UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

What is going on here? The post was the usual Edge nonsense but it is spelled correctly and made grammatical sense. I have never seen Edge use 'whom ever'. Who was behind the keyboard?

 

[Correa Neto]

what is going on here? The post was the usual edge nonsense but it is spelled correctly and made grammatical sense. I have never seen edge use 'whom ever'. Who was behind the keyboard?

OMG.... Aliens!!!!!!!

 

[dafydd]

OMG.... Aliens!!!!!!!

From the planet Orthography in the Syntax galaxy.

 

[dafydd]

The first three sentences of the post are pure Edge. The rest copied and pasted, I suspect.

 

[Agatha]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/BrokenClock.jpg[/qimg]​

Well played, sir. Take an internet from petty cash.

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[remirol]

It's alarming to check your algebra in the sunshine?

I mean, I know math nerds stay inside a lot, but I don't think the blue room _scares_ them exactly.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It's alarming to check your algebra in the sunshine?

I mean, I know math nerds stay inside a lot, but I don't think the blue room _scares_ them exactly.

You obviously haven't been following the thread or edge's contribution. The correct decipherment is: Clockcheck extralarge sweatysun.

It's subtle, I admit.

 

[Archer17]

The whole point is that there is no down to earth explanation.
Come on black helicopters that do the cattle mutilations, is that what they would use?
That would indicate some kind of government involvement for whatever reasons.

None of this makes sense unless you look at it as spiritual deception, either by men or angels or both....

You're overlooking the fact that it's just a bunch of baloney. Blind acceptance of dubious anecdote isn't something you can ever hope to qualify and generating more dubious anecdote yourself just makes the woo-stew thicker.

For instance a red glowing orb flew through my window and destroyed my TV...

I rest my case.

But if you are a skeptic it never ends, because billions of people through out history are wrong and you are right simply because you have never seen anything yet, that could be or is your deception.

How can anyone be deceived by something they haven't experienced or saw concrete evidence for? I haven't seen an elf yet. Should I just accept their existence because more than a few people over time have claimed to see them? Maybe I should look for a dragon eating the sun next time my region has a solar eclipse, eh? See what I'm getting at? I claimed my rabbit poops gold but that doesn't mean she really does.

Then there's this:
Last night at about 2 in the morning I had to wake some one up from sleep paralysis and night terrors.
They described the event as follows;
Her words:
“ I was totally awake and aware of my surroundings but a black figure kept coming toward me telling me he was going to get me. Sooner or later he was going to get me. I kept screaming for my roommate but could not move. As he got closer to me, just about to tear at my clothing, my roommate appeared and I was instantly back in the realm of reality. My eyes were open the whole time but I could not move. It was not a dream. I know what a dream is and this was no dream. I was in a different realm but still aware. It was an evil entity that entered into my reality or I had and OBE. It was very real. This was not the first time it has happened. It has happened before several times. It is always the same faceless black figure. It seems the closer I get to Christ the worse it gets.”


I asked her why do you think that?

She said,
“It is because I fell from grace and need to repent and stay on the right path. There are two ways to live in this world. You can live the right way or you can live the wrong way. I feel that I did wrong and opened the door to evil.”

Her eyes were wide open and she didn't move till I touched her.
I have never seen fear like that, except from people I have seen recalling their abduction story.
It seems to be similar in nature.

As your second sentence even mentions, this appears to be a classic case of sleep paralysis with elements of hypnagogic hallucinations so in that respect I could see a corollary with alien abductions here, just not for the same reasons you do. (BTW, in case you haven't noticed, I'm not biting on your constant attempts to interject religion into this thread).

My advice edge is to run, not walk and get yourself a baloney-detector ASAP and allow the possibility that some others already have them. That'll save you some frustration next time you want to tell me something that looked like a Klingon photon torpedo blew up your TV and I don't automatically buy it.

 

[PetiteMalleolus]

Tauri, Robo, Stray, Archer -- Hey, thanks for the warm greetings -- makes my alien-to-human transfer feel officially validated...

Tauri wrote: Over to the others to address your question (I'm just the monkey )....

