UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Tomtomkent]

How can it not validate he saw a UFO?

It was on Object, Flying, that was Unidentified. How is that no a UFO?

 

[ufology]

How can it not validate he saw a UFO?

It was on Object, Flying, that was Unidentified. How is that no a UFO?

Tomtomkent,

The words Unidentified Flying Object are only the words that form the the acronym that makes up the word origin, not the definition itself. The actual definition is quite different.

All common dictionary definitions and all official definitions separate UFOs from mere flying objects that are unidentified by characteristics that indicate that they cannot be explained by conventional means and/or are in some way extraordinary. Some dictionaries include a reference to flying saucers as part of the definition, and of course we know flying saucers are thought to be alien craft. In fact the word UFO was created by the USAF to replace the phrase flying saucer because there are other configurations of these mystery craft besides the familiar saucer shape. Some dictionary definitions explain that UFOs are believed to be extraterrestrial spacecraft. The bottom line, as I have pointed out over and over here is that UFOs are thought to be and are ubiquitously portrayed as some kind of alien craft. So simply seeing some unidentified but otherwise mundane light or object in the distance is not the same as seeing a UFO.

 

[Krikkiter]

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.

Here's what I said:

At the time I had no idea what it was and to this day I'm still not sure what it was. I have a sneaking suspicion it was a satellite.

So lets be sure about this. Because I can't explain what it was (it remains unidentified) it is necessarily and absolutely an alien craft?

Please note the word Unidentified.

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.

No. You've seen hundreds of UFO's.

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.

The reason I find your comments condescending is because YOU are trying to tell ME that what I saw was a satellite when I've told you that I do not know what I saw. You're trying to come off as some kind of professional expert on all UFO encounters.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No folo, even the dictionary definition you give says UFOs are sometimes believed to be alien. They are unidentified. Live. With. It.

 

[ufology]

Here's what I said:

Please note the word Unidentified.
No. You've seen hundreds of UFO's.
The reason I find your comments condescending is because YOU are trying to tell ME that what I saw was a satellite when I've told you that I do not know what I saw. You're trying to come off as some kind of professional expert on all UFO encounters.

Krikkiter,

If you just want to ignore what I'm saying and are looking for an excuse to join the ufology bashers club here then go ahead, I'm sure they'd be glad to have you. However if you are serious about understanding ufology, and insist you saw a UFO, then you need to explain why the object you saw can't be explained as something conventional.

You admit that you have a sneaking suspicion the object was a satellite, so what reason have you given for me to think it was anything other than that? None. What made it so extraordinary that you can justify calling it a UFO? Please explain.

 

[ufology]

No folo, even the dictionary definition you give says UFOs are sometimes believed to be alien. They are unidentified. Live. With. It.

Tomtomkent,

I've posted numerous official and dictionary definitions here in the past as independent references and done a complete investigