UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Paul2]

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.

​

I'm not sure I get your example, but I don't think it matters.

One small clarification. When you agree that yes, objective corroboration and the likelihood of it are separate issues, what you hopefully mean - what I meant - was the necessity, or lack thereof, of objective corroboration, is a separate issue from the likelihood of it. Please confirm.

Assuming that confirmation, then the next question is:

What types of claims need objective corroboration, and which don't? I think we can immediately dismiss claims stemming solely from subjective experience, such as qualia. Other than that, it seems to me that any claim about external reality requires objective corroboration. How about you?

 

[Akhenaten]

Paul,

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

I don't think ECREE will be causing you too many problems. You don't have any evidence at all, let alone the extraordinary kind.

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

A. Yes. Illustrative example:

As long as you continue in your refusal to learn how to quote properly people are going to have doubts that these little Q/A thingies accurately reproduce the questions you've been asked. Those aren't Paul2's words, are they?

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

Archer: Well, good for the Vulcan Science Directorate.

​

The only thing more unsurprising than that you'd use a TV show to illustrate your understanding of the discussion is that your 'illustrative example' illustrates exactly nothing.

 

[ufology]

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

Garrison:

Assuming doesn't require reasons. It's done mostly for the sake of discussion. For example, "Assuming that such and such is true, then it follows that ...".

What you really mean is that you have no evidence other than my word that what I say happened actually took place. Fair enough. I'm just a regular guy. Not a pilot or police officer or astronomer. Plus the sighting itself is quite plain. No big fancy ship that blocked out the sky or that kind of thing. It was only about as amazing as ... well ... a flying ball of light that could go from a dead stop to thousands of miles an hour in the snap of your finger ... you know ... nothing special.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Garrison:

Assuming doesn't require reasons. It's done mostly for the sake of discussion. For example, "Assuming that such and such is true, then it follows that ...".

What you really mean is that you have no evidence other than my word that what I say happened actually took place. Fair enough. I'm just a regular guy. Not a pilot or police officer or astronomer. Plus the sighting itself is quite plain. No big fancy ship that blocked out the sky or that kind of thing. It was only about as amazing as ... well ... a flying ball of light that could go from a dead stop to thousands of miles an hour in the snap of your finger ... you know ... nothing special.

Yep, if we assume your known problems with memory and misperception means that it is more likely to have been a firefly inches or feet from you.

 

[Marduk]

I'm just a regular guy. .

no, according to your own claims, you are the most visited (by aliens) person in history, yet are trying to claim to be objective

yet you have no supporting evidence, for anything
lets get this clear
you are claiming, 7+ personal experiences of the paranormal type, the vast majority of which concern "Aliens", or stereotypically "Alien phenomena"
http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Murphy-02a.htm
wow, like thats just unbelievable dude, have you submitted yourself to the military for examination yet, they'd pay you, you're like Alien catnip

 

[GeeMack]

What you really mean is that you have no evidence other than my word that what I say happened actually took place.

It's not "other than your word". There is no evidence. Your word is a claim. Evidence would be what you bring in to support the claim. You have none. And maybe more germane to the issue, your credibility is nonexistent.

Fair enough. I'm just a regular guy. Not a pilot or police officer or astronomer.

Pilots and police officers and astronomers are just regular guys, too. None of them would have any better memory than you. And yours has proven to be quite fallible.

Plus the sighting itself is quite plain.

Of course it was. Unidentified flying objects, or things that are perceived to be UFOs, are ubiquitous.

No big fancy ship that blocked out the sky or that kind of thing. It was only about as amazing as ... well ... a flying ball of light that could go from a dead stop to thousands of miles an hour in the snap of your finger ... you know ... nothing special.

How did you measure the speed? Sounds like a wild guess, particularly since your memory has proven to be quite fallible and your tales, by nature of the fact that they continue to change and evolve, are not remotely believable.

