UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Marduk,

Glowing orbs, also called nocturnal lights, are a class of UFO. I think it was Hynek who coined the term. I used the words glowing orb because I also saw it in the morning light, therefore it wasn't strictly nocturnal. UFO is still valid so far as any reporting would be concerned, and I'm personally convinced it was some kind of alien craft.

And yet you've said before that lights in the sky should NOT be called UFOs.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Marduk,

Glowing orbs, also called nocturnal lights, are a class of UFO. I think it was Hynek who coined the term. I used the words glowing orb because I also saw it in the morning light, therefore it wasn't strictly nocturnal. UFO is still valid so far as any reporting would be concerned, and I'm personally convinced it was some kind of alien craft.

Yes, in the pseudosciences you start with your conclusion and then retrofit data to match.

Is that what's happening here, do you think?

 

[Agatha]

We understand that you are convinced it was an alien craft, which means that as far as you are concerned it is an IFO rather than a UFO. What you perhaps have yet to understand is that for anyone else, your claim is still a claim of something which is thus far unidentified, may have been flying, and may have been an object.

 

[Marduk]

Marduk,

Glowing orbs, also called nocturnal lights, are a class of UFO. I think it was Hynek who coined the term. I used the words glowing orb because I also saw it in the morning light, therefore it wasn't strictly nocturnal. UFO is still valid so far as any reporting would be concerned, and I'm personally convinced it was some kind of alien craft.

funny then that you don't call it a UFO or an Alien craft in your own original words then
take my advice
at the JREF, just refer to your sighting as a "glowing orb", that is all you can call it with the evidence you have, save the UFO's are Alien craft b.s. for the paracast forum, not that anyone there is agreeing with you either, but here, the standard of evidence required is higher, you have a glowing orb, not a spaceship, not a flying saucer and not a UFO, as you have at the very earliest already identified it as a glowing orb
say what you saw, not what your bias wants you to think
that at least would be scientific and at least would cut down some of the vehemence against you

 

[Tomtomkent]

And yet you've said before that lights in the sky should NOT be called UFOs.

Do we have any evidence to suggest anything will remain consistent? Or credible? As pointed out before, by his own definition what he saw was "UAP" and not "Alien Vessel" or "UFO". Except for when it was.

The maths changes.
The object changes.
The conditions change.

Sum total: The entire story changes. We now have no datum, no definate point against which the rest can be tested, calculated or estimated, because every important component has changed. Only the back ground fluff, the "human interest" angles remain consistant. And they are of no interest or use.

So can we drop this clanger and actually discuss any actual evidence, any valid evidence at all, that a UFOlogist or true believer cares to produce?

 

[Tomtomkent]

We've understand that you are convinced it was an alien craft, which means that as far as you are concerned it is an IFO rather than a UFO. What you perhaps have yet to understand is that for anyone else, your claim is still a claim of something which is thus far unidentified, may have been flying, and may have been an object.

As elloquent an explantation as any. Thanks.

 

[Agatha]

As elloquent an explantation as any. Thanks.

Thank you (even though you've quoted my typo! We=/=We've )

 

[Tomtomkent]

Thank you (even though you've quoted my typo! We=/=We've )

I prefer not to FIFY incase offence is taken.








And didn't notice...

 

[Agatha]

 

[John Albert]

Yes, but that only became "what you meant" after it was shown that two thirds the height of the mountain, 4000ft, did not resemble what you described.

Wrong.

He's not wrong, J.R. That's exactly how it happened. We all followed the thread, and so will anyone else who comes along and reads it through.

For the past several months, you've been asserting the validity of anecdotes and bragging about the extraordinary reliability and accuracy of your own perception and memory. Then, as you've told your own story, most of the details just haven't stood up to scrutiny. When we first started pointing out the inconsistencies, you merely handwaved our criticism with glib dismissals. When we refused to let you off the hook, you began retooling the story with new details constructed to hide the original errors. You've also been adding elements piecemeal to circumvent any non-ET possibilities the skeptics have offered.

You need to realize that none of this is in any way unique or special to your telling of your own story. These kinds of backpedaling and evasion tactics are extremely common behavior when devotees of pseudoscience have their beliefs questioned critically. Carl Sagan even invented a metaphor (the famed "invisible dragon in my garage") to illustrate and explain the phenomenon.

Your're still confused and don't seem to care to know the truth of it either.

The "truth" of it?

Exactly what "truth" are you referring to?