I can almost relate -- I'm merely the Draize-testing version...

Guys-- Thanks for all the thoughts, many of which I've already encountered here to some extent due to your past, uh, laborings with UFO-alien advocates.

Archer -- Just in case I failed to make this clear enough -- my friend was addressing the hundreds of individual sightings by individual pilots -- I mean to say: on Sunday, Pilot 1 claimed he saw one, on Monday, Pilot 2 claimed he saw a different one, etc...

Pixel42 said: No good sceptic has ever suggested that the vast majority of such stories are made up. They're almost all honest, accurate (so far as perceptions and memory allows) descriptions of what the person thinks they saw and are accepted as such in most cases, with the interpretation of what was seen and the conclusions that can be drawn being the only bones of contention.

So, guys, is it safe for us to say,"We just don't know?" (and, of course, await future evidence-attempts). If so, apparently my confusion stemmed mainly (if not entirely) from thinking that perhaps some of the skeptics here felt that these pilots were all mistaken. If it's indeed that I misunderstood that, sorry I put you guys through it (I'll pray that StrayCat spares me a suspended-in-effigy above Cape Otway graphic - first-time offender status, please...) and thanks to all for the further clarification.

And yeah, I'll have the multiple-quote function straight soon...

 

[PetiteMalleolus]

In my other post (#14,120, bottom of page 353 -- I've since learned that I'll perhaps have to break them up if they're too long), I described an exceptionally-educated friend who feels that some UFO-alien claims ought at-least-be-considered as evidence. I now add that he strongly suspects that the government would have multiple reasons for cover-ups in some UFO cases, including Roswell. I'm sure you guys've covered this stuff in the past before I came in, but perhaps you could explain the general thoughts you guys have about government cover-ups in UFO-incidents.

Akenhaten and John Albert -- I've always valued your thoughts, and saw that you didn't happen to comment on my 1st post -- if it's no hassle at all for you, I'd be curious about your thoughts (about either part, 1st or 2nd (the part written for Ufology) -- assuming, uh, that I actually wrote anything worth commenting on.... Thanks much..

 

[RoboTimbo]

So, guys, is it safe for us to say,"We just don't know?" (and, of course, await future evidence-attempts).

Yes, it is fair to say that. Because anecdotes are unfalsifiable, we have no way of knowing what any of them saw. Some of them may have seen aliens but there has never been any evidence of aliens.

This is why we have ufology's null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

and it hasn't been falsified.

If so, apparently my confusion stemmed mainly (if not entirely) from thinking that perhaps some of the skeptics here felt that these pilots were all mistaken.

Mistaken about what? What skeptics feel is unwarranted is the leap to a conclusion of aliens.

If it's indeed that I misunderstood that, sorry I put you guys through it (I'll pray that StrayCat spares me a suspended-in-effigy above Cape Otway graphic - first-time offender status, please...) and thanks to all for the further clarification.

And yeah, I'll have the multiple-quote function straight soon...

Ufology's (the poster and the pseudoscience) mistake is in thinking that the plural of anecdote equals evidence. Do I think pilots have seen lights in the sky that they couldn't identify? Yep. I think pilots actually have seen lights in the sky that they couldn't identify.

 

[John Albert]

Akenhaten and John Albert -- I've always valued your thoughts, and saw that you didn't happen to comment on my 1st post -- if it's no hassle at all for you, I'd be curious about your thoughts (about either part, 1st or 2nd (the part written for Ufology) -- assuming, uh, that I actually wrote anything worth commenting on.... Thanks much..

No problem!

Sorry I'm for being a bit late in welcoming you to the JREF forums. Welcome! I hope you stick around and find this your stay here both educational and entertaining. Be sure to check out all the other forums besides just GS&TP.

As for your friend, I'd say it's a typical case of somebody harboring a pet woo for some reason or another. I'm sure we all exhibit the same behavior to some extent, some more than others. Even Nobel laureates in science have been known to neglect their critical mindset when it comes to certain subjects.

