UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

I'm looking for information to back up or confirm the credibility of Clark C. McLelland including experience, credentials or logical inconsistencies in his accounts.

http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/site/

I'm not looking for simple offhanded dismissals based on a lack of sufficient scientific evidence.

When there is a lack of scientific evidence, a claim earns simple offhanded dismissal. That's how science, the objective search for the truth about the Universe we live in, works.

 

[John Albert]

I view the concept of truth as a direct correspondence within identical contexts between what is posited and what is actually the case.

So truth only corresponds to "what is actually the case" within "identical contexts"? What exactly does that mean?

In the end we don't know anything is an objective reality. We simply presume that it is based on the reasoning we develop as we mature. However science has no definitive or logical explanation for existence or reality itself. Our entire existence could be some sort of elaborate generated construct.

So this is the reasoning you use to justify making up absurd stories and then telling people they really happened?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm looking for information to back up or confirm the credibility of Clark C. McLelland including experience, credentials or logical inconsistencies in his accounts.

http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/site/

I'm not looking for simple offhanded dismissals based on a lack of sufficient scientific evidence.

What research methods have you employed so far? I'd hate to duplicate all the effort you've put into it.

Also, answer the question: What evidence do you have that it happened at all?

 

[Mister Earl]

Again you're talking about proof vs. evidence. So what if there are hoaxes? That doesn't mean every sighting is a hoax and it doesn't give anyone justification for labeling everyone who sees a UFO a hoaxer.

Nope, but it does mean that I'm going to look crossways at claims made without irrefutable evidence to back it up. If I were to find ten thousand free energy machines all either did not work or were fakes, why should I treat the ten thousandth and first any different, especially prior to any proof at all it works?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm looking for information to back up or confirm the credibility of Clark C. McLelland including experience, credentials or logical inconsistencies in his accounts.

http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/site/

I'm not looking for simple offhanded dismissals based on a lack of sufficient scientific evidence.

You're looking to switch the burden of proof, in a particularly lazy manner.

 

[Krikkiter]

Now that you mentioned it, Tinker Bell would be a good explanation for his alleged sighting... At least as good as OMG!!!! ALIENS!!!!

I wonder if there was a Squid Fishing Monthly edition with this in it.

 

[Correa Neto]

Don't think so.

That's stuff for FFM - Fairy Fishing Monthly.

 

[Krikkiter]

Krikkiter,

OK we can use your example very well here. In the official definitions, UFOs are separated from other objects by appearance and performance characteristics that do not match known manmade or natural objects or phenomena. So even if a distant light or unidentified object were spotted that could have been explained as an aircraft, it was not to be reported as a UFO.

Similarly, popular modern usage and definitions define UFOs as extraterrestrial spacecraft, flying saucers or some other alien craft. At the very least, the common denominator is that they are something extraordinary to the observer that seems to defy explanation.

Therefore if you believed the object you saw could have been explained as a satellite, then it was not a UFO. So saying "I saw a UFO" with respect to that object would not be correct usage. However saying, "I saw something once that could have been a satellite." would be OK.

Now if that light that had seemed like a satellite had suddenly stopped and then instantly accellerated down to hover in a field across from you and looked like some sort of alien craft, then darted away over the horizon, it would be perectly acceptable usage to say, "I saw a UFO", and everyone would know you weren't just talking about some "unidentifed" but otherwise ordinary object.

In either case you might be inclined to fill out a UFO report. This is where the context of usage has its second application. The object you actually saw would become the subject of a UFO report, but that doesn't mean it was an actual UFO. So it would be correct to ask with respect to the UFO report, "What is the object in this UFO report?" But it would not be correct usage to ask, "What is the UFO in this report?"

Because the semantics issue in ufology is not well understood it is common to see many incorrect usages, even among ufologists. Critics and skeptics also tend to capitalize on this to spread their propoganda, usually by pontificating about the relevance of the word "unidentified" as part of the origin of the word UFO, and failing to acknowledge that the word origin and the word's definition and meaning are significantly different. In the case of the critics here, you see them capitalize on it by misrepresenting my position in the form of gross oversimplification. They are well aware of issue and it has been discussed here at length, so they can't use the excuse that they don't know. It's just willful ignornace and deception.

So, and I'm being serious here, even though the object that my brother and I saw was an Object; even though it was Flying; even though, to this day it remains positively Unidentified, it is not classified as a UFO?

And really, why would I fill out a UFO report if you've already dismissed the Unidentified Flying Object as being positively identified?

And I don't get it... I am saying that I don't know what it was. It could have been a satellite but I'm not even close to 100% certain that it was. It could have been a whole bunch of things but I am telling you that to this day I don't know what it was and I'm the only person that can relate the story. Yet you consider my vague anecdote to be enough to say that the Flying Object has been positively Identified? You are insisting that I've identified it but I'm telling you that I haven't. You don't think that's a bit condescending?

