UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[carlitos]

edge:

I think your question is one we'd all like an answer for. The object I saw was fairly small and although it may have had a pilot, I really doubt it. To me it seemed more like some kind of A.I. recon probe. If it was piloted, then it couldn't have accommodated many crew ( at least humanoid crew ). I estimate it was about the size of a VW Beetle, and it seemed spherical, but the thing was self-luminous ( the whole thing seemed to emit light rather than having light fixtures ), and its glow made the boundary between the object itself and its surroundings hard to discern. Other than being a UFO, I don't know what it was, or if it even had pilots. Maybe the thing was some kind of Kurzweilian life form ... an evolved A.I. ... or maybe as the skeptics here have suggested it was just a firefly ... the size of car that could fly thousands of miles per hour ;-)

Without generating a sonic boom. On earth, in earth's atmosphere. How interesting. It's almost like it didn't really happen the way ufology remembers it. Anyway, that's quite a fantasy you have going up there - Kurzwelian A.I. anal recon probe?

Carlitos:

Don't worry. So far you've offered very little constructive to add anyway, and I can link directly to your comments without wasting my drive space.

Your lack of appreciation for the "skeptics" doing all of the UFO research here is noted. Project much?

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...

Indeed. He came here to get "skeptics" to bash the Raelians and other nonsense, not to critically examine his own nonsense. Or maybe what Cuddles suggested.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo,

Whether I like it or not eh ... no bias there. Go ahead and inject your bias into your standards ...

Yes, reality is like that. It's real whether you like it or not. It's good that you can agree that reality is biased that way.

I'll just settle for sufficient evidence and leave the extraordinary part up to those who are out seeking to be amazed.

Actually, you settle for no evidence because you are predisposed to believe in OMG PseudoAliens. Don't you remember claiming that your personal reality and the truth had nothing to do with each other?

 

[Akhenaten]

Akhenaten:

Granted or "grant it" ... whatever; and since we're being picky, you might want to check your spelling on "civilisations".

I'll do that while you're checking your atlas, will I?

The interpretation of alien as being from outside of our human civilization implies that UFOs may come from a place on Earth not connected with human civilization ( any nation or culture known to exist on Earth ). I think the chance of this is unlikely because we have explored so much of the planet that we should have discovered them by now. However because we don't know for certain where UFOs originate, we can't rule it out either.

Good thing you didn't have any credibility left to lose.

 

[carlitos]

If one was prone to exaggeration and spinning tall tales ( and some people are )

Says the guy who claims to have talked to a rabbit like in Alice and Wonderland, and who had "men in black" cross his path in a late model Cadillac of which only 99 were produced?


Dude, I'm glad you dropped the pretense; we're just spinning yarns and kidding with each other here. That's much better and the honesty is refreshing, but you might want to move your comments to Forum Community and not in the UFO Research and Evidence thread.

 

[Paul2]

I just don't buy the "standards of evidence" argument.

I'm not sure what you think the standards of evidence argument is, so let's go one step at a time. Do you agree with this statement?

Whether it is necessary to have objective corroboration to accept a claim has nothing to do with whether that corroboration is likely or possible.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Says the guy who claims to have talked to a rabbit like in Alice and Wonderland, and who had "men in black" cross his path in a late model Cadillac of which only 99 were produced?


Dude, I'm glad you dropped the pretense; we're just spinning yarns and kidding with each other here. That's much better and the honesty is refreshing, but you might want to move your comments to Forum Community and not in the UFO Research and Evidence thread.

Can you imagine something like that happening to some half wasted campfire partier?

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Context? You mean the one that includes a version of Atlantis?

Are you hoping to turn this thread into a comic book at some stage? Don't forget that the rest of us will be chasing royalties.

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.

Perhaps everyone knows that you'll simply reject any definition that doesn't allow anecdotes to be accepted. That game was played out long before you got here.

Regarding my own sighting, I never called it a "point of light" you did. So don't misrepresent my position.

Since your position is that nothing will convince you that your sighting was anything other than an alien craft, that your memory is infallible, that truth and reality are subjective and that you are entitled to your own version of each of them and that it's reasonable to posit an earthbound civilisation other than our own which is capable of building and operating aerospace vehicles then I'd suggest that misrepresenting that position is the best thing you could hope for.

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.

Apples and oranges, Mr Fology. What we grown-ups call 'equivocation'.

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.

Quick!!! Call the Skepticism Police!!! Yank their licences immediately!!!

 

[Marduk]

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.
.

This is the context
not only have you admitted that you were into UFO's since you were seven you also claim
1. To have had Out of Body Experiences in the 1960s
2. To have been abducted with other children and experienced missing time in 1965
3. To have travelled through a dimensiional portal in 1973 which you refer to as a "Glitch in the Matrix"
4. To have witnessed a firefly UFO in 1975, a story which you have refined here while we were all watching
5. To have crashed into a cadillac driven by men in black in 1977
6. To have been visited at your home by three men in black who were posing as Jehovas witnesses in 1990
7. To have witnessed other paranormal phenomena including hauntings and iconic religious manifestations as well as levitation
http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Murphy-02a.htm
clearly, you are either the most Alien infested person on the planet, who also coincidentally happens to be trying to earn a living from a UFO believers website
or you're a liar
or the only other remaining possibility


I think we'd need to speak to Karen wouldn't we, though I expect the M.I.B. have silenced her by now

 

[Tomtomkent]

Im confused. Assuming that Ufology was correct in guessing -sorry calculating- the size and distance of the "illuminated object" is he seriously suggesting he would be able to see more than a point of light?

