UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Marcus]

It's an ego thing IMO. Those that embrace woo feel a need to subscribe to the notion that we (they) are somehow special. So special that we have unique powers (dowsing, ESP, PK, you name it) and things like "aliens," elementals, and even the dead can't get enough of us.

Yes indeed. I think this need for specialness is also the primary driver behind religion.

 

[John Albert]

Dear Readers

Who, in your mind, do you imagine you're talking to?

Now we see more denial and the use of huge fonts, as though that somehow makes their position valid.

I personally have pointed out countless times (50, 75, 100 times, maybe?) that claims do not stand as evidence for themselves. You have been shown examples, definitions, and even had actual career scientists explain the difference to you. You have been presented with studies speaking to the unreliability of eyewitness evidence. There's near unanimous consensus on the point that claims do not stand as evidence for themselves, yet you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Why?

I figured that maybe your problem might be ocular instead of cognitive, hence the enlarged type.

But the fact that you refuse to understand, and are therefore unteachable, does not mean the material itself is faulty.

They are also confusing the idea of "claims" and "evidence".

No, as almost everybody in these threads have been pointing out to you all along, you are the one who's been conflating "claims" with "evidence."

The claim is that people have seen UFOs ( alien craft ), the evidence is their testimony. Testimony is counted as evidence in dictionaries and courts of law and in this thread.

This thread is not a court of law. Anyway, if you'd bothered to read it through, you would see that the entire thread has repeatedly proven the utter uselessness of anecdotes to stand as evidence for themselves.

Oh, by the way:

UFOs ( alien craft )

Really?!?

Moving the goalposts to make "scientific evidence" the only allowable evidence is not valid.

Goalposts have not been moved.

On page one of this thread, Rramjet boldly braved "ridicule" by issuing a challenge to all and sundry to deny his "evidence" that some UFOs are "nuts and bolts" spacecraft of non-human manufacture.

From that first page onward, he was repeatedly reminded that stories do not constitute evidence:

tl;dr

Seriously Roger, do you have anything other than stories?

Yet he continued on posting stories and systematically denying any and all mundane explanations put forward by the skeptics. His failure to produce even the slightest scrap of evidence has been the defining factor of this whole thread. Yet he persevered for over 250 pages before finally throwing in the towel about a month ago, to run off and claim superstardom among the skeptically-challenged members of a creduloid UFO nut forum.

Points can be made regarding the validity of firsthand knowledge and anecdotal evidence, but it cannot be fairly ruled as inadmissible.

The numerous logical failures in your own story have provided an excellent object-lesson to prove the worthlessness of anecdotes as evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Who are these readers of which you speak?

One more time: The story is the claim, the evidence is that which you produce to corroborate the claim. An alien raygun for example.

That would be the ideal. But let's start simple: Somebody (other than another member of the group ufology claims to have been with) who saw the same phenomona at the same time from somewhere different. With a trunk road to a highway on the opposite side of the lake and a nice visible light, high enough to be seen from miles, the minimum (and i do mean minimum) would be others who could give something tht resembles a statement, and is not an ever changing account. This would be the very weakest barrel scraping evidence and would be far from "proving" anything.

As Brian Dunning often remarks, cow pies can be stacked to the moon, but they don't make a gold nugget.

More tangible evidence would be Air Trafic Control data, recordings that showed the object moving between known and varifiable landmarks, from several angles to confirm thaat there is no false perspective at play.

But no. We have the word of a guy who makes no qualms about changing every "measurement" he has "calculated". The erosion of reliabilty is not a concept he seems familiar with.

 

[Marcus]

Seriously, I find that edge's and Ufology's testimonies to be the most convincing evidence of e.t. visitations I have ever read.

"Testimony" is certainly a favorite word of believers of all types, it sounds so much more credible than "anecdote", as if they were sworn in in court under pain of imprisonment for perjury.

 

[GeeMack]

Now we see more denial and the use of huge fonts, as though that somehow makes their position valid. They are also confusing the idea of "claims" and "evidence". The claim is that people have seen UFOs ( alien craft ) stuff they weren't able to identify, the evidence is their testimony. Testimony is counted as evidence in dictionaries and courts of law and in this thread. Moving the goalposts to make "scientific evidence" the only allowable evidence is not valid. Points can be made regarding the validity of firsthand knowledge and anecdotal evidence, but it cannot be fairly ruled as inadmissible.