Ahhhh... I give up. Objective, critical reasoning isn't meant to be this vague and complicated.

ETA: I keep forgetting: UFO actually means Positively Identified Alien Craft.

 

[ufology]

So, and I'm being serious here, even though the object that my brother and I saw was an Object; even though it was Flying; even though, to this day it remains positively Unidentified, it is not classified as a UFO?

And really, why would I fill out a UFO report if you've already dismissed the Unidentified Flying Object as being positively identified?

And I don't get it... I am saying that I don't know what it was. It could have been a satellite but I'm not even close to 100% certain that it was. It could have been a whole bunch of things but I am telling you that to this day I don't know what it was and I'm the only person that can relate the story. Yet you consider my vague anecdote to be enough to say that the Flying Object has been positively Identified? You are insisting that I've identified it but I'm telling you that I haven't. You don't think that's a bit condescending?

Ahhhh... I give up. Objective, critical reasoning isn't meant to be this vague and complicated.

ETA: I keep forgetting: UFO actually means Positively Identified Alien Craft.

Krikkiter,

Like I said, the critics capitalize on the fact that you won't take the time to understand the lexicon. It's really not all that complex.

First, stop equating the idea of a UFO with something that has to be "positively identified" as an alien craft. That is not the case. The word is meant to convey the idea of an alien craft. For example you might ask, "Is that a UFO or just a distant aircraft?" In this example the object is unidentified but it is not certain that the object is either a UFO or an aircraft. However you have conveyed the idea that you are wondering if it might be an alien craft as opposed to an airplane ... you see how the two concepts are different? But the critics would have you believe they are same.

If further observation reveals some fantastic performance that no known aircraft could pull off, you might say, "Wow, I think it was a UFO". But even in that case, it hasn't been "positively identified" as an alien craft, but you have still succeeded in communicating the idea that you saw something extraordinary that you think was an alien craft ... not simply some unidentified but otherwise mundane light in the distance. This is and has always been the purpose of the word.

 

[John Albert]

you might say, "Wow, I think it was a UFO"

 

[ufology]

I am reserving judgement pending further evidence. I am a skeptic. I accept, provisionally, based on all the evidence available to this point, that you made up your UFO tale and are presenting it as a hoax. Got any of that further evidence you speak of, objective evidence that might demonstrate your alleged alien sighting to be something other than a hoax?

GeeMack,

So you're saying that the default position of skeptics is that unless proven otherwise all unexplained ufo sightings are hoaxes? That's hardly "reserving judgement".

 

[Archer17]

Considering a Google search for Clark C McClelland doesn't return any hits except alien-believer websites, and there's no mention of him on the list of astronauts on NASA's page, the early signs aren't looking good for him being anything other than.....



.... made-up!

I got the dope on McClelland at ATS. Long story short, send him $$$

 

[John Albert]

So you're saying that the default position of skeptics is that unless proven otherwise all unexplained ufo sightings are hoaxes? That's hardly "reserving judgement".

The default position is this: Unless proven otherwise, all unexplained ufo sightings are unidentified flying objects (UFOs); the word "UFO" is not synonymous with "alien craft," but merely something observed in the sky which has not been identified.

 

[GeeMack]

GeeMack,

So you're saying that the default position of skeptics is that unless proven otherwise all unexplained ufo sightings are hoaxes? That's hardly "reserving judgement".

No. I'm saying the evidence suggests your tale, the one about allegedly seeing aliens that you're trying to spread around the 'net, is a hoax. The is no evidence to support the notion that it's true, and much evidence to support the notion that it's fabricated in its entirety. Add that to the fact that you're making a concerted effort through a variety of channels to get the word out. Those criteria, a made-up story, wholly unverifiable, and the proselytizing, are common elements of hoaxes.

 

[Krikkiter]

Krikkiter,

Like I said, the critics capitalize on the fact that you won't take the time to understand the lexicon. It's really not all that complex.

I don't care what the critics say, I care what you have to say and how you justify your position. When you say "understand the lexicon" that means UFO ( Alien Craft ) right? What the hell kind of "lexicon" is that?

First, stop equating the idea of a UFO with something that has to be "positively identified" as an alien craft.

Once again, thanks for the condescending tone. YOU are the one that insists that UFO = (Alien Craft). And if that's not what you mean why didn't you answer my yes or no question with a no instead of insults?

That is not the case. The word is meant to convey the idea of an alien craft. For example you might ask, "Is that a UFO or just a distant aircraft?" In this example the object is unidentified but it is not certain that the object is either a UFO or an aircraft.

What? Seriously... What?! IF THE OBJECT IS UNIDENTIFIED IT IS AN UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT!

However you have conveyed the idea that you are wondering if it might be an alien craft as opposed to an airplane ... you see how the two concepts are different? But the critics would have you believe they are same.

