UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

I didn't ask anyone here for a critique of my character. I asked if anyone had any constructive commentary e.g. news of the latest hoaxes, [...]

There's that J. Randall Murphy hoax. Why is it you keep avoiding that one? Come on, let's talk about it.

[...] faked credentials [...]

Like maybe someone claiming to be an expert in the pseudoscience of "ufology", while in reality just trying to peddle some books to the credulous and perpetrate a hoax? Fake credentials like that? Because if you really want to discuss that sort of thing, maybe we can find an example very, very near by.

[...] or interesting science applicable to ufology. So could you please keep your opinions regarding me personally to yourself and try to address the issue?

The issue, whether you like it or not, is the absolute and unequivocal lack of objective evidence to support the claim that some UFOs are alien craft. The issue is the fact that every bit of the research has failed to produce even a speck of objective evidence. The issue is that claims are still being made about the existence of aliens in spite of that lack of evidence. The issue is that nearly every conceivable logical fallacy has been employed to try to dishonestly validate those claims. And a big part of the issue is the alien believers are dishonestly claiming to want a reasoned and skeptical examination of the UFO phenomena, and all the while demonstrating that they have no such desire at all.

So, without continuing to dishonestly blame the skeptics for your own failure (seems that's exactly where we started so many months ago), how about you take responsibility for your claim and produce the evidence. Alternatively you could do the honest thing and admit that no such evidence exists. You could do the skeptical thing and acknowledge that UFOs being alien craft is exactly as well supported as them being gods playing pranks on a handful of easily duped people. That's some advice from a cooperative helpful skeptic on how to proceed productively.

 

[R.A.F.]

What has UFOlogy (the pseudoscience, not the poster) done for humanity in the last 60 years?

Well, no scientific advancement has come of it...certain individuals have made money writing books, making TV shows.

Done for humanity as a whole?...pretty much nothing...

 

[R.A.F.]

You remember what the null hypothesis is, don't you? Or do I need to repeat it yet again?

I'd say, you better repeat it...UFOlogy's attention span...well, it's a little short.

 

[ufology]

When asked if they've uncovered anything useful from a skeptical or scientific point of view that would be interesting to people who enjoy ufology, the common responses here involve character assassination, mockery, unfounded proclamations and a barrage of biased flames. This has gone on for months now and I'm only left to conclude that the JREF condones this sad behavior because the offenders continue to be allowed to post on the forum. On very rare occasions I've managed to get some useful information from one or two participants. In other cases I've also succeeded in having offensive posts removed, but the cost has always been high in terms of time and emotional health. Based on my experiences here to date, I would not recommend this site as a resource for useful information. It cannot be counted on to be fair minded or accurate.

 

[GeeMack]

[* Irrelevant complaint snipped. *]

So how about that J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax we've heard so much about here lately? What was it made you decide to write that bogus story and put it on the 'net? When did you first conceive it? Why did you make it so predictable instead of including some interesting literary elements like the better UFO hoaxers have done? You want to talk about UFO hoaxes? Let's talk.

 

[John Albert]

When asked if they've uncovered anything useful from a skeptical or scientific point of view that would be interesting to people who enjoy ufology...

How come you're asking us? Since when is it our responsibility to cater to the interests of believers in flying saucers and outer space aliens? Have you worn out your welcome at the Paracast forums already?

You're the UFO aficionado, J. Randall Murphy. I would figure a world-reknowned expert like yourself be hard at work, tracking down lots of leads.

I guess it must be a slow news day at the Ufology Society International.

 

[Sideroxylon]

When asked if they've uncovered anything useful from a skeptical or scientific point of view that would be interesting to people who enjoy ufology, the common responses here involve character assassination, mockery, unfounded proclamations and a barrage of biased flames. This has gone on for months now and I'm only left to conclude that the JREF condones this sad behavior because the offenders continue to be allowed to post on the forum. On very rare occasions I've managed to get some useful information from one or two participants. In other cases I've also succeeded in having offensive posts removed, but the cost has always been high in terms of time and emotional health. Based on my experiences here to date, I would not recommend this site as a resource for useful information. It cannot be counted on to be fair minded or accurate.

