UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

It is not "moving the goalposts" to point out the FACT that eyewitness "testimony" is simply not reliable.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??

R.A.F.

Says you. So what? It's still evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

R.A.F.

Says you. So what? It's still evidence.

It's still a claim. Do you have evidence to substantiate your claim?

 

[ufology]

It's still a claim. Do you have evidence to substantiate your claim?

Robo,

Maybe you missed that part in the definition of evidence where it says, "oral or written statements of witnesses"

I'll remind you I am a witness. I'm not telling you something second hand or third hand. You a reading the evidence. You just refuse to believe it and want more evidence ... something sufficient to convince you. I really wish I could do that, but I don't have any other evidence to substantiate my claim.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo,

Maybe you missed that part in the definition of evidence where it says, "oral or written statements of witnesses"

I remember your lying by omission from before

"...in a trial or official inquiry."

I'll remind you I am a witness.

I'll remind you that you are a claimant.

I'm not telling you something second hand or third hand.

I'm hearing it second hand.

You a reading the evidence.

I've read your changing claims.

You just refuse to believe it and want more evidence

I refuse to believe your claim of aliens based on your alleged sighting of a point of light. I'd like to have any evidence. So far, it's just been your claims.

... something sufficient to convince you. I really wish I could do that, but I don't have any other evidence to substantiate my claim.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're claiming aliens, give me evidence of aliens. You have no evidence to substantiate your claim.

 

[Drs_Res]

Thanks ufology.

Drs_Res.

Please answer why the exact size is so relevant?

Size is relevant because you said that the picture you provided was a good representation of what you saw, I wanted to be sure that it appeared to be as large as you show it in that picture.

Now, if someone takes that picture and does a little checking, using your distances and your estimated size of the core object, we might be able to come up with how far that glow would have to extend form the that core object to appear that large to you at the distance you say you were at.

Whatever it was, had incredible acceleration, maneuverability and control. What are you hoping to acheive with this line of questioning?

I wasn't really going anywhere except to get a little more detail from you that I was curious about, because it seemed to me that picture makes that orb, glow and all, look to be pretty darn big.

 

[ufology]

I remember your lying by omission from before

"...in a trial or official inquiry."


I'll remind you that you are a claimant. I'm hearing it second hand. I've read your changing claims.

I refuse to believe your claim of aliens based on your alleged sighting of a point of light. I'd like to have any evidence. So far, it's just been your claims.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're claiming aliens, give me evidence of aliens. You have no evidence to substantiate your claim.

Robo,

OK Robo, so what if it's not a "official inquiry"? That doesn't make it any less valid for the purpose of this discussion. As for you calling it secondhand ... you are hearing it firsthand, from the oriiginal source, not secondhand. It is not secondhand until you tell someone else.

firsthand​

first·hand [furst hánd] adjective, adverb

from the original source: obtained directly from an original source rather than via somebody else.​

What grade are you in again?​

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo,

OK Robo, so what if it's not a "official inquiry"? That doesn't make it any less valid for the purpose of this discussion. As for you calling it secondhand ... you are hearing it firsthand, from the oriiginal source, not secondhand. It is not secondhand until you tell someone else.

It was never valid to begin with. You've made claims, suspected by many of being a hoax. You've provided no evidence for your claims. You have, in fact, changed your story to suit the challenges to it.

What grade are you in again?​

Please don't act childish.

 

[GeeMack]

Robo,

First of all you are presuming my position relates to an unfalsifiable null hypothesis. I've done nothing of the sort. I don't use the null hypothesis because it is ill suited to the study of ufology. I merely entertain your use of the null hypothesis for the sake of discussion.

When you claim that some unidentified flying objects are alien craft, you are establishing the null hypothesis that "all UFOs are mundane in origin". You can't reject it. You made the claim that creates it. There's no entertaining. None of your dishonest special pleading is allowed. The only two ways to get out from under that particular null hypothesis are (a) to falsify it by demonstrating that at least one UFO can objectively be identified as an alien craft, or (b) withdraw your claim.

You don't get an option (c) to redefine terms, deflect the burden of proof, declare your campfire tales to be objective, or maintain your claim while rejecting the null hypothesis. None of those are reasonable, and none of them are honest ways of addressing your claim as it relates to reality.

 

[R.A.F.]

Says you.

Really...that is your response?

That's "equivalent" to, "I know you are, but what am I".

Why do you act so "childish" when others disagree with you? Can't you form adult arguments?

 

[R.A.F.]

I'll remind you I am witless.

There...fixed that for you.

 

[Akhenaten]

Robo,

Maybe you missed that part in the definition of evidence where it says, "[FONT=MS Reference Sans Serif][B]oral or written statements of witnesses"[/B][/FONT][B][FONT=MS Reference Sans Serif][/FONT][/B]

FTFY. It seemed the non-visible parts of your post were more relevant than the visible parts.

I'll remind you I am a witness.

No, you're a claimant, and a most unconvincing one at that.

I'm not telling you something second hand or third hand.

Neither was J K Rowling.

You a reading the evidence.

You wish. All we're reading is the same silly story over and over again with new embellishments attached whenever a flaw in the plot is highlighted.