No. Either I'm really bad at getting my message across or you're really bad at comprehending what people say. What I was saying was that I thought the light in the sky was a UFO, an Unidentified Flying Object simply because I was unable to be sure of what it was. I wanted to know if you thought it was a UFO OR a UFO (alien craft) and how you would come to that conclusion.

If further observation reveals some fantastic performance that no known aircraft could pull off, you might say, "Wow, I think it was a UFO". But even in that case, it hasn't been "positively identified" as an alien craft...

I've already said "wow it's a UFO" because I when I related my anecdote I told you that I couldn't identify it then and can not now. And you know, it hasn't been positively identified at all! It remains Unidentified!

... but you have still succeeded in communicating the idea that you saw something extraordinary that you think was an alien craft ... not simply some unidentified but otherwise mundane light in the distance. This is and has always been the purpose of the word.

I don't think it was an alien craft because I've never been shown that:

1. extraterrestrial life exists
2. intelligent extraterrestrial life exists
3. intelligent extraterrestrial life capable of traveling the required distances exists

or that

4. aliens in flying saucers have been cruising around our planet for FSM only knows what reason.

There is absolutely no evidence for any of the above unless I count your unverifiable anecdote, which I don't.

 

[ufology]

You're looking to switch the burden of proof, in a particularly lazy manner.

Uh ... no, I don't believe the claims made by McClelland, but I have no proof either way. I'm trying to dig up circumstantial evidence and the skeptics are particularly good at digging up the dirt, so I was wondering if anyone here had run across anything other than what's on the Google searches. One example of such digging was done by a skeptic called Lance who found that there was no evidence that researcher Phil Imbrogno had the credentials he was advertising. So if anyone in the skeptical community runs across anything one way or the other, please let me know. That's all ... thanks.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Krikkiter,

Like I said, the critics capitalize on the fact that you won't take the time to understand the lexicon. It's really not all that complex.

First, stop equating the idea of a UFO with something that has to be "positively identified" as an alien craft. That is not the case. The word is meant to convey the idea of an alien craft.

Stop equating the word UFO with aliens, because it means the idea of aliens?

You read your own arguments about UFOs meaning aliens right?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Uh ... no, I don't believe the claims made by McClelland, but I have no proof either way. I'm trying to dig up circumstantial evidence and the skeptics are particularly good at digging up the dirt, so I was wondering if anyone here had run across anything other than what's on the Google searches. One example of such digging was done by a skeptic called Lance who found that there was no evidence that researcher Phil Imbrogno had the credentials he was advertising. So if anyone in the skeptical community runs across anything one way or the other, please let me know. That's all ... thanks.

So you arent trying to switch the burden of proof, just asking others to supply the proof?

There is no scientific evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of circumstance, whichin this case would be no help. So no. Do your own searches.

 

[Stray Cat]

Uh ... no, I don't believe the claims made by McClelland, but I have no proof either way.

Odd that the lack of proof either way doesn't usually bother you.

I'm trying to dig up circumstantial evidence and the skeptics are particularly good at digging up the dirt,

No, sceptics are particularly good at 'digging up the verifiable facts', it just happens that with claims made by Ufologists and other paranormal promoters, those facts are usually 'dirty' ones and the only reason it's the sceptics that find them is because non of the believers are ever trying to verify anything that seems to confirm their belief.

 

[ufology]

... I don't think it was an alien craft because I've never been shown that:

1. extraterrestrial life exists
2. intelligent extraterrestrial life exists
3. intelligent extraterrestrial life capable of traveling the required distances exists

or that

4. aliens in flying saucers have been cruising around our planet for FSM only knows what reason.

There is absolutely no evidence for any of the above unless I count your unverifiable anecdote, which I don't.

Krikkiter,

Why didn't you just say the above in the first place? The thing is, even if you had been shown that all your reasons are in error, it still wouldn't validate that what you saw was a UFO because according to you, it could have been a satellite, therefore it gave you no indication that it couldn't have been a manmade or natural object or phenomena. I'm fine with that. I've seen many satellites ( or what were probably satellites ) myself. I've also seen hundreds of unidentified aircraft. But I've only seen one UFO.

Also, interpreting my comments as condescending when this is purely text and I've used no interpretive symbols or emoticons is presumptuous. In actual fact I simply made a statement, e.g. "First, stop equating the idea of a UFO with something that has to be 'positively identified' as an alien craft." That statement can only be interpreted as condescending if you imagine I'm using some condescending tone ( which I'm not ). It is just as easy to imagine that I'm using a calm friendly voice and delivering the information as instructional ( which is my intent ). I understand that these discussions may evoke an adversarial feeling, but unless I actually say or do something condescending like the critics here do with their mockery and ridicule, please don't assume that I'm like them.