 

[Archer17]

...Archer -- Just in case I failed to make this clear enough -- my friend was addressing the hundreds of individual sightings by individual pilots -- I mean to say: on Sunday, Pilot 1 claimed he saw one, on Monday, Pilot 2 claimed he saw a different one, etc...

Exactly my point. The individual sightings don't describe the same "thingie" at all yet are often lumped together to give weight to an 'out-of-this-world' explanation. To me, "unidentified" isn't good enough to make such a leap and pilots are privy to the same fallibilities of observation as us land-lubbers.

So, guys, is it safe for us to say,"We just don't know?" (and, of course, await future evidence-attempts). If so, apparently my confusion stemmed mainly (if not entirely) from thinking that perhaps some of the skeptics here felt that these pilots were all mistaken...

The 'U' in UFO means "unidentified," which means 'we don't know'. The mistake occurs when someone doesn't respect that 'U.' That goes for "debunkers" and woos alike. No one can avoid the burden of evidence if they make a claim.
As I said earlier, pilots make mistakes like the rest of the human race but it's not the "UFO" they might see that I have a problem with, my problem is with those that think that just because a pilot saw something he/she couldn't identify, it just had to be non-mundane.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

You know, I dreamt about being abducted by two hot Pleiadean women and having lots of sex with them after being rubbed with some oil. Woke up and found a long strand of blonde hair around my... Uh... Well, down there.

That's not logical, Captain Kirk. </spock>

 

[tomi71]

U in UFO means unidentified, however unidentified is not exactly same as "we don´t know". There are cases, that we do know what it wasn´t. We can for example say that that particular ufo in case X was not bird, Venus, balloon, airplane, satellite etc. and still the UFO remains ufo. These kind of cases are most interesting, because they remain unidentified even though a plethora of mundane objects or phenomena can be ruled out.

This means that unidentified is not always 100% not knowing what something is. At least sometimes there is a possiblity to say what it is NOT.

Even if there was a giant craft howering over the city. We couldn´t say that it is alien craft even if we would see aliens waving their hands in the windows. It would be still unidentified. We could only speculate it to be alien craft, but for certain we could not be.

 

[Sideroxylon]

U in UFO means unidentified, however unidentified is not exactly same as "we don´t know". There are cases, that we do know what it wasn´t. We can for example say that that particular ufo in case X was not bird, Venus, balloon, airplane, satellite etc. and still the UFO remains ufo. These kind of cases are most interesting, because they remain unidentified even though a plethora of mundane objects or phenomena can be ruled out.

This means that unidentified is not always 100% not knowing what something is. At least sometimes there is a possiblity to say what it is NOT.

Even if there was a giant craft howering over the city. We couldn´t say that it is alien craft even if we would see aliens waving their hands in the windows. It would be still unidentified. We could only speculate it to be alien craft, but for certain we could not be.

If you are talking about daylight sightings of giant craft of the appearance in "Independence Day" or a part of a Vogon constructor fleet, would it be ill advised to have a flutter with any bookmaker offering attractive odds on it not being an alien craft?

The USAF should knock up some kind of giant blimp and unleash it on April Fools Day.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

U in UFO means unidentified, however unidentified is not exactly same as "we don´t know". There are cases, that we do know what it wasn´t. We can for example say that that particular ufo in case X was not bird, Venus, balloon, airplane, satellite etc. and still the UFO remains ufo. These kind of cases are most interesting, because they remain unidentified even though a plethora of mundane objects or phenomena can be ruled out.

It's more correct to say we sometimes know it wasn't a plane, balloon, etc. *that we know about*. Even if we can't find any evidence of a plane or balloon it doesn’t mean there isn't one we don't know about. There can be secret hardware, lost records, etc.

There are also always hoaxes.

In the cases that I'm aware of where no good explanation exists it's because there just isn't enough data to come to a conclusion, not because every mundane explanation was conclusively ruled out.

 

[PetiteMalleolus]

John A. - Thanks much. I similarly ask:

Paul2 -- Somehow (obviously...) I left your name out, here inserted: Akenaten, John Albert and Paul2 -- I've always valued your thoughts, and saw that you didn't happen to comment on my 1st post -- if it's no hassle at all for you, I'd be curious about your thoughts (about either part, 1st or 2nd (the part written for Ufology) -- assuming, uh, that I actually wrote anything worth commenting on.... Thanks much..

