of the highway on the other side of the lake. These are all visual cues that allow for an estimation of size and distance. I've explained all this already. So please avoid making any more unfounded assertions. If you think my logic is in error, fine, explain your position. Mere denial is prejudicial. If you want to reserve judgement and not bother inquiring about my sighting, also fine. But going beyond that to calling it a "tale" once again only illustraes prejudice and bias, not valid skepticism.

 

[23_Tauri]

No, you have misrepresented the majority of abductee and contactee events by taking them out of context. They have exactly the same amount and quality of evidence that people who believe some UFOs are alien space ships have. The UFOs as aliens belief can easily achieve cult-like status and a religious-like belief. Those are the people who can't be objectively skeptical of their own beliefs. Look at you, for example.


Oh good, you do see the parallels between the religious cult-like beliefs of abductees/contactees and UFOs as alien believers. You simply have had your UFOs as aliens filtered goggles on for your own pet relion-like cultish beliefs.

Can you genuinely not see any parallels?

Not forgetting "Snad's stuff", the space serpents. Let's not forget the space serpents now, because believing in them is nothing like believing in technologically advanced aliens skimming around in the spaceships.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7528122#post7528122

Snad's stuff is associated with cryptozoology, which is of peripheral interst to ufologists. At the present time in ufology, it falls under the general area of UFO studies right next to mythology and is given about as much weight ( in terms of reality ) as Pegasus or unicorns.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Tomtomkent,

You're taking a lot of things out of context, probably as presented by other skeptics here. I've made no claim to being certain UFOs are space ships, only that they are alien to our human civilization.

And in that you are incorrect. UFOs are Unidentified Flying Objects because they are Unidentified, appear to be Flying, and appear to be Objects. How do you get from it being Unidentified to Identified? Did you think that your mere attempt at Rredefinition would make it some sort of subjective reality?

 

[23_Tauri]

The object went down between the trees on the east side of the highway on the other side of the lake.

Like a car at night, ( maybe even a VW Beetle! ) coming down the highway with its headlights on. Then it disappeared and moments later some fireflies started a figure of eight mating dance a few metres in front of the observer. It's quite dark, and the observer might get a little confused, thinking that the latter lights were the same object as the former.

Just putting it out there as a possibility....

 

[RoboTimbo]

Like a car at night, ( maybe even a VW Beetle! ) coming down the highway with its headlights on. Then it disappeared and moments later some fireflies started a figure of eight mating dance a few metres in front of the observer. It's quite dark, and the observer might get a little confused, thinking that the latter lights were the same object as the former.

Just putting it out there as a possibility....

That sounds plausible, there's plenty of evidence for such a scenario. In the end, it doesn't really matter which mundane explanation ufology wants to choose. Without any evidence for his alternative explanation of ayleeuns, we'll just have to go with the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

even his.

 

[ufology]

Ufology, you are confusing the standards of evidence with the expected frequency or possibility of that evidence.

Whether it is necessary to have objective corroboration to accept a claim has nothing to do with whether that corroboration is likely or possible. It's the nature of the claim - including whether it is extraordinary or not - that defines the standard for the evidence needed to accept the claim. If it's easy to get that evidence, then great. If not, it's still needed to accept the claim.

Paul,

I'm not confusing anything. I just don't buy the "standards of evidence" argument. Evidence is simply what it is and it is only the biases of the mind that add subjective qualities like "extraordinary" to it. Perhaps you should consider a less loaded word like "sufficient". All claims require sufficient evidence. In many cases sufficient evidence is self-evident. In other cases it's not. That's when we have to dig deeper ... and if we find sufficient evidence, then it's still no more extraordinary than any other sufficient evidence ( at least not in an objective way ). But it might seem extraordinary in a subjective way.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ufology, I posted the link twice. I am not going to do it a third time as you keep missing the link. Why not scroll back a few pages and find it yourself?

And what is the point of berating me for claiming you equate ufo with alien, when when you have argued it means alien yourself?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Maybe some skeptic here will debunk it like the MIG pursuit video, I dunno. I'm open to that because I haven't seen this incident debunked yet.

It's funny but I've never thought this way. Knowing the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

why would any particular case need to be debunked? Doesn't it make more sense that any particular case would need to be shown conclusively to be non-mundane? This seems to just be a by-product of how the credulous believer mindset works.

ufology, doesn't your position that cases need to be debunked rather than cases need to be shown to be non-mundane attempt to illogically switch the burden of proof? Have you changed your mind about this or do you still not comprehend the null hypothesis and the burden of proof?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Paul,

I'm not confusing anything. I just don't buy the "standards of evidence" argument. Evidence is simply what it is and it is only the biases of the mind that add subjective qualities.

Ah, so posting the links to the scientific method and definitions of evidence would be pointless anyway. You don't "buy" it.

 

[Akhenaten]

Paul,

I'm not confusing anything. I just don't buy the "standards of evidence" argument.

Fortunately for us all, you aren't in charge of defining objective reality.

<Rramjetness>


But it might seem extraordinary in a subjective way.

That should fit in quite nicely with your subjective truth nonsense, surely.

 

[ufology]

Like a car at night, ( maybe even a VW Beetle! ) coming down the highway with its headlights on. Then it disappeared and moments later some fireflies started a figure of eight mating dance a few metres in front of the observer. It's quite dark, and the observer might get a little confused, thinking that the latter lights were the same object as the former.

Just putting it out there as a possibility....

Tauri:

Actually, I can imagine something like that happening to some half wasted campfire partier ... although I've never seen fireflies around Invermere, I have spent some time watching the same area hoping to have a repeat sighting, and I have seen cars at night along the highway and mountain roads. If one was prone to exaggeration and spinning tall tales ( and some people are ), I could see how someone could come up with a UFO story exactly that way ... it's one of the most reasonable things you've said in a while. You should try kidding around more often .

 

[RoboTimbo]

Paul,

I'm not confusing anything. I just don't buy the "standards of evidence" argument. Evidence is simply what it is and it is only the biases of the mind that add subjective qualities like "extraordinary" to it. Perhaps you should consider a less loaded word like "sufficient". All claims require sufficient evidence. In many cases sufficient evidence is self-evident. In other cases it's not. That's when we have to dig deeper ... and if we find sufficient evidence, then it's still no more extraordinary than any other sufficient evidence ( at least not in an objective way ). But it might seem extraordinary in a subjective way.

Try something else. Rramjet was a spectacular failure at this argument.

Extraordinary claims continue to require extraordinary evidence, whether you like it or not.

 

[ufology]

Try something else. Rramjet was a spectacular failure at this argument.

Extraordinary claims continue to require extraordinary evidence, whether you like it or not.

Robo,

Whether I like it or not eh ... no bias there. Go ahead and inject your bias into your standards ... I'll just settle for sufficient evidence and leave the extraordinary part up to those who are out seeking to be amazed.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Try something else. Rramjet was a spectacular failure at this argument.

Extraordinary claims continue to require extraordinary evidence, whether you like it or not.

actual evidence would be a good start.

 

[ufology]

actual evidence would be a good start.

Tomtomkent,

I'm still waiting on that definition of evidence with references ... if I missed it please provide the link. Then we can discuss the evidence within agreed to parameters.