Something as small as a beetle, with distances varying from "two thirds of the way up a Mountain" to distances far higher? How big are VWs over there? Does perspective work differently?

 

[23_Tauri]

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.

Glad you agree.

You should try kidding around more often .

I wasn't.

 

[Correa Neto]

Well, UFO threads had a tendency to spin around KotA's sighting for a while. Now it seems ufology's sighting is the axis. Similar things happen with bigfoot, ghosts, mystical experiences, etc. Threads spinning around someone's claims. Sounds a lot like people craving for attention, to be noticed, to other people acknowledging they are special.

Hey, here! Look at me! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME!

 

[23_Tauri]

Im confused. Assuming that Ufology was correct in guessing -sorry calculating- the size and distance of the "illuminated object" is he seriously suggesting he would be able to see more than a point of light?

Something as small as a beetle, with distances varying from "two thirds of the way up a Mountain" to distances far higher? How big are VWs over there? Does perspective work differently?

Hi tomtomkent
I think you came late to the party, but no worries, if you go back to pages 233 - 234 of this thread you'll see there was some earlier discussion (with illustrations!) of the No Sonic Boom VW element of the story.

ETA: you could do worse than start with this foxy chappie here

 

[Marduk]

ETA: you could do worse than start with this foxy chappie here

ah yes, those Halcyon days when Rramjet wasn't yet Dirk Biddle

 

[ufology]

Im confused. Assuming that Ufology was correct in guessing -sorry calculating- the size and distance of the "illuminated object" is he seriously suggesting he would be able to see more than a point of light?

Something as small as a beetle, with distances varying from "two thirds of the way up a Mountain" to distances far higher? How big are VWs over there? Does perspective work differently?

Tomtomkent:

A point of light to me is like a star in the sky. This was not that small. Automobile headlamps on the highway at that distance look like points. This was not that small, more like a whole vehicle was giving off light. And since you could make out the line of the treetops as it went down into them, and you could see the way the light filterd out through them, estimating the object itself to be about the size of a car is about right. I use the VW Beetle as an example because the thing seemed spherical and VWs have that rounded look to them. Lastly, the diffused glow around the object was much larger than the object itself.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ah yes, those Halcyon days when Rramjet wasn't yet Dirk Biddle

As far as we know, he still isn't.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Tomtomkent:

A point of light to me is like a star in the sky. This was not that small. Automobile headlamps on the highway at that distance look like points. This was not that small, more like a whole vehicle was giving off light. And since you could make out the line of the treetops as it went down into them, and you could see the way the light filterd out through them, estimating the object itself to be about the size of a car is about right. I use the VW Beetle as an example because the thing seemed spherical and VWs have that rounded look to them. Lastly, the diffused glow around the object was much larger than the object itself.

And yet one of the latest additions to your story has been that you couldn't tell the outline of it due to the glow. You therefore would not be able to discern size of shape.

How will you embellish your story now to set that right?

 

[Garrison]

Tomtomkent:

A point of light to me is like a star in the sky. This was not that small. Automobile headlamps on the highway at that distance look like points.

If we assume your estimate of distance is reliable, which we have no reason to assume.

 

[carlitos]

Tomtomkent:

A point of light to me is like a star in the sky. This was not that small. Automobile headlamps on the highway at that distance look like points. This was not that small, more like a whole vehicle was giving off light. And since you could make out the line of the treetops as it went down into them, and you could see the way the light filterd out through them, estimating the object itself to be about the size of a car is about right. I use the VW Beetle as an example because the thing seemed spherical and VWs have that rounded look to them. Lastly, the diffused glow around the object was much larger than the object itself.

When my eyes are tired, I get the halo-like glow around lights too. If it only happens on drugs or when you're tired, I wouldn't worry about it.

http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/eye-problems.htm

Halos around lights

cataract, corneal edema, corneal opacity, drugs, glaucoma, migraine, ocular migraine

 

[ufology]

I'm not sure what you think the standards of evidence argument is, so let's go one step at a time ...

Paul,

Fair enough. I had presumed it was the old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" routine.

Q. Are objective corroboration and the likelihood or possibility of corroboration all separate issues?

A. Yes. Illustrative example:

T'Pol: The Vulcan Science Directorate has determoned that time travel is impossible.

Archer: Well, good for the Vulcan Science Directorate.

​

 

[RoboTimbo]

Paul,

Fair enough. I had presumed it was the old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" routine.

That one always does leave the pseudoscientific credulous UFOlogists stymied. Don't forget the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

which has never been falsified.

Any chance of you ever answering my questions about the null hypothesis or the burden of proof?