 

[John Albert]

John A. - Thanks much. I similarly ask:

Paul2 -- Somehow (obviously...) I left your name out, here inserted: Akenaten, John Albert and Paul2 -- I've always valued your thoughts, and saw that you didn't happen to comment on my 1st post

My last post was actually meant to address your first post. However, it apparently wasn't concise or comprehensive enough for your liking, so I'll take the time to quote it line for line and address each individual point. OK?

-- if it's no hassle at all for you, I'd be curious about your thoughts (about either part, 1st or 2nd (the part written for Ufology) -- assuming, uh, that I actually wrote anything worth commenting on.... Thanks much..

Don't worry. It's no problem.

Hey, guys -- I'm a 1st-time poster. Sorry if this gets a little long (1/73,586,827th the length of this thread still constitutes a volume...).

Welcome to the JREF forums. I hope you'll stick around, and find your stay here both educational and entertaining. Be sure to check out all the other forums besides just GS&TP. There's a lot of fascinating and lively discussion about a lot of topics.

I've been following for a while, although I was absent during some of the early Rramjet Period (abductions and JREF access don't mix...)

Alright, hold it right there...

What exactly is that supposed to mean, that part in parenthesis:

(abductions and JREF access don't mix...)

What exactly does that mean? Is this a snide little bit of tongue-in-cheek jest? If so, then please allow me to register my amusement via the appropriate Internet emoticon:



If, on the other hand, you're trying to clue us in that you have some kind of wild UFO abduction story you'd like to share, then why not just come out with it?

Please explain.

...and I've learned a lot here, but I apparently still have, uh, a ways to go, so maybe you guys can help me out.

Wonderful! I hope you continue to learn as much as you can. Life is all about learning. Glad to be of service, if I can.

I have a friend who's exceptionally well-read who is, among other things, a linguistic specialist, biblical scholar (he's atheist), logician and former philosophy professor. He's also the most skeptical person I've ever known. He's always trying to not-only educate me in general, but get me to think more skeptically and to be more careful about what constitutes evidence.

Could you please clarify? What is it about his ideas, mode of thinking or personal demeanor that makes you think he's skeptical?

You've mentioned that your friend emphasizes the importance of examining evidence before committing to belief in something. That's encouraging.

But having read this and other threads here on the JREF forums, you must also realize that lots of people go around identifying themselves as skeptics, even when their actual modes of thinking indicate otherwise. Even just a quick skim over the first pages of a number of woo-heavy topics will indicate that many credulous believers will preface some of the craziest claims you've ever heard with the declaration that they themselves are sober critical thinkers. I think they must feel that asserting their own skepticism somehow adds weight to their claims, as if evidence is unnecessary, actions don't speak louder than words, and the proof does not reside in the proverbial pudding.

Anyway, regarding your specific friend: given what you've read here on the JREF forums about the scientific method, null hypotheses, and the relative value of different kinds of evidence, do you still think this guy is really a good skeptic? Or does he consider himself as such, while at the same time exhibiting a few telltale signs of spotty logic and uncritical credulity?

He's always seemed to appreciate that I've gone through life non-woo-afflicted, but he realizes that I'm not-even-nearly as educated as he is.

How do you know he appreciates and realizes these things? Has he made a point of it? What did he say, specifically, that makes you believe he regards you with these kinds of feelings?

A few days ago, he told me he had a film to show me --- in past months, I've intermittently attempted to fill him in on the goings-on in this thread (he doesn't have internet access), and I knew only that the film was somehow related to my recent ramblings... I flew over there

OK, now by "flew" I'm going to assume you meant "traveled very quickly." Is this correct? You're not by any chance proposing we believe that you literally flew through the air over the distance of a mile, are you?

Again, if this is my misunderstanding, please allow me to defuse the awkwardness of the situation with another amusing Internet-style emoticon:



No offense I hope. You never can be too careful in a place like this, where woos abound!