Fixed it for you again. The continued dishonest attempts to shoehorn your notion that unidentifiable things are somehow the same thing as aliens is noted. And it does seem that if you have any evidence that aliens exist and are visiting Earth, you'd be bringing it in instead of just whining about how poorly you're doing supporting your position and dishonestly blaming the skeptics for your own failure.

 

[R.A.F.]

Now we see more denial and the use of huge fonts, as though that somehow makes their position valid.

Since you are "famous" for not listening to what others say, sometimes we have to "yell" just to get your attention.

The claim is that people have seen UFOs ( alien craft )...

How many times must you embarrass yourself by confusing unidentified objects with non-existent aliens?? You must really enjoy making a fool of yourself, you do it so well.

...the evidence is their testimony. Testimony is counted as evidence in dictionaries and courts of law and in this thread.

So YOU get to decide what is, and what is not considered "good" evidence? What a pompous fool you are.

Points can be made regarding the validity of firsthand knowledge and anecdotal evidence, but it cannot be fairly ruled as inadmissible.

You have this bias that disqualifies you from making those sort of determinations.

 

[Daylightstar]

Mr. Albert,

I've already given my own evidence and referenced evidence by others, ...

No, not evidence, claims.

 

[ehcks]

If he had tried giving his original story as testimony in court, he would be convicted of perjury by now.

No, UFOlogy. Saying "I saw an alien" is not evidence of me seeing an alien. It is a claim that I saw an alien. Evidence would be the alien. Perhaps a video of me and the alien, but that's less likely now with CGI.

An anecdote is not evidence. And even eyewitness testimony is losing credibility in courts.

 

[Marcus]

The claim is that people have seen UFOs ( alien craft )

I don't believe that you will find anyone here who doesn't believe that some flying objects are unidentified. Like Rramjet before you, you have not provided any evidence (even anecdotal) for alien craft, only for UFOs.

 

[carlitos]

"Testimony" is certainly a favorite word of believers of all types, it sounds so much more credible than "anecdote", as if they were sworn in in court under pain of imprisonment for perjury.

Blackberry doesn't want to do links, but there are lots like this one one christian "testimony for Jesus":

http://www.google.com/m/url?channel...8QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGliNcnogPo-kmxEe8Nl3ZKvXfD1A

Yet another relevant example of ufology's faith-based belief system. He will dishonestly fail to explain how his logic differs from believers in religious, bigfoot and other faith-based believers. As he has since he arrived. Some honesty would go a long way in "building bridges" - his claimed reason for joining here. More lies, obfuscation, or more likely, pretending not to understand / even see this post will follow.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Tauri,

Hmm ... let's think that over ... thousnads and thousnads of people over decades and decades have reported seeing UFOs ( alien craft ). Now even if that were the only evidence we have, that alone would still be amazing. Add to that the sightings confirmed by radar and that adds instrumented verification.

LOL. Why do you pseudoscientists always forget FLIR?

 

[Archer17]

LOL. Why do you pseudoscientists always forget FLIR?

It reminds 'em of that Campeche fiasco.

 

[ufology]

Yet another relevant example of ufology's faith-based belief system. He will dishonestly fail to explain how his logic differs from believers in religious, bigfoot and other faith-based believers. As he has since he arrived. Some honesty would go a long way in "building bridges" - his claimed reason for joining here. More lies, obfuscation, or more likely, pretending not to understand / even see this post will follow.

And now we see Carlitos present another less enviable tactic, the addition of accusatory remarks like "dishonestly fail to explain", as if that somehow not addressing the strawman in the form of off topic subject matter somehow makes his position valid. This example also illustrates the additional tactic of making proclaimations such as calling the topic a "faith-based belief system", as if simply saying it makes it true. Add to that more accusatory remarks and proclaimations and the whole thing amounts to nothing more than name calling and character attacks. Another fine example of the JREF at work enlightening our community.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dear Readers,

Now we see more denial and the use of huge fonts, as though that somehow makes their position valid. They are also confusing the idea of "claims" and "evidence". The claim is that people have seen UFOs ( alien craft ), the evidence is their testimony. Testimony is counted as evidence in dictionaries and courts of law and in this thread. Moving the goalposts to make "scientific evidence" the only allowable evidence is not valid. Points can be made regarding the validity of firsthand knowledge and anecdotal evidence, but it cannot be fairly ruled as inadmissible.

