UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

... Since "ufologists" clearly have little or no understanding of science, objectivity, the scientific method, and what constitutes evidence, they certainly won't be involved in any discovery or presentation of legitimate evidence ... bla bla bla more unfounded proclamations

GeeMack,

The scientist who studied UFOs for the USAF and founded the Center for UFO Studies ( CUFOS ) was most certainly also a ufologist, so your proclamation that ufologists have little or no understanding of science is demonstrably false. Some of them are scientists as well.

http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Hynek-01a.htm

Here's another one:

http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=stans_bio

Here's another one:

http://www.jacquesvallee.net/

Here's another one:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/mufonontario/archive/wbsmith.htm

Here's another one:

http://spec.lib.vt.edu/aerosp/aerospgd/hill.htm

Here's another one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._Sturrock

... and there are many more.


Also, your generalizatiuon that ufologists ( even those who aren't scientists, have little or no understanding of science is without any foundation. Perhaps you are confusing ufologists with contactees or UFO cults.

 

[John Albert]

Still you engage in attacks on me even when the discussion doesn't even involve me. Why?

I was simply bringing Krikkiter up to speed on your personal definition of the acronym "UFO," to cultivate a better understanding of the state of the discussion.

what's your obsession with misrepresenting my position at every opportunity?

What have I misrepresented?

Is that not your opinion, that "UFO" does not really mean "unidentified flying object"? That an unidentified thing cannot be properly termed a "UFO" unless said object has been thoroughly investigated by some authority and all possible mundane causes conclusively ruled out, in which case it may as well be considered an "alien craft"?

Is that an inaccurate appraisal of your position? If not, then please clarify, for Krikkiter's benefit, your exact position regarding the definition of "UFO."

What is the point of you agreeing with improper usage if not to antagonize people and falsely validate your own argument?

Agreeing with improper usage?

The proper usage is for the acronym to mean exactly the words it represents: unidentified flying object.

Your citation of an obsolete 1958 USAF regulation that was superseded several times, years before most of us were even born, is completely irrelevant.

Even worse, that definition doesn't even make logical sense. From a semantic viewpoint, it's a contradiction. The fact that some people mistake, assume, or suppose UFO to be aliens in flying saucers does not mean that's what they really are. You cannot manipulate words to define a non-existent thing into existence.

"UFO" means "unidentified flying object," not "alien craft."

 

[mike3]

@ufology,

any comment about my post on anecdotes?

(9 more posts to go... )

 

[GeeMack]

Also, your generalizatiuon that ufologists ( even those who aren't scientists, have little or no understanding of science is without any foundation. Perhaps you are confusing ufologists with contactees or UFO cults.

No "ufologist" who has made his or her way into this thread has shown even the remotest understanding of science, the scientific process, objectivity, or what might constitute valid evidence. Look at their dishonest arguments in trying to redefine common terms to support their faith. Look at the persistent dishonesty in trying to blame the skeptics for the "ufologists"' failure to support their beliefs. Look at their utter lack of understanding a simple junior high school science concept like the null hypothesis.

And since no "contactee" has any more objective evidence to support his/her claim that any of the hoaxters like J. Randall Murphy have, why would you consider them to be somehow in a different category? They really believe aliens exist. They claim to have seen or been in contact with aliens. And they have nothing but a fish tale to support their claim. They're no different than any "ufologist" we've met here.

And speaking of UFO hoaxes, how about that J. Randall Murphy hoax? When can we get some answers to some of the questions that have been raised about that one?

 

[Marduk]

Perhaps you are confusing ufologists with contactees or UFO cults.

aren't you forgetting that you claim to have been abducted yourself as well as having contact with men in black (aliens) on no less than two seperate occaisons ?
doesn't that make you a contactee ?
http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Murphy-02a.htm
If anyone bought into the crap that youre peddling, wouldn't that make you a ufo cult leader yourself ?

basically, your claims that others who claim the same experiences as you are unreliable is the worst type of hypocrisy, it's quite clear that you're just Rael, without the money, any claim to fame, the credibility, or the women

 

[ufology]

... "UFO" means "unidentified flying object," not "alien craft." ...

John Albert,

You've only given the literal word origin, which is the full form of the acronym and which is separate from the definition and meaning. Modern popular usage in the vast majority of common dictionaries define UFOs as extraterrestrial craft or flying saucers or some other synonym for alien craft. Additionally all official definitions for screening purposes were intended to screen out as many known manmade or natural objects as possible, thereby leaving only reports of extraordinary objects for follow up investigation. Never was the word UFO intended to describe some distant light or object that is simply "unidentified". Such characterizations are are false and perpetuated by anti-ufology propogandists.

 

[RoboTimbo]

John Albert,

You've only given the literal word origin, which is the full form of the acronym and which is separate from the definition and meaning. Modern popular usage in the vast majority of common dictionaries define UFOs as extraterrestrial craft or flying saucers or some other synonym for alien craft. Additionally all official definitions for screening purposes were intended to screen out as many known manmade or natural objects as possible, thereby leaving only reports of extraordinary objects for follow up investigation.

Then you have evidence for any of them being non-mundane? Any at all? After 60 years, there must be a lot of confirmed evidence of non-mundane UFOs. We've not seen any in this thread so now would be the time to trot it out.

 

[ufology]

aren't you forgetting that you claim to have been abducted yourself as well as having contact with men in black (aliens) on no less than two seperate occaisons ?
doesn't that make you a contactee ?
http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Murphy-02a.htm
If anyone bought into the crap that youre peddling, wouldn't that make you a ufo cult leader yourself ?

basically, your claims that others who claim the same experiences as you are unreliable is the worst type of hypocrisy, it's quite clear that you're just Rael, without the money, any claim to fame, the credibility, or the women

Marduk,

I've never claimed to have been abducted, only that I've experienced missing time. I've never claimed to be a contactee like Rael, nor would I want to be. Yes I've encountered MIB. Those were pretty weird experiences ... so what? I didn't ask for it to happen. I'm just describing what happened. And you forgot to mention without the race car video games and hair loss.

 

[GeeMack]

You've only given the literal word origin, which is the full form of the acronym and which is separate from the definition and meaning exactly what it means. Modern popular usage in the vast majority of common dictionaries define UFOs as extraterrestrial craft or flying saucers or some other synonym for alien craft unidentified flying objects. Additionally all official definitions for screening purposes were intended to screen out as many known manmade or natural objects as possible, thereby leaving only reports of extraordinary unidentified objects for follow up investigation. Never was the word UFO intended to describe some distant light or object that is simply "unidentified" has been identified.

Fixed several mistakes for you.

It is dishonest to attempt to redefine terms in order to support an otherwise unsupportable belief. I'm sure that has been explained to you, but apparently not in a way that was easily understood. If you have any trouble with my explanation, please let me know and I will try to simplify it as much as possible until either you do understand it or it becomes clear that it can't be made simple enough.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Anyway here's something I could use some help with:

Clark McClelland:

http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/site/et-observed-inside-space-shuttle-payload-bay/

What can you guys dig up on this guy and his story?

Was this more of your dishonesty? I addressed this and you said nothing about it. Why do you ask for comment and then ignore it?

Would you prefer to discuss the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax? Why do you think the details changed so much over such a short span of time? Was it in response to the contradictions and errors that were pointed out so you had to continually embellish your story?

 

[Marduk]

Marduk,

I've never claimed to have been abducted,

forgetting your own bs now then ?
in your own words

One day I was wandering through an undeveloped part of the field when I came across a shallow depression in the landscape. It was about 20 meters wide and I thought it would make a cool place to play, so I went down into it and sat down. The next thing I remember I was sitting inside a dim circular room with some other kids.

you were removed from your everyday life and taken to a circular room with some other kids, what is that if it isn't abduction

I've never claimed to be a contactee like Rael, .

so when the aliens knocked on your door posing as Jehovahs witnesses, what was that, not contact ?

again you are redefining your own bs in a vain and arrogant attempt to appear more credible, what does it say that not one single person here supports you, and that at other forums the other bleevers think you're a nut,
?

what does it say about you that you have lied here, been dishonest, lied again, been caught lying, been shown that you are dishonest and yet, still think that there is some reason for you to continue posting here
you're done, finished, kaput

time for you to go back and pseudo-socialise with the other nuts making things up so that they can claim to be special, they're not special you know, most people have far more interesting mundane stories about themselves without resorting to laughable bs

I'm not bashing ufology here, I have no problem with serious researchers, but thats not what you are, I'm just showing my obvious distaste for a dishonest man who has nothing to offer but more lies,

 

[John Albert]

You've only given the literal word origin, which is the full form of the acronym and which is separate from the definition and meaning.

No, it isn't. The meaning is the same. "Unidentified flying object" means "unidentified flying object," "a thing in the sky which has not been identified." There's no other reasonable definition.

You can't even get the credulous UFO believers to accept your bastardized definition, so why would you expect to foist it off on skeptics?

Modern popular usage in the vast majority of common dictionaries define UFOs as extraterrestrial craft or flying saucers or some other synonym for alien craft.

There you go, lying again.

I listed a number of common dictionary definitions over 80 pages ago. The vast majority of dictionaries define UFOs as "unidentified flying objects," with a few definitions also adding that UFOs are "sometimes assumed" or "presumed" or "believed" to be extraterrestrial in origin. There's a difference between that and saying they definitively are extraterrestrial in origin.

You really ought to try and quit the lying. You're not very good at it, and it's really bad for your credibility.

Additionally all official definitions for screening purposes were intended to screen out as many known manmade or natural objects as possible, thereby leaving only reports of extraordinary objects for follow up investigation.

The original USAF intention for creating the acronym "UFO" is irrelevant. Insisting on some obscure USAF definition merely because of its origins is a genetic fallacy.

Furthermore, you are not using the original USAF definition of "UFO," nor are you using the most up-to-date, currently-accepted USAF definition, nor the most concise, straightforward one. Out of all the revisions of that particular regulation that the USAF published between the years of 1954 and 1966, you have deliberately cherry-picked the one version that you feel best supports your own opinion that UFOs constitute alien spacecraft. Now you expect all of us to play along with your little redefinition game and pretend that the "U" in "UFO" means something other than "unidentified."

Sorry, that ain't gonna happen, because your redefinition of the term makes no sense. That definition is an oxymoron. There's no good reason to redefine the term, and at least two really good reasons not to:

1) "Unidentified flying object" is the literal translation of the acronym and the common-usage definition; and

2) If you redefine "UFO" to mean something other than "unidentified flying object," then we would need to find a whole new term for talking about unidentified flying objects, when we already have a perfectly good term that means exactly that: "UFO."​

Your redefinition of "UFO" is dishonest and stupid.

"UFO" means "unidentified flying object." Period.

 

[edge]

No "ufologist" who has made his or her way into this thread has shown even the remotest understanding of science, the scientific process, objectivity, or what might constitute valid evidence. Look at their dishonest arguments in trying to redefine common terms to support their faith. Look at the persistent dishonesty in trying to blame the skeptics for the "ufologists"' failure to support their beliefs. Look at their utter lack of understanding a simple junior high school science concept like the null hypothesis.

And since no "contactee" has any more objective evidence to support his/her claim that any of the hoaxters like J. Randall Murphy have, why would you consider them to be somehow in a different category? They really believe aliens exist. They claim to have seen or been in contact with aliens. And they have nothing but a fish tale to support their claim. They're no different than any "ufologist" we've met here.
And speaking of UFO hoaxes, how about that J. Randall Murphy hoax? When can we get some answers to some of the questions that have been raised about that one?

What about this?

Electromagnetic carbon nanotubes are being removed from various contactees. These scientists have proven these are not naturally occuring and made from elements older than Earth.

Did you get yours? How do you know? Read Brain Chatter, Final Vaccination by Jeanine London at www.itsnanotime.com.
This bio is from alienscapel.com


Dr. Robert Koontz is a Ph.D. experimental nuclear physicist now attempting to create technology that will allow extraction of usable amounts of energy from the vacuum. This research follows the work of Nikola Tesla and Dr. Thomas Henry Moray.

Open Letter On Scientific Evidence for Extraterrestrial Implants from Dr. R. Koontz

May 26, 2009
To Whom It May Concern:

I am a Ph.D. experimental nuclear physicist, and I was once with the US Navy’s Naval Security Group. While assigned with the National Security Agency, I taught electronics related to remote intelligence gathering. My clearance is a lifetime National Security Agency Top Secret with Cryptographic Endorsement and Code-Word Access.