You seem a bit confused yourself on the subject of truth, judging from your earlier statements:

Truth: that which corresponds to reality; that which is objectively real.

The definition of Truth in the quote above is too limited and does not apply to many situations. Mine does. Why? Because I've thought it through and don't have such a simplistic view.

Truth and reality are two seaparate issues. Therefore truth itself doesn't correspond to objective reality or any other reality.

There are both objective and subjective truths.

Truth:

I go with a tweak on the correspondence theory, that is to say something is true if it corresponds with the initial premise ... the tweak being that it must also be within the same context.

It seems absolutely ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy to have to ask a question like this, but which "version" and/or "context" of the truth are you speaking to?

 

[ufology]

funny then that you don't call it a UFO or an Alien craft in your own original words then
take my advice
at the JREF, just refer to your sighting as a "glowing orb", that is all you can call it with the evidence you have, save the UFO's are Alien craft b.s. for the paracast forum, not that anyone there is agreeing with you either, but here, the standard of evidence required is higher, you have a glowing orb, not a spaceship, not a flying saucer and not a UFO, as you have at the very earliest already identified it as a glowing orb
say what you saw, not what your bias wants you to think
that at least would be scientific and at least would cut down some of the vehemence against you

Marduk,

Thanks for the advice. I'm not claiming my story is scientific or constitutes scientific evidence. I was just asked about it so I've told it as best as I can. And I'm not changing my views just so people will be nice to me. Surely there are better ways to convince people to be skeptical other than by being obnoxious.

 

[R.A.F.]

Surely there are better ways to convince people to be skeptical other than by being obnoxious.

Personally, I hate willful ignorance, so you can imagine what I think of those who practice it.

If you don't like the way you are being treated, then perhaps you should post rationally, instead of all this "UFO means alien spaceship" crap.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Marduk,

Thanks for the advice. I'm not claiming my story is scientific or constitutes scientific evidence. I was just asked about it so I've told it as best as I can. And I'm not changing my views just so people will be nice to me. Surely there are better ways to convince people to be skeptical other than by being obnoxious.

It is not your views that people are worried about changing.

It's the story itself. It shifts all over the place. People know your beliefs are unmoving and have pointed out why that is a poor bias to bring to a conversation about evidence. It has completely skewed your views of what does and does not constitute evidence, and has led to you declaring poor quality claims as high quality evidence. They are not expecting it to change, they are explaining why it is not suitable to the conversation at hand. You spin that to be obnoxious, but you are being treated with the same levels of contempt and respect you show others. You are failing, utterly, to be objective.

And if it is not evidence, then why tell it in a thread about EVIDENCE and RESEARCH. It is neither. You were asked, sure, how hard is it to press a "new thread" icon instead of derailing the conversation?

Coming to think of it why not discuss the bs about UFO "meaning" Alien in another thread? It has nothing to do with the subject of the thread either.

 

[Garrison]

Marduk,

Thanks for the advice. I'm not claiming my story is scientific or constitutes scientific evidence. I was just asked about it so I've told it as best as I can. And I'm not changing my views just so people will be nice to me. Surely there are better ways to convince people to be skeptical other than by being obnoxious.

And what do you mean by skeptical? is offering you a few softball questions that you can swat away to add lustre to your tale? Or is it asking hard questions and calling you on it when you change your story?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

“Blah, blah, blah?”
Getting a little testy there aren’t we,ufology?
I also find it interesting that you accuse me of cherry picking while at the same time ignoring the standard definitions of “religion” in favor of the one (by a source which admits to bias in its title page and is known for its inaccuracies) that suits your purpose.


re·li·gion [ri líjjən]
(plural re·li·gions)
n
1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine
3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by
4. obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
5. christianity monk's or nun's life: life as a monk or a nun, especially in the Roman Catholic Church

[12th century. Via French < Latin religion- "obligation, reverence"]

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

1. the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 . a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic: scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 . a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith — re·li·gion·lessadjective
Merriam-Webster, Inc. © 2011
Re-li-gion n.[rɪˈlɪdʒən]

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

All of these definitions include the element of dogmatic assumption (a leap of faith) as the integral mechanism for a religion.
And you freely admit that your involvement with ufology is based on personal revelation of a highly subjective nature, not corroborated by empirical evidence.
In short, a leap of faith.

Ufology, as you have interpreted the term, requires exactly such a leap of faith, specifically the belief that unidentified flying objects are of extraterrestrial origin.
In the twenty or so pages (out of over 300+) that I have been following you have been asked repeatedly, in any number of forms, to provide a logical connective link between “I saw something in the sky that I couldn’t identify as a mundane object” and “it was an extraterrestrial craft”, and you have failed completely at every turn.
Until you can provide that, at the least, ufology is based on the one mechanism shared by all religions:
A leap of faith.

 

[John Albert]

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.

On the contrary, it appears that you are failing to understand that difference.

Why don't you take a minute and read this Wikipedia entry? It ought to prove illuminating, if you're not totally immune to cognitive dissonance.

While you're mulling it over, you might want to consider these questions:

Why do you think everybody here is telling you your definition is nonsensical?

Why do you think that not even the paranormal enthusiasts over at the Paracast Forums are buying it?

If the originators of the acronym "UFO" really intended it to mean "alien spacecraft," then why would they have chosen the words "unidentified flying object" instead of something more descriptive, like say "alien space craft" ("ASC")?

How can you not see the absurdity of using the acronym that literally represents the words "unidentified flying object" to mean something identified?

 

[Daylightstar]

... a logical connective link between “I saw something in the sky that I couldn’t identify as a mundane object” and “it was an extraterrestrial craft”, ...

Well, he has provided some sort of connective link, but it lacks logic:

No human technology has anything that comes close to that kind of performance. Given the precise repetitive maneuvers that it had performed, there is also no way that it was a random natural phenomenon. I am convinced that it was intelligently controlled.

It appears ufology wants to suggest he has established that alien crafts have abilities to maneuver as he described, else he would have to rule out alien craft as well.

But obviously, he has established no such thing. Faith is leaping far and wide with mr. ufology.
Or were those fireflies.

Or was his vison mind clouded, almost alone with his girlfriend, her parents being away but her younger friend being there, frustration growing .....

 

[Drs_Res]

Is the object in this picture that is marked UFO in scale?

Drs_Res,

Before answering, to be clear on what constitutes the "object", what I mean by the object is the core of that glowing spherical area of light marked "UFO". It could not be made out with absolute distinction, but you could tell it was there. The size of the core object was estimated not only from this last part of the sighting as illustrated, but from earlier times when it had landed in the forest at night, and the way the glow filtered through the trees compared to the core.

Imagine someone aiming a bright flashlight at you from behind a tree trunk in a dark forest. Depending on the size of the tree trunk, you may see the glow but not the light itself. By observing how the core light illuminated the treetops as it landed, and how the trees themselves obscured the core light, you could tell you weren't looking at a small light, but something larger about a car length wide and circular. Also it had a very distinct quality to it. It was bright but soft ( if that makes any sense ), not penetrating like an aircraft landing light or headlamp ... just a big bright glowing ball and you could look directly at it without it hurting your eyes.

If you look at the glow in the illustration, you can actually see through it, it is not part of the "object", but the scale itself is about right. The illustration doesn't really do the experience justice. But it's very similar to what I saw.

Could you take the image and indicate the core object minus the glow? Maybe as a red circle or something?

I'll keep in mind that the edge might not be 100% discernible, but a close estimate would be nice. You did after all say that it was about 15.55 feet (I think that was the number) in diameter, so you must have had some idea where the edge was vs. the glow. You can even tag the the red circle with the words "Estimated size of the Core", or something to that effect.

Thanks.

 

[John Albert]

Only the back ground fluff, the "human interest" angles remain consistant.

Even the "human interest" details haven't been consistent. Remember the Led Zeppelin discrepancy?

 

[ufology]

Could you take the image and indicate the core object minus the glow? Maybe as a red circle or something?

I'll keep in mind that the edge might not be 100% discernible, but a close estimate would be nice. You did after all say that it was about 15.55 feet (I think that was the number) in diameter, so you must have had some idea where the edge was vs. the glow. You can even tag the the red circle with the words "Estimated size of the Core", or something to that effect.

Thanks.

Drs_Res

I don't think I could do that with any real accuracy on the scale of the picture I posted because the picture is too small. The relative size of the object to the trees as it neared them and landed behind them gave clues as to it's size. In this picture I can't really get that across accurately. Maybe if the image was the size of a picture window, like what human perception sees, but that's just way too big to post here and nobody has a monitor that big anyway. When I get more time I'll create an illustration that is larger and closer and in scale. About the only thing you could do is imagine a sphere of light about 15 feet wide. Note that in the illustration, this was just before the object departed and it had gotten much brighter, so the core size seems larger because of that.