You just refuse to believe it and want more evidence ... something sufficient to convince you. I really wish I could do that, but I don't have any other evidence to substantiate my claim.

Just do what you've been doing all along and make some more up, although I might point out that all hope of convincing anyone evaporated weeks and weeks ago and it's all purely for entertainment purposes now.

 

[carlitos]

I watched it rise up out
of the forest marked LZ to where it is pictured hovering.
It turned bright white and went from that point north
up the valley as far as was visible ( over 25Km ), in
about 1 second, leaving a streak of light in its wake. I
was outside looking straight over at it. The lighting was
also a bit dimmer than illustrated.

Sure you did.

Robo,

I don't use the null hypothesis so you've mirepresented me there and you went on to substitute fairies for ufos ( straw man ), then blamed me for using your own analogy to illustrate where you went wrong, then rejected the objective information provided by Wikipedia, substituting your own biased viewpoint and proclaiming based on your misrepresentations, bias and ignorance of the objective information that I'm wrong. You do this so regularly and you ignore my pleas for reason so consistently, that I am at a loss as to how to proceed in further discussion with you.

A suggestion. Post on a webpage "I am a moron that cannot understand basic concepts." This will be an improvement over your showing here. Your dishonest, manipulative attempts to pretend that you don't understand the arguments here do not fool anyone. Your clear demonstrations of your personality disorder are going to be findable by google for all of eternity.

 

[Akhenaten]

As for a reflection of the object on the lake. We couldn't see the lake from inside, and in the morning when I went outside, I had my gaze fixed on the object, not the lake, so I don't know. Like I also said, the Google representation is also off and seems elevated. The lake wasn't as visible from my vantage point as the illustration shows.

What's this crap with Halley's Comet coming over the hill all about then?

Illustration similar to the way the object appeared and moved:

 

[Sideroxylon]

But what is the null hypothesis on talking rabbits? Does Wikipedia say it can be applied to such things?

 

[Akhenaten]

Lastly, the margin of error for size isn't even relevant
to the issue of what made the craft seem to me to be
of alien origin. It is the way it moved. If it were the
size of a greyhound bus or a basketball makes no
difference.

Of course the size is relevant. What if it was the size of a firefly as viewed through a picture window? What then?

Post some pictures of something the size of a Greyhound bus coming over the hill, call it evidence and hope everyone goes along with the joke.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The irony is that if ufology wants his statement to be given the same weight it would have in court, or in an enquiry, he is asking for it to be dismissed. His statement would be the story as first given recorded and sworn under oath. The light was over four thousand feet high, and so forth.

After this many changes surely we need to hold him in contempt?

 

[Akhenaten]

I'd be amazed if there was anyone reading this thread who doesn't.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It is an odd kind of testement or statement that changes so often, in so many respects. There is not a single value or estimate that has remained constant against which the others could be compared. So I suppose the real question is; which version is the statement?

Answer: none. Too many revisions make the witness unreliable, and all data has to discounted.

 

[Akhenaten]

Tomtomkent,

Perhaps you might try to understand the event by reviewing what I've already written before you make your unfounded proclamations.

Well duh, olog. That's exactly how we know it's all just make-believe. Pointing out that your story is being fabricated right before our eyes isn't an unfounded proclamation - it's a simple statement of the bleedin' obvious.

You are just coming across as biased and adversarial.

And you are coming across like Xerxes having the Hellespont lashed because it washed his bridge away.

Here ( again ) is how I could tell what was going on, explained as simply as possible.

"Here is some more retrofitting/special pleading/pseudoscience to make it seem as though I'm not making this all up"

Perhaps you've never watched cars on a dark road bounded by trees from a distance?

Perhaps we have and perhaps, until you got too carried away with it all, some of us may have believed that this could have accounted for one or more of your Bright Shiny Things_{©23_Tauri, 2011} but now it's just a story and people are becoming less and less interested in coming up with plausible explanations for your fantasy

As a car moves past each tree, light gets brighter, and as it moves behind them it gets dimmer. The flickering effect and the way the light filters out from behind them gives you cues for the density of the trees and direction of movement. You have no doubt that the car and the road are behind the trees or which way the car is moving. You also don't have to see all of each individual tree to know what's going on.

That's how it works for normal people. Others will be all, like, "OMG . . . aliens!"

This effect can be seen from much farther than 3Km.

But it takes on completely different properties from 40 years away.

Similarly, as the object approached the treetops window sill and began going down into the forest out of sight, the jagged edges formed by the pointed tops of the trees pareidolia created an outline and texture so that [40 years later] you could make out the density without having to see all of each tree or up the small details.

FTFY

And as it descended below the tops, you could see the light filtering out from behind the trunks and branches. No special abilities are required.

Just some imagination and an irrationally adamant refusal to acknowledge reality.

 

[Sideroxylon]

It is an odd kind of testement or statement that changes so often, in so many respects. There is not a single value or estimate that has remained constant against which the others could be compared. So I suppose the real question is; which version is the statement?

Answer: none. Too many revisions make the witness unreliable, and all data has to discounted.

A witness that boldly asserts seeing presumably interdenominational travelling Cadillacs full of MiB and talking rabbits may find such stories also a millstone on their credibility. There is not enough lipstick in the world for those pigs of stories.