UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Toke]

So, all UFOs are mundane? What´s the fuzz then? Why do governments have thousands of UFO-reports? Why are there cases that defy mundane explanation? If this is so easy, I wonder why sceticps just don´t explain those cases away. They can´t. Only thing they can is to speak a lot and loudly. That´s not however very good. It solves nothing. Where is the will to actually trying to find solutions to cases instead of ridicule. Scientific approach would be welcome to this forum.

There are a lot of UFO stories that are too vague for any kind of identification.

One of the things about science is that conclusions must be backed up with solid evidence, and that it is perfectly all right to say "I don't know" if you lack that.

 

[GeeMack]

So, all UFOs are mundane?

No unidentified flying object which was eventually identified has ever turned out to be anything other than mundane.

What´s the fuzz then? Why do governments have thousands of UFO-reports?

Reports of things that were perceived to be flying objects yet were not identified as some particular thing? Maybe it's data for a psychological research project.

Why are there cases that defy mundane explanation?

You must know something that everyone else has missed. In the thousands of posts in this thread, no UFO case has defied mundane explanation.

If this is so easy, I wonder why sceticps just don´t explain those cases away. They can´t.

Sure they can. It's as easy as this: Things which haven't been identified haven't been identified. It's not the skeptics who are making an irrational leap from unidentified to aliens.

Only thing they can is to speak a lot and loudly. That´s not however very good. It solves nothing.

There are many things which haven't been identified as some particular thing, and in many cases likely never will be. So?

Where is the will to actually trying to find solutions to cases instead of ridicule. Scientific approach would be welcome to this forum.

Where is the will among the "unidentified = aliens" proponents to be responsible for their own position? As we've reminded ufology so many times, it's dishonest to blame the skeptics for the utter failure of the alien believers to support their claims.

 

[Archer17]

So, all UFOs are mundane? What´s the fuzz then? Why do governments have thousands of UFO-reports? Why are there cases that defy mundane explanation? If this is so easy, I wonder why sceticps just don´t explain those cases away. They can´t. Only thing they can is to speak a lot and loudly. That´s not however very good. It solves nothing. Where is the will to actually trying to find solutions to cases instead of ridicule. Scientific approach would be welcome to this forum.

The "fuzz" comes from those that feel compelled to elevate a simple case of someone seeing something they can't identify into something otherworldly. Does the fact that various governments have shown an interest in their own airspace surprise you? Any serious interest would have to include unexplained sightings in that airspace, don'tcha think?

You seem to confuse "skeptics" with "debunkers." Skeptics respect the 'U.' They don't try to replace that letter without irrefutable evidence and ask for the same from those that do. Debunkers go a step further and propose a solution to a UFO sighting and debunkery, despite being used as a derogatory term by flying saucer advocates, has actually resulted in identifying some previously unidentified "objects" through the years. What any skeptic worth his salt requires from "debunkers" is the same irrefutable evidence we ask "a lot and loudly" from those that peddle the "alien" angle. I see nothing unscientific in this approach.

 

[Akhenaten]

So, all UFOs are mundane?

Not necessarily, but it's a hypothesis that remains to be falsified.

What´s the fuzz then?

It's a heap of people with guns and uniforms driving around in cars with lights and sirens, but that's not important right now.

Why do governments have thousands of UFO-reports?

Because UFOs are a real phenomenon.

Why are there cases that defy mundane explanation?

Insufficient information.

If this is so easy, I wonder why sceticps just don´t explain those cases away. They can´t.

Because there's insufficient information.

Only thing they can is to speak a lot and loudly.

That's patently untrue. Sceticps come from all wlaks of life and can do all knids of thnigs.

That´s not however very good. It solves nothing.

What is it exactly that you feel is in need of solving?

Where is the will to actually trying to find solutions to cases instead of ridicule.

Abducted.

Scientific approach would be welcome to this forum.

Okay. Let's start with your evidence.

 

[John Albert]

What´s the fuzz then?

It's a heap of people with guns and uniforms driving around in cars with lights and sirens, but that's not important right now.

 

[Akhenaten]

And don't call me Shirley!

 

[RoboTimbo]

So, all UFOs are mundane?

