UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

So again, hardly a "point of light".

Indeed. It's hardly even a decent story.

 

[AdMan]

JimOfAllTrades:

Thanks for the calculations there. But just to note. A VW is 13.55 feet long, so you can more than double your estimates, which sounds about right ( 8-9 times the apparent size of Jupiter ) for the core, and then there was a glow around the thing, that extended out about 3 times the width of the core all around it and tapered off fairly rapidly after that. So again, hardly a "point of light".

Your calculations have been so way off overall, that I would probably stay away from using measurements to try to support any of your claims.

How are your attempts at redefining "UFO" going with the ufulogists, by the way? Contact MUFON yet with your personal definition?

 

[Stray Cat]

Sorry, I assumed you meant a front view, such as would be seen if the car were approaching you.

Yes I would have assumed the same, as ufology never mentioned anything about the shape being a lot wider than it was tall and he neglected to tell us the shape was about the size of a VW beetle sitting on top of another VW beetle..

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes I would have assumed the same, as ufology never mentioned anything about the shape being a lot wider than it was tall and he neglected to tell us the shape was about the size of a VW beetle sitting on top of another VW beetle..

That's what's known as "updating my description" or sometimes as "the story has evolved". It's just a coincidence that it looks the same as "making it up as I go".

Prolly.

 

[AdMan]

That's what's known as "updating my description". It's just a coincidence that it looks the same as "making it up as I go".

Prolly.

Ufology likes to call it his "self-correcting" memory.

 

[edge]

Here's three to look at. The redsky pic is from Florida, smaller objects came out of this area. I have pics of them too. The next one is the ridge where the big square docked with the red orb to give you an idea of distances, upper right side of pic where the glare is, this was taken after the event. The third one is from Indiana. Click to enlarge.

 

[AdMan]

Here's three to look at. The redsky pic is from Florida, smaller objects came out of this area. I have pics of them too. The next one is the ridge where the big square docked with the red orb to give you an idea of distances, upper right side of pic where the glare is, this was taken after the event. The third one is from Indiana. Click to enlarge.

This isn't a place to post your holiday snapshots.

Post EVIDENCE, or stop posting nonsense.

 

[tsig]

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.

What does sincerity have to do with the facts?

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

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

But sincerity has nothing to do with being mistaken, or memories that change over time, or being influenced by TV and movies. The easiest person to fool is yourself.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Here's three to look at. The redsky pic is from Florida, smaller objects came out of this area. I have pics of them too. The next one is the ridge where the big square docked with the red orb to give you an idea of distances, upper right side of pic where the glare is, this was taken after the event. The third one is from Indiana. Click to enlarge.

I have to say, I'm not seeing anything particularly UFOish in any of these pictures.

 

[Paul2]

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.

But you call for it in abductee claims.

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.

This has nothing to do with whether objective corroboration is required before we legitimately accept a claim. Why should it?

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.

I agree.

Why isn't objective corroboration required to accept, in general, a claim about objective reality? If you don't require it, you leave yourself open to accepting all sorts of nonsense.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Chuck:

So again it appears that you have been misled. Ufology is not a "belief system". We define it this way: "Ufology is the title used for the array of subject matter and activities associated with an interest in UFOs. Those who pursue ufology as more than a pastime are known as ufologists."

More here: http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Ufology-01a.htm

Belief systems like religions are a completely different concept than ufology. In ufology nobody is required to believe anything. Critical thinking is encouraged, and the only thing we at USI require is a genuine and constructive interest in the phenomenon. There are no dues, no deities and no worship. People come and go as they please and are free to present their own views. Everyone is welcome including scientists and skeptics. We welcome evidence that debunks cases as much as hearing about interesting cases that have not been debunked.

With all due respect, it appears that you are the one who has been misinformed.
Religion is not defined by its appurtenances. As example, Zen Buddhism requires no worship and has no deities, the Ba’hai faith require no dues. The only thing necessary to qualify a philosophy as a religion is the element of dogmatic assumption; in short, the ability to make a leap of faith and accept a belief based not on reason or Aristotelian logic.
You, yourself, admit that your own involvement in ufology stems from just such a mindset.

My position is based on my own personal observation, studies of historical cases, and the accounts of people whom I've talked with who claim they have also had a UFO experience. I may know UFOs ( alien craft ) are real. But I can't prove it at this point in time, and I freely and openly admit that.

Ufology, in fact, appears to share many of the characteristics of a religion, as you seem to interpret the term.
Both center around a belief in immensely powerful and intelligent beings not bound by the normal laws of physics.
Both rely on highly subjective personal experience rather than empirical evidence.
Both reject obvious inconsistencies as to the methods, means, and motives of said beings with generalized statements that these aspects, by definition, are “unknowable” to mere humans.
Both attempt to affirm their particular belief systems , and to proselytize, by the use of shared personal (and subjective) experiences through written/oral narratives.
Both favor faith over logic, utilizing scientific methodology only when it suits their purposes. As example, your statement:

We welcome evidence that debunks cases as much as hearing about interesting cases that have not been debunked..

It is not necessary to “disprove” cases, it is necessary for the theorist to prove them.

Frankly, the more you write, the more it appears that UFOlogy is a religion, or at least a cult, considering the small numbers you’ve mentioned.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes I would have assumed the same, as ufology never mentioned anything about the shape being a lot wider than it was tall and he neglected to tell us the shape was about the size of a VW beetle sitting on top of another VW beetle..

 

[ufology]

Sorry, I assumed you meant a front view, such as would be seen if the car were approaching you.

Hey Jim,

No problem, I think it's really cool you did that calculations. It's my fault for not being more specific. To make the comparison I used a VW Beetle because they are kind of roundish to begin with so I was visualizing the side view ... and I never extrapolated the bottom half into a full circle, so the word "size" was not precise ( my bad ). I really should have said it was "about as wide as a VW Beetle as seen from the side". I've updated that detail now to avoid future confusion.

 

[ufology]

Akhenaten,

Yes you are right, I should have been more precise and I've fixed it now. Cool job on the VW graphic!

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh, so ufology didn't think to mention it was a beetle viewed side on. That only occured after it was pointed out the visual reference he gave was indeed a point of light. Now he is just describing a light.

Amazing he can be so accurate after admitting he could not discern the edges from bleed-glow.

 

[Akhenaten]

Oh, so ufology didn't think to mention it was a beetle viewed side on. That only occured after it was pointed out the visual reference he gave was indeed a point of light. Now he is just describing a light.

Amazing he can be so accurate after admitting he could not discern the edges from bleed-glow.

Self-correcting memories can be amazingly precise.

 

[ufology]

With all due respect, it appears that you are the one who has been misinformed. Religion is not defined by its appurtenances ... bla bla bla.

Chuck,

From Wikipedia:

"Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values."

Etymology: Religion (from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,"

======================
List of Religions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
======================

Ufology is not a religion. Cherry picking bits and pieces of various religions and applying them to some activity and rationalizing that as a religion just isn't good enough. With respect to the word origin for religion, ufology has no gods. With respect to the definition, ufology espouses no spiritual or moral values other than to try to present the subject matter as honestly as possible. So what? And it isn't in any list of world religions. So stop trying to portray ufology as a religion when it's not. Doing so is a complete misrepresentation.

 

[Tomtomkent]

In general personal memory is a flawed evidence. If a historian were studying the subject a written statement produced soon after the events would be the best of the possibilities. The more time that passes after the event the more likely the memory will altered byhindsight and influenced by later knowledge.

Ufology, your statements are at the poorest end of the scale. You are not showing inconsistency when asked several times over the years, your facts are changing each and every time a flaw is shown. There isno way of knowing if you change your calculations to fit what you thought you saw, or alternatively if you are changing data as you go to try and keep the story plausible.

Each time something changes, each self correction, each revision is a degrading of the evidence. It is now at the point it can not be evidence, historical or scientific, because we have zero reasons for assuming it will not change further.

 

[Jocce]

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.

A simple "I have no evidence" would have been enough.