UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Tomtomkent]

Consequently when I say UFO ( alien craft ), I am just giving the word context in keeping with it's common definition.

Except of course an alien vessel is not unidentified. Do you really want us to repeat the links to dictionaries to show UFO meaning "unidentified flying object"? Apart from anything else, you have to go to the effort to writing "ALIEN CRAFT" as well, so why not just avoid arguments and say ALIEN CRAFT when you mean ALIEN CRAFT?

 

[Marduk]

More misrepresentation. I've not changed anything. My definition was simply a short form for the word UFO in the context of alien craft as is included in most dictionary definitions. The word UFO is a word separate from the individual words used to form the acronym. The individual words that form the acronym are part of the word origin not the defintion. See below:


UFO: noun (plural UFOs)

• a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials.
  
  Origin: 1950s: acronym from unidentified flying object

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/UFO


Consequently when I say UFO ( alien craft ), I am just giving the word context in keeping with it's common definition. So your personal attacks are not warranted and again reveal your self-serving, if not mean-spirited attitude with respect to anything that doesn't fit your bias.

look up the word "supposed" it doesn't equate with "proven"

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh and when did "Often Supposed to mean" become "is actually, definately, the common term for..."?

It means it is OFTEN SUPPOSED to mean, and not not actually "means".

 

[Garrison]

Daylightstar,

Nothing about my original account has changed except for the precision of the measurements because I now have the aid of Google Earth. My distance estimates remain very close and my height estimate was off by about a hundred meters. That's all. So what? It doesn't change what I saw. I'm just able to describe it more accurately. How is that a bad thing? How does it in any way detract from the credibility of the story? If anything it should add to it.

And you don't see how this retroactive editing of your memory to fit the new data you've gotten from Google Earth is a negative thing? If nothing else these last couple of pages illustrate why eyewitness accounts have no value as evidence.

 

[ufology]

Did you forget that you confused north and south in your original account before the mistake was pointed out to you?

AdMan,

Yes that was a mistake in my written account and I admit that although the skeptics here could be more civil at times, there have been instances when the pain has produced positive results. I suppose that if everything I say were just taken for granted, that mistake may never have been corrected. What I don't see a need for however is why all the put-down innuendos, mockery and other comments have to go along with it. I'm not too proud to admit when I've made a mistake. I came here seeking to network. I appreciate it when something like that is pointed out. But why does it always have to be delivered on the point of an arrow? Why can't people show a little more decorum? This may be skepticism, but I don't find it healthy ... although I must admit that I still find the "They Live" slam hilarious.

 

[ufology]

And you don't see how this retroactive editing of your memory to fit the new data you've gotten from Google Earth is a negative thing? If nothing else these last couple of pages illustrate why eyewitness accounts have no value as evidence.

Garrison:

It's not "retroactive editing of memory" and it's not "negative". Stop trying to misrepresent what I'm doing to suit your own bias. Figures from the maps are objective information and I'd be both stubborn and stupid not to accept it as more accurate than my visual estimate.

 

[Agatha]

University Challenge (an unashamedly intellectual quiz show on the BBC) has just had a question on UFOs. Nothing to do with giving them credibility as OMG...aliens, though; simply a factual question about the end of the project investigating sightings in the UK.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh look, on google maps I had to SET a markers altitude to be relative to sea level rather than relative to the ground. Unless specifically stated this is the case (not presumed) any "calculation" would be rendered useless. As described.

So how about you live by your own words and show some decorum Ufology. Why not say:
"Yes, my original account is full of wholes, and has had to be changed. Sorry I tried to suggest you and others were confused, or mistaken, and admit my own failings in this case. it was entirely rude of I, Ufology, to try and belittle others for providing the critique I claim to have come to these boards for."

Then show some more decorum, and stop trying to change the meaning of the word UFO.

 

[R.A.F.]

What I don't see a need for however is why all the put-down innuendos, mockery and other comments have to go along with it. I'm not too proud to admit when I've made a mistake. I came here seeking to network. I appreciate it when something like that is pointed out. But why does it always have to be delivered on the point of an arrow?