What do you believe their claims to be evidence of? And why do you dishonestly equate UFOs with alien craft? Isn't that pseudoscience, starting with your conclusion?

 

[GeeMack]

And now we see Carlitos present another less enviable tactic, the addition of accusatory remarks like "dishonestly fail to explain", as if that somehow not addressing the strawman in the form of off topic subject matter somehow makes his position valid. This example also illustrates the additional tactic of making proclaimations such as calling the topic a "faith-based belief system", as if simply saying it makes it true. Add to that more accusatory remarks and proclaimations and the whole thing amounts to nothing more than name calling and character attacks. Another fine example of the JREF at work enlightening our community.

Is that really all you've got left? Anytime you're done complaining and dishonestly blaming these helpful cooperative skeptics for the failure of your arguments, you might consider offering some evidence for your position that aliens exist and are cruising around in the skies of Earth. And if you can't, maybe take responsibility for your own inability to do that.

 

[ufology]

LOL. Why do you pseudoscientists always forget FLIR?

And here we see RoboTimbo engaging in a real common tactic, the application of derogatory labels. The use dehumanizing labels for the enemy are a common tactic in times of war, which also reveals Robo's adversarial nature ... seeking out conflict and creating an excuse for it all at the same time.

 

[Archer17]

And now we see Carlitos present another less enviable tactic, the addition of accusatory remarks like "dishonestly fail to explain", as if that somehow not addressing the strawman in the form of off topic subject matter somehow makes his position valid. This example also illustrates the additional tactic of making proclaimations such as calling the topic a "faith-based belief system", as if simply saying something makes it true. Add to that more accusatory remarks and proclaimations and the whole thing amounts to nothing more than name calling and character attacks. Another fine example of the JREF at work enlightening our community.

Lame attempt at dodging a good point from Carlitos. Now that you got your queer practice of addressing no one in particular out of the way (at least it wasn't "dear readers" this time) kindly explain how your faith-based belief-system (UFO=Alien Craft) differs from those other faith-based belief systems that claim the 'wee folk' or Bigfoot (to name a couple) walk among us. I guess you could call these examples UWOs (Unsubstantiated Walking Objects) if acronyms float your boat.

 

[Archer17]

And here we see RoboTimbo engaging in a real common tactic, the application of derogatory labels. The use dehumanizing labels for the enemy are a common tactic in times of war, which also reveals Robo's adversarial nature ... seeking out conflict and creating an excuse for it all at the same time.

What are you complaining about? He could have called you something much worse. Anyway, get used to the label, you wear it well.

 

[Garrison]

And here we see RoboTimbo engaging in a real common tactic, the application of derogatory labels. The use dehumanizing labels for the enemy are a common tactic in times of war, which also reveals Robo's adversarial nature ... seeking out conflict and creating an excuse for it all at the same time.

So I'm guessing from these latest posts you've abandoned any pretence of making a case and have just decided to play at being a martyr for your beliefs.

 

[ufology]

Is that really all you've got left? Anytime you're done complaining and dishonestly blaming these helpful cooperative skeptics for the failure of your arguments, you might consider offering some evidence for your position that aliens exist and are cruising around in the skies of Earth. And if you can't, maybe take responsibility for your own inability to do that.

And in steps GeeMack to defend the proclaimations and labeling and faulty logic, as if somehow because he thinks the same way, it's all OK. There seems to be a growing collective. I wonder what next? More name calling? More proclaimations? More faulty logic? Maybe a combination of all three. We seem to be overdue for some mockery and ridicule. Perhaps another creative picture or perhaps an animated GIF.

Let's see what happens if I ask for something constructive instead. Perhaps we'll all be surprised I certainly hope so.

What I would like to propose at this point is that the skeptics here post a top 10 or more list ( with reasons and references ) of UFO related hoaxes. These need to be proven hoaxes, not hypothetical hoaxes. I will add it to my webpage and give the JREF forum posters credit for helping. What do you say? Let's turn this around and try doing something constructive.