(it was only a mile, no one saw me, it was night, and cameras are banned in our county...)

Alright, this part is getting weird. What are you getting at here? Why would you care that anyone saw you, merely traveling en route to a friend's home to view a 30-year-old documentary about UFOs?

Furthermore, what county do you live in, where cameras are banned? Why the secrecy to avoid being seen, and what bearing does it have on this story?

and we watched what was the 1979 film, "UFOs Are Real", (yeah, I know a bunch of you guys probably saw it..).

I saw it, yes, as a kid. I've probably seen it 2 or 3 times, along with a number of other similar movies that came out back then in the woo-obsessed late '70s. I'm pretty sure it had also been run at least once or twice on cable TV in the mid-late '80s, on the USA Network's late-night program Night Flight. If anyone's interested, you can watch it on Google Video here.

When the show ended, I was guessing that he was going to remind me of something-to-the-effect-of that people will go to great lengths in supporting beliefs for which there is no evidence of, and then point out all the philosophical/psychological/logical fallacies like he always does in exposing paranormal claims. Before he said anything, I said something like, "Yeah, some of those I can try to explain away, but for some of the others, I'm just not knowledgeable enough to explain what was presented.", and I guessed that he'd then explain the hoaxes/hallucinations/whatever-else/etc... To my surprise, he said, as best as I can paraphrase, "What's there to shoot down? These are accounts by trained, educated, informed, knowledgeable-in-their-milieu people who don't have reason to make these stories up.", and he certainly was, at least, addressing the claims by pilots.

Well, what do you think?

Do you think pilots are capable of superhuman perceptual, cognitive and memory abilities, just by virtue of being pilots?

Do you think they're immune to the effects of job-related stress, and the fatigue of extreme physical conditions?

Do you think all pilots are incapable of making mistakes or even lying?

Do you think there's no possibility that at least one or two of those stories might have been fabricated somewhere else prior to the making of the movie, without the involvement of any actual pilots whatsoever?

Can you conclusively rule out all those possibilities?

Because remember, there's absolutely no evidence to back up any of those claims of alien spaceships. They are merely claims, and claims do not constitute substantive evidence for themselves.

He's definitely not saying that every one of these claims in the show must be true, but he did cite the fact that there've been hundreds (or more?) of such claims (again, he certainly was addressing at-least pilots/military-people; and, he's very well aware that large, large, large numbers of people have claimed the existence of various Gods, psychic powers, etc... -- he'll systematically tear such claimants to shreds; and he's obviously well-versed in the logical fallacies, E.C.R.E.E., witness fallibility and the null hypothesis). He's not concluding that there's definitely been alien visitation, but he doesn't feel that the stories in the film can all be "poo-poohed" (his term) away, and feels that at-least-some of these stories constitute "some evidence that should be considered" (his quote). He also particularly mentioned Hoover's statement, the C.I.A. statement and Jimmy Carter's navy training. He is more reluctant to give weight to the 2 abduction stories (Travis Walton, Betty Hill -- personally, my idol-worship phase was traumatized when she threatened to surpass Benny in most-humorous-responses-elicited...) but doesn't appear quite ready to totally dismiss them -- particularly noting the Walton-case polygraph results.

OK most, if not all of these issues have already been dealt with earlier in this thread.

So, quite simply, I ask: How would you guys reply to his statements?

Frankly, without being able to actually discuss the issues with your friend himself, I don't feel right about rebutting somebody else's arguments through a go-between. Maybe you can figure out some way to get him connected through the Intertubez, so we can actually get him into the discussion?

I hope my responses thus far have sufficed for your satisfaction. If you have any questions, go ahead and ask.

I realize that, regarding UFO-lore, you guys've "heard it all before", but here, particularly given my friend's background, I'm curious as to whether you guys have a slant that I haven't seen posted yet (or maybe missed early in the thread) -- there's gotta be something(s) I'm missing here... Thanks.

What are you missing?

What exactly is your friend's background? How does his background as a retired philosophy teacher qualify him to argue these cases any better than the career scientists, retired military people, professional engineers, working technicians and others who've contributed to these UFO-related threads?