It seems you just don't understand what we are saying unless you are "hit over the head" with it...for instance..

Unidentified MEANS unidentified. When you change that to mean "alien space ship" it no longer can be called unidentified.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??

 

[ufology]

Right on cue, there's that blatant dishonesty that I was referring to.

RoboTimbo,

How do you figure? I provided an unbiased independent dictionary definition and showed how I use it within the context of the discussion so as not to confuse the issue. Where is the so-called "dishonesty"? All you're doing now is name calling. Explain yourself.

 

[R.A.F.]

Stop trying to misrepresent what I'm doing to suit your own bias.

Stop trying to change the meaning of the term "UFO".

Figures from the maps are objective information and I'd be both stubborn and stupid not to accept it as more accurate than my visual estimate.

Irrelevant...

 

[R.A.F.]

More misrepresentation....blah, blah...

So you don't understand why saying something is "unidentified", but is an alien space ship is faulty reasoning??

 

[Tomtomkent]

RoboTimbo,

How do you figure? I provided an unbiased independent dictionary definition and showed how I use it within the context of the discussion so as not to confuse the issue. Where is the so-called "dishonesty"? All you're doing now is name calling. Explain yourself.

Because you showed a dictionary definition that said something was "often supposed" to justify your idea that it "means" alien craft.

Supplying evidence for one thing, and suggesting it means another means you are either:
1) Unable to understand the evidence.
2) Deliberately misrepresenting it.

So, which did you do?

 

[Sideroxylon]

RoboTimbo,

How do you figure? I provided an unbiased independent dictionary definition and showed how I use it within the context of the discussion so as not to confuse the issue. Where is the so-called "dishonesty"? All you're doing now is name calling. Explain yourself.

What objections have been raised repeatedly to what you are doing with the definition and how do you counter them?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Garrison:

It's not "retroactive editing of memory" and it's not "negative". Stop trying to misrepresent what I'm doing to suit your own bias. Figures from the maps are objective information and I'd be both stubborn and stupid not to accept it as more accurate than my visual estimate.

Wait. Which figures? Surely you aren't suggesting the altitude YOU CALCULATED/ESTIMATED was "from the map"? You know, those numbers you had to inpupt...

 

[R.A.F.]

I provided an unbiased independent dictionary definition...

So it doesn't matter that more than 90% of sightings are identified as mundane phenomena, you've got your dictionary definition, so "UFO" means "alien spaceship"

Looks like your EXTREME bias is showing...it's no wonder no one here is taking you seriously.

 

[Garrison]

Garrison:

It's not "retroactive editing of memory" and it's not "negative". Stop trying to misrepresent what I'm doing to suit your own bias. Figures from the maps are objective information and I'd be both stubborn and stupid not to accept it as more accurate than my visual estimate.

And in doing so you are editing your recollection in the light of fresh data, the only 'misrepresentation' is your belief that this is makes your 'evidence' more reliable. How about you stop pretending your fable has any value and offer some real evidence of alien spacecraft?

 

[ufology]

It seems you just don't understand what we are saying unless you are "hit over the head" with it...for instance..

Unidentified MEANS unidentified. When you change that to mean "alien space ship" it no longer can be called unidentified.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??

R.A.F.

You still don't get that a word origin isn't the same as a word definition and that we're talking about the word UFO not the word "unidentified". Eventually, some day, when you figure that out, your comments will have some relevance.

 

[R.A.F.]

...were..

I assume you mean "we are", or we're.

...talking about the word UFO not the word "unidentified".

That is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen on the internet. What do you think the "U" in UFO stands for???

If you are going to "act" this ignorant, how do you expect others to take you seriously??

 

[ufology]

And in doing so you are editing your recollection in the light of fresh data, the only 'misrepresentation' is your belief that this is makes your 'evidence' more reliable. How about you stop pretending your fable has any value and offer some real evidence of alien spacecraft?

Garrison,

We've already discussed the evidence issue. Have you forgotten so quickly? Perhaps you should go back and review. And thanks for making it absolutely clear how your personal bias prevents you from contributing anything constructive to this discussion. Please let me know when that changes by saying something useful.