Put some of the mockery down to frustration. When are you going to get to grips with the null hypothesis and that your redefinition of UFO is self serving and a personal barrier to honest inquiry? You have gotten a great deal of well considered replies from a number of patient posters here but you seem unable to engage with them. I have learnt quite a lot from them, so thanks for generating such posts.

So what are you skeptical of, Ufology? Have you gotten around JREF much? Have you noticed in other threads how blind and stubborn some people can get when their cherished beliefs are challenged? Have you noticed how in amongst the sniping and silly banter that some posters patiently spend time trying to explain important points to people who seem unwilling to learn?

 

[Krikkiter]

When asked if they've uncovered anything useful from a skeptical or scientific point of view that would be interesting to people who enjoy ufology, the common responses here involve character assassination, mockery, unfounded proclamations and a barrage of biased flames. This has gone on for months now and I'm only left to conclude that the JREF condones this sad behavior because the offenders continue to be allowed to post on the forum. On very rare occasions I've managed to get some useful information from one or two participants. In other cases I've also succeeded in having offensive posts removed, but the cost has always been high in terms of time and emotional health. Based on my experiences here to date, I would not recommend this site as a resource for useful information. It cannot be counted on to be fair minded or accurate.

I disagree entirely.

People are applying critical thinking and skepticism to your methods. This involves questions and answers that are confronting to you and you're not dealing with it that well.

You can't come to a forum full of skeptics and ask them to go easy on you: asking to have terminology redefined, asking for leeway regarding what does and doesn't constitute evidence, asking people to ignore logical fallacies.

And really, I'd imagine this forum is absolutely nothing compared to the criticism that goes on in real life scientific forums. I think you should consider yourself lucky that JREF forum is such a sheltered and (relatively) polite (yes I really do mean polite) place for discussion.

What you should be doing is taking advantage of the knowledge people have here to further your own research, not being offended when people point out your mistakes and crying conspiracy or foul play.

 

[Archer17]

When asked if they've uncovered anything useful from a skeptical or scientific point of view that would be interesting to people who enjoy ufology, the common responses here involve character assassination, mockery, unfounded proclamations and a barrage of biased flames. This has gone on for months now and I'm only left to conclude that the JREF condones this sad behavior because the offenders continue to be allowed to post on the forum. On very rare occasions I've managed to get some useful information from one or two participants. In other cases I've also succeeded in having offensive posts removed, but the cost has always been high in terms of time and emotional health. Based on my experiences here to date, I would not recommend this site as a resource for useful information. It cannot be counted on to be fair minded or accurate.

Need a tissue? If the above whining is what you believe (which I doubt, you knew you were never preaching to the choir here) then why are you here? You really didn't expect anyone to just buy your spiel, did you? While you sob about the JREF forum not to "be counted on to be fair minded or accurate" it is you that epitomizes disgrace here. You were told about the burden of evidence, the difference between a claim and evidence, the null hypothesis, even the difference between visual acuity and perception and chose to be the hand-waving woo in response. Your evasions, semantical games, and overt dishonesty tells the real tale here. A sad story that anyone can see for themselves by reading what you did and didn't bring to the table here after way too many pages.

You really want to know what is useful from a scientific/skeptical point of view to someone interested in ufology? Respect the 'U' in 'UFO' for what it really is (and isn't) and realize that replacing that letter requires more than what has been provided to date.

 

[ufology]

I disagree entirely.

People are applying critical thinking and skepticism to your methods. This involves questions and answers that are confronting to you and you're not dealing with it that well ...

Krikkiter,

I didn't come here to get into confrontations, but as you point out, it's what the people here constantly engage in. What I am looking for is information on the latest sightings, hoaxes or science that people interested in ufology would find useful from a skeptical and/or critically minded point of view. I see very little of that going on here. The confrontations are a net drag on the advancement of knowledge and understanding and should be something those who aspire to higher standards would want to avoid. In this spirit, perhaps you might have something useful to offer?