To answer that, we'd first have to identify all of them, wouldn't we?

What´s the fuzz then? Why do governments have thousands of UFO-reports? Why are there cases that defy mundane explanation?

There are??!! If you have one that does defy mundane explanation, by all means, this is the thread to bring it to. Nobody has done so yet.

If this is so easy, I wonder why sceticps just don´t explain those cases away.

Or why creduloids don't falsify the null hypothesis.

They can´t.

You've made another mistake that Rramjet was famous for - attempting to shift the burden of proof. Don't feel bad, it didn't work for him either.

Only thing they can is to speak a lot and loudly. That´s not however very good. It solves nothing.

What would you like to have solved?

Where is the will to actually trying to find solutions to cases instead of ridicule.

Have you asked any creduloids that question?

Scientific approach would be welcome to this forum.

Fantastic idea! Let's start with the scientific falsifiable null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

and see if anyone can falsify it, m'kay?

 

[tomi71]

Okay, you have all answered, but still I can´t find any explanations to Rramjets UFO examples. Let´s take just one: The Teheran incident.

What´s the explanation?

And there are many many more. You can´t really come up with any mundane explanations, can you? No. You say there is nothing to explain. Well. I say there is a lot to you to explain, since you claim that all UFO-phenomena has a mundane explanation. Just explain these things. Easy?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Okay, you have all answered, but still I can´t find any explanations to Rramjets UFO examples. Let´s take just one: The Teheran incident.

What´s the explanation?

And there are many many more. You can´t really come up with any mundane explanations, can you? No. You say there is nothing to explain. Well. I say there is a lot to you to explain, since you claim that all UFO-phenomena has a mundane explanation. Just explain these things. Easy?

It's easy to see which parts of everyone else's posts you were unable to comprehend.

What is your non-mundane explanation that you've scientifically arrived at?

 

[tomi71]

I know what you are going to say, but how about trying to really explain these things. Don´t give me anything else. Just explain them. It should be easy since you are so certain that it is.

Don´t say anything about moving the goal posts or burden of proof. I am not claiming anything. I am only asking explanations? You don´t have any? If not, please don´t be so arrogant. You certainly have not won anything in this debate. You have only proofed that you act badly. That´s all. Sorry to say.

 

[tomi71]

How about you Robotimbo for a change: answer to the questions and do not ask them. You are all about redicule and asking question. Where are your answers? Can you give something instead of always asking. Do you really have something to say instead of your barking.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I know what you are going to say, but how about trying to really explain these things. Don´t give me anything else. Just explain them. It should be easy since you are so certain that it is.

Don´t say anything about moving the goal posts or burden of proof. I am not claiming anything. I am only asking explanations? You don´t have any? If not, please don´t be so arrogant. You certainly have not won anything in this debate. You have only proofed that you act badly. That´s all. Sorry to say.

If you know what was going to be said, you probably also know why it was going to be said. Explain to me in your own words why the person making the claim has the burden of proof so that everyone will know that you understand it.

Then explain to me in your own words how you understand the null hypothesis to work and give me an example from everyday life. I don't think you've understood it any better than ufology.

 

[Toke]

Trying to shift the burden of proof again?

The Tehran incident were Thor out for a joyride in his chariot.
Now your turn, disprove it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

How about you Robotimbo for a change: answer to the questions and do not ask them. You are all about redicule and asking question. Where are your answers?

How about you tomi71, you answer the questions. You're the one making the claim that the Tehran incident was something non-mundane.

Can you give something instead of always asking. Do you really have something to say instead of your barking.

Do you have anything to add to the discussion other than following in Rramjet's and ufology's failed footsteps of attempting to switch the burden of proof?

 

[tomi71]

I am not claiming anything. How about explaining these things into mundane. Can you? If not, why?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I am not claiming anything. How about explaining these things into mundane. Can you? If not, why?

If you aren't claiming anything then what is there to explain?

 

[tomi71]

The un-mundane nature of the phenomen.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The un-mundane nature of the phenomen.

Then you're claiming that the explanation for the Tehran incident is non-mundane?

 

[tomi71]

So you keep on asking. How about answering for a change.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So you keep on asking. How about answering for a change.

Be glad to. Answer what?