Also --

Ufology -- Hello... Hey, I was thinking... Needless-to-say, if it happens to be the case that you, to-at-least-some-extent, are here for education, this forum seems (well, almost-all-the-time, at-least...) to be the perfect place for it. If I ever needed skeptical input, I could run, 24-hours-a-day, to RoboTimbo, AstroPhotographer, Akhenaten, StrayCat, JohnAlbert, Paul2, etc... and, independent of what they make think of me personality-wise or vice versa, they'll unhesitatingly give insight into whatever I may ask (thus obviating the need to reveal my striking Christina Aguilera resemblance...). For what it's worth, I find that the technique that RoboTimbo mentions --essentially, "Make up an example of your own and spit it back to me so that I can see that you understand" -- is often the best way for me to try to teach things to people (and to learn things myself). There've been times when I've struggled to understand concepts that people have tried repeatedly, in multiple ways, to explain to me, so I'd try to explain-back to them, and they'll say, "Well, part A is right, but you don't have B (C, D, etc...) yet", or, "You don't seem have any of it right, yet", or, "Yeah, now you seem to understand". Unless I'm at stage "Yeah, now you seem to understand", it seems that I have to, if I wish to climb to a higher stage, continue to find ways to refine my understanding of the concept(s) (which likely will include bouncing questions off people more knowledgeable than I am), and hopefully, I'll ultimately be told that I do indeed understand.
As you know, different people on this forum have different strengths -- philosophers, magicians, AstroPhotographer with his air ventures, JohnAlbert with his logical fallacies expertise, you with your UFO background, to name just a few -- and, since no one obviously is claiming omniscience, it seems possible that, if the skeptics could see that you indeed understand the null hypothesis, one-or-more of them might be able to better-understand you and subsequently better-address some of your claims/statements/whatever-you-wish-to-call-them, possibly leading to skeptics even introducing ideas that have not surfaced here yet.
I do realize that perhaps you do understand it (the null hypothesis) and are hesitant to indicate such (or feel that you already have indeed indicated it), and that you may have reason(s) for hesitating which may differ from reason(s) that some posters have hypothesized here -- but on another hand, you seem to possess the ability to "take a licking and keep on ticking", and if you are indeed sufficiently-impenetrable, would perhaps have nothing to lose (and, indeed, potentially something to gain) in trying Robo's suggestion of you making up an example using the null hypothesis. And, supposing you do indeed "successfully spit the null hypothesis back to him" -- it seems that your fundamental position about it wouldn't necessarily have to change, that is to say that you could still maintain that you don't feel that the null hypothesis applies to your field. Any thoughts? Thanks...

J. Randall Murphy came here to the JREF not knowing the meaning of critical thinking, yet he argued for tens of pages trying to miseducate all of us about it. He had no idea what a null hypothesis is or how it works, yet he pitched a special pleading that it is inapplicable to the study of UFOs, an assertion that is totally untrue. He constantly moved the goalposts of discussion by arbitrarily redefining terms at his own whim. He demonstrated considerable ignorance about subjects as diverse as basic trigonometry, high school physics, the functioning of radar, the limits of human visual acuity, basic informal logic, and protocols for USAF specifications, yet he pontificated to us on all those subjects as if he were a qualified expert.

He's demonstrated that he doesn't care to discuss anything on fair terms. His debating strategy has been to repeat and reassert his own failed arguments ad nauseam, while flatly refusing to address rebuttals, and ignoring any arguments or questions which he doesn't feel like answering. In other words, he behaved like an arrogant prick to just about everybody here.

He'll never address the questions of the null hypothesis, because he knows exactly what that would imply with regard to his "research." Despite all his bluster, he knows deep down that he doesn't have a leg to stand on. If he were really seeking the truth instead of just hawking New Age books and talking out of his ass, he'd take the responsibility to actually look for evidence. But he won't, because he doesn't really care to put forth the effort. It's far easier (and apparently, rewarding enough for him) to just pretend to be a "UFO expert" on the Internet. His whole point of being here was to pimp and lend prestige to his imaginary outer space alien believers club.

So yeah, don't hold your breath.