 

[Robrob]

Krikkiter,

I didn't come here to get into confrontations, but as you point out, it's what the people here constantly engage in.

Translation: you post myths, fabrications and avoid answering the most simple questions then accuse people contradicting you of being "confrontational."

What I am looking for is information on the latest sightings, hoaxes or science that people interested in ufology would find useful from a skeptical and/or critically minded point of view.

Since every single sighting you have offered as "proof" has quickly been shown to have perfectly normal explanations and you never, ever learn, one has to wonder at the truthfulness of your claim.

I see very little of that going on here. The confrontations are a net drag on the advancement of knowledge and understanding and should be something those who aspire to higher standards would want to avoid. In this spirit, perhaps you might have something useful to offer?

Here's something "useful" I'll offer; stop presenting myth as fact. Pony up some consistent documented evidence and maybe you can have a discussion. Otherwise you are no different than any other CT.

 

[Krikkiter]

Krikkiter,

I didn't come here to get into confrontations, but as you point out, it's what the people here constantly engage in. What I am looking for is information on the latest sightings, hoaxes or science that people interested in ufology would find useful from a skeptical and/or critically minded point of view. I see very little of that going on here. The confrontations are a net drag on the advancement of knowledge and understanding and should be something those who aspire to higher standards would want to avoid. In this spirit, perhaps you might have something useful to offer?

I'm sure you didn't come here hoping for confrontations but you really should have expected some. They happen because when people point out the errors in your methods you seem unwilling to accept and reflect on the criticism. A good example really is the null hypothesis. There is currently no evidence whatsoever that UFO's are anything but Unidentified Flying Objects. You insist that unrelated personal anecdotes are evidence but as far as I'm aware, unrelated personal anecdotes are not, in any situation considered evidence without some kind of supporting evidence - in this case, something tactile would be great. Maybe an extraterrestrial craft or something or at the very least, evidence that intelligent extraterrestrial life actually exists. If you had anything like this your situation would be vastly improved.

I read the story about your personal experience with a UFO. In that case, the evidence is so thin on the ground that we may as well say that it's a good story and leave it at that. What would improve the veracity of that particular claim would be an independent verification of that claim. What did the neighbours have to say? Can we have your girlfriends account? Were there any other people around that can add something? Having said that, independent verification would only make your claim a little bit more solid. Not much. A little.

I don't have anything to relate myself. After watching Star Wars and E.T as a kid, I really wished that I would see a UFO but even as a kid I knew it was just wishful thinking.

 

[John Albert]

I actually saw a UFO just last night.

While taking the garbage out at about 4:50 AM, I stopped for a few minutes to stare at the sky, hoping to catch a glimpse of one of the Orionids. I didn't see a meteor, but at about 4:56 I spotted a very dim, planet-like object moving across the sky from South to North.

I'm sure it was a satellite of some kind, but until I take the time to check Gpredict or Heaven's Above for a plausible candidate, it will have to remain a mysterious UFO.

 

[Krikkiter]

I actually saw a UFO just last night.

While taking the garbage out at about 4:50 AM, I stopped for a few minutes to stare at the sky, hoping to catch a glimpse of one of the Orionids. I didn't see a meteor, but at about 4:56 I spotted a very dim, planet-like object moving across the sky from South to North.

I'm sure it was a satellite of some kind, but until I take the time to check Gpredict or Heaven's Above for a plausible candidate, it will have to remain a mysterious UFO.

Yeah actually I see UFO's fairly regularly. I should have been clearer in my post. What I should have said is that I wished I would see an Identified Flying Object of demonstrable extraterrestrial origin.

 

[John Albert]

Yeah actually I see UFO's fairly regularly. I should have been clearer in my post. What I should have said is that I wished I would see an Identified Flying Object of demonstrable extraterrestrial origin.

I understand completely.