And why exactly couldn't what you claim just as easily be explained as some prankster god putting a vision directly into your head?

 

[ufology]

"... it seems to me that any claim about external reality requires objective corroboration. How about you?"

Paul:

I would say that objective corroboration can help to establish the validity of any claim regardless of its subjective "extraordinaryness". But is it "required"? No. I believe we should all have the opportunity to share our experiences without restriction ( at least within the bounds of decorum ) without fear of mockery, riducule and bias. Does that mean people are required to believe mere accounts of such experiences? No. Should they be free to question them? Absolutely. Should they be free to doubt them? Of course. Is it fair to call them frauds in the absence of proof? Maybe, but the circumstances need to be taken into consideration. For most UFO witnesses, I would say it's not fair to brand them as frauds. In fact it's the ones with the so-called evidence who are in my opinion more suspect ( e.g. alien autopsy video ). Again, this is a biased opinion, but I find most everyday people to be quite sincere.

 

[GeeMack]

Yep, if we assume your known problems with memory and misperception means that it is more likely to have been a firefly inches or feet from you.

Backed by much support found within this thread, it seems equally as likely that it never really happened at all.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Paul:

I would say that objective corroboration can help to establish the validity of any claim regardless of its subjective "extraordinaryness". But is it "required"? No. I believe we should all have the opportunity to share our experiences without restriction ( at least within the bounds of decorum ) without fear of mockery, riducule and bias. Does that mean people are required to believe mere accounts of such experiences? No. Should they be free to question them? Absolutely. Should they be free to doubt them? Of course. Is it fair to call them frauds in the absence of proof? Maybe, but the circumstances need to be taken into consideration. For most UFO witnesses, I would say it's not fair to brand them as frauds. In fact it's the ones with the so-called evidence who are in my opinion more suspect as frauds ( e.g. alien autopsy video ).

Now in your reality you are more credible because you have no evidence at all for your decades old claim?

 

[Resume]

Again, this is a biased opinion, but I find most everyday people to be quite sincere.

Yes, they can be sincere and mistaken.

 

[ufology]

Now in your reality you are more credible because you have no evidence at all for your decades old claim?

Robo:

Yes. Ironic isn't it. But I'd be more inclined to think a regular bigfoot witness was sincere ( possibly mistaken ... but sincere ) than I am of the Patterson video. Same with most UFO videos I see on You Tube these days. I'm more inclined to believe the old RCAF airman I interviewed more than You Tube. Then there are the so-called experts with all the credentials ... who was it who just recently decided to pack ufology in after he was accused of faking his credentials ... Imbrogno I think. For me, physical evidence and academic credentials cause me to be more, not less suspicious. I tend to make exceptions for certain types though, like pilots ( especially military ) or recognized scientists like Hynek.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo:

Yes. Ironic isn't it. But I'd be more inclined to think a regular bigfoot witness was sincere ( possibly mistaken ... but sincere ) than I am of the Patterson video. Same with most UFO videos I see on You Tube these days. I'm more inclined to believe the old RCAF airman I interviewed more than You Tube. Then there are the so-called experts with all the credentials ... who was it who just recently decided to pack ufology in after he was accused of faking his credentials ... Imbrogno I think. For me, physical evidence and academic credentials cause me to be more, not less suspicious. I tend to make exceptions for certain types though, like pilots ( especially military ) or recognized scientists like Hynek.

Then your personal reality doesn't conform to actual reality. You've been shown where military pilots can misperceive things. That you give so much credence to unfalsifiable anecdotes (which are claims) and use them as evidence for themselves to justify your belief in extraordinary things is, at best, ill advised.

And you unblushingly admit that UFOs are your pet blind spot and you wouldn't uncritically allow the same laxity in other beliefs than your own.

 

[ufology]

Then your personal reality doesn't conform to actual reality. You've been shown where military pilots can misperceive things. That you give so much credence to unfalsifiable anecdotes (which are claims) and use them as evidence for themselves to justify your belief in extraordinary things is, at best, ill advised.