In the web page linked to below, I have posted news articles and background
information that substantiate my credentials.

http://www.doctorkoo...round/index.htm

Regarding Whitley Streiber’s reports about alien implants and his recent interview of Dr. Roger Leir, and also regarding Whitley’s interview of an American scientist who says he was implanted with some sort of technological device, I find the evidence very compelling.

Taken from here: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?app=blog&blogid=2254&showentry=22731

There are many sites about this and many call it proof.




Follow up:

New evidence


For more go here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoiX7BqscuY&feature=related

 

[AdMan]

John Albert,

You've only given the literal word origin, which is the full form of the acronym and which is separate from the definition and meaning. Modern popular usage in the vast majority of common dictionaries define UFOs as extraterrestrial craft or flying saucers or some other synonym for alien craft. Additionally all official definitions for screening purposes were intended to screen out as many known manmade or natural objects as possible, thereby leaving only reports of extraordinary objects for follow up investigation. Never was the word UFO intended to describe some distant light or object that is simply "unidentified". Such characterizations are are false and perpetuated by anti-ufology propogandists.

Oh, please.

You persist with this nonsense?

Can you show where anyone, even other UFO believers, subscribe to this definition?

You can't even convince other UFO believers to buy into your nonsense. Do you really expect anyone else to buy into it?

 

[ehcks]

John Albert,

<Attempt to redefine common language redacted>

This doesn't even matter. If you define the word UFO to mean "alien craft" you either need evidence showing alien craft exist, or you're defining UFO to refer to an imaginary object. And we're back to where we started.

Do you have any evidence showing alien craft exist?


Just because I can define warp drive to mean "an engine that produces faster than light travel" doesn't mean such an object exists. I would need evidence, or I would be talking about a fictional sci-fi plot device. Until you have evidence that alien craft exist, alien craft are merely fictional sci-fi plot devices.

 

[John Albert]

Oh, please.

You persist with this nonsense?

Can you show where anyone, even other UFO believers, subscribe to this definition?

You can't even convince other UFO believers to buy into your nonsense. Do you really expect anyone else to buy into it?

But AdMan, it's not just J. Randall Murphy himself, but also the entire Ufology Society International who acknowledge that definition!

Oh, wait...

Never mind.

This doesn't even matter. If you define the word UFO to mean "alien craft" you either need evidence showing alien craft exist, or you're defining UFO to refer to an imaginary object. And we're back to where we started.

...except that we will have lost a perfectly serviceable word to mean flying objects that are unidentified.

If we redefine "UFO" to mean "alien craft," then what word do we use when we want to talk about unidentified flying objects?

There's no point, nor reason to redefine the acronym to mean something which its constituent words don't.

You want to talk about unidentified flying objects, say "UFO." You want to talk about alien craft, just say "alien craft."

 

[GeeMack]

What about this?

What about Robert Koontz, the fellow who believes some alleged "alien implants" must be of alien origin because, well, he can't believe they're not? Sounds like an argument from incredulity to me. If he was attempting to find objective explanations for things we don't yet understand, he wouldn't try to use a transparent logical fallacy to support his belief.

 

[R.A.F.]

Never was the word UFO intended to describe some distant light or object that is simply "unidentified". Such characterizations are are false and perpetuated by anti-ufology propogandists.

You are simply too ignorant for words...

People are not so stupid as to misunderstand what the "U" in UFO stands for.

You've been trying to change that definition since you started posting here....it didn't "work" then, and it ain't gonna "work" now...


That you would continue to try when EVERYONE here disagrees with you makes you willfully ignorant...which is only "slightly" better than intellectual coward...only "slightly".

 

[R.A.F.]

Regarding Whitley Streiber’s reports....

Sorry, you lost me. Only the most credulous would believe anything he says, as he not only has no evidence, he writes fiction on the same subject...DUH!

 

[R.A.F.]

You want to talk about unidentified flying objects, say "UFO." You want to talk about alien craft, just say "alien craft."

Why is that so impossible for you to do, UFOlogy?? Why must you redefine UFO to mean alien spaceship???

FYI...we're not ever going to allow you to do that, so just stop being ignorant about it...