But by the twisted semantics of J. Randall Murphy here, those objects would not be properly classified as UFOs until exhaustive research has been conducted by a super-sciencey team of eminently qualified professional UFOlogists and all possible mundane causes have been ruled out, leaving only one possible explanation: "OMG, Aliens!!!"

 

[De_Bunk]

Look...

The whole subject of Aliens and their spaceships can be summed up like this..

1.They wouldnt allow themselves to be seen...at all...If they got the technology to travel vast distances..then they got the technology to remain hidden.

2.If we did see them..they would look at mankind as we do at bedbugs...and kill us..We would mean nothing to them..Zero..Mankind could offer them nothing...at best they might allow us to live like pets...or cattle..

If some alien approached me...i'd reach for a baseball bat and go for it before it got me...You can forget all that Star Trek first contact 'Live long and prosper' bollox...

Do i believe in life on other planets?...

Yes..I do...but we aint going to be happy when they do turn up...

DB

 

[Krikkiter]

I understand completely.

But by the twisted semantics of J. Randall Murphy here, those objects would not be properly classified as UFOs until exhaustive research has been conducted by a super-sciencey team of eminently qualified professional UFOlogists and all possible mundane explanations have been ruled out, leaving only one possible explanation: "OMG, Aliens!!!"

I have to be really careful about how I word things otherwise what I say can be twisted all too easily.

Riiiight. So we have to accept that anything that seems like it might be of extraterrestrial origin is absolutely of extraterrestrial origin unless all other explanations are ruled out (by who?!?! lol)? I have to say that's one aspect of his argument that I didn't pick up on until now. Ok. Thanks. Adds another layer to the null hypothesis part of the thread.

Ufology, you've got it backwards mate.

I always laugh when I see the "OMG, Aliens!"

 

[John Albert]

Riiiight. So we have to accept that anything that seems like it might be of extraterrestrial origin is absolutely of extraterrestrial origin unless all other explanations are ruled out (by who?!?! lol)? I have to say that's one aspect of his argument that I didn't pick up on until now. Ok. Thanks. Adds another layer to the null hypothesis part of the thread.

Ufology, you've got it backwards mate.

Yep. Nothing can be a "unidentified flying object" until it's been officially determined to be non-mundane.

That's the official definition of "UFO" as promoted by Ufology Society International, a.k.a. the online bookstore website of Mr. J. Randall Murphy.

We know it's "official," because he cites an obsolete, 53-year-old USAF definition as proof.

Why do you think he keeps on writing "UFO ( alien craft )"? He wants to make sure we don't get the wrong impression that the acronym for "unidentified flying object" might simply mean something unidentified.

If you really want to turn your brain inside-out, go back and read through that part of the discussion. It's positively retardifying. As you read, you'll actually feel your own synapses short-circuiting and your neural pathways shriveling up.

I'm sure he'll be along soon to "clarify" the matter. Just you wait.

 

[Krikkiter]

Krikkiter,

I didn't come here to get into confrontations, but as you point out, it's what the people here constantly engage in.

I think I need to clarify that when I said "... you find that confronting." I didn't mean people were trying to start fights with you. I meant that you find it difficult because it directly challenges your preconceived ideas. When these people ask you questions, they don't pull punches and I think that's fair enough. If you've nothing to hide then none of these questions would bother you.

 

[Krikkiter]

Yep. Nothing can be a "unidentified flying object" until it's been officially determined to be non-mundane.

That's the official definition of "UFO" as promoted by Ufology Society International, a.k.a. the online bookstore website of Mr. J. Randall Murphy.

We know it's "official," because he cites an obsolete, 53-year-old USAF definition as proof.

Why do you think he keeps on writing "UFO ( alien craft )"? He wants to make sure we don't get the wrong impression that the acronym "unidentified flying object" might simply mean something unidentified.

If you really want to turn your brain inside-out, go back and read through that part of the discussion. It's positively retardifying. As you read, you'll actually feel your own synapses short-circuiting and your neural pathways shriveling up.

I'm sure he'll be along soon to "clarify" the matter. Just you wait.

In that case I think it's terminal.

Thanks for link too ... I think