And you unblushingly admit that UFOs are your pet blind spot and you wouldn't uncritically allow the same laxity in other beliefs than your own.

Robo:

I've never said anyone is impervious to misperceptions. I've only stated that military pilots are less prone to them and creating hoaxes because of their experience, training and consequences. I've never stated that I blindly believe every UFO story I hear, only that because of my own experience I'm more inclined to listen to other people's stories. I also admit and recognize my bias and therefore can work with it. My "personal reality" or world view is no doubt different than yours, but who are you to determine how well it conforms to reality. Just because you don't believe in UFOs doesn't mean I'm not in touch with reality. Just because I place a higher value on human experience than you do doesn't mean I'm easily deceived. Maybe try to lose a little of that cynicism.

 

[Akhenaten]

Robo:

I've never said anyone is impervious to misperceptions.

Just yourself.


Although I should probably point out that 'impervious to misperceptions' doesn't actually mean anything and that I'm guessing you meant 'unsusceptible' or something similar.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo:

I've never said anyone is impervious to misperceptions.

But you discount it when it suits your purpose.

I've only stated that military pilots are less prone to them and creating hoaxes because of their experience, training and consequences.

And you've been shown that military pilots are not immune to misperception. And because you've never been able to articulate when they are and when they aren't, it is always based on your personal bias whether you think they are correct or not.

I've never stated that I blindly believe every UFO story I hear,

Then it's a good thing that nobody accused you of it either. Why do you continue to use that strawman?

only that because of my own experience I'm more inclined to listen to other people's stories.

Because you're predisposed to believe that UFOs are Alien Space Ships, you believe that some UFOs are Alien Space Ships. Yes, I know.

I also admit and recognize my bias and therefore can work with it.

Because of your bias, you don't recognize it nor do you attempt to eliminate it. The very definition of pseudoscience.

My "personal reality" or world view is no doubt different than yours, but who are you to determine how well it conforms to reality.

I use a falsifiable null hypothesis. How do you do it?

Just because you don't believe in UFOs doesn't mean I'm not in touch with reality.

Everyone here believes in UFOs. What there is no evidence for is that any of them are Alien Space Ships so there is no justification for believing it.

Just because I place a higher value on human experience than you do doesn't mean I'm easily deceived. Maybe try to lose a little of that cynicism.

That is your personal bias leading you astray. You place a higher value on unfalsifiable anecdotes and believe them to be evidence for themselves because they agree with your religion like belief in OMG PseudoAliens.


ETA: Maybe try to lose a little bit of the open mouthed gullibility.

 

[GeeMack]

[* Nonsense excuse making snipped. *] Just because I place a higher value on human experience than you do doesn't mean I'm easily deceived. Maybe try to lose a little of that cynicism.

And we are exactly where we started when you arrived at the JREF. You are blaming other people for your inability to support your own claim. It was a dishonest argument the first time you tried it and it's dishonest now. And, by the way, haven't you realized that you always get caught? You just can't get away with it. Any reason you keep trying?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Sorry to be persistent, but looking at the google maps and varying descriptions of the event the "object" was 3km away, before we factor in the height. How large does a vw beetle appear 3km away? In daylight it ain't huge. At night, glowing, it would still be little more than a spot of light. At that distance the glare of head lamps, or of light on the windshield would appear larger than the entire car.

At 3km even my best lookout on track would be squinting at a train... considerably wider and taller than a vw bug.

 

[edge]

Belief is irrelevant. Evidence would be interesting.

Well if you ecpect me to show you a ray gun forget it.
One day...maybe you see the real thing and then you'll know that we on this side of the table are right in our thoughts.

 

[Stray Cat]

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]

well if you ecpect me to show you a ray gun forget it.
One day...maybe you see the real thing and then you'll know that we on this side of the table are right in our thoughts.

Why is it that the credulous are the ones who don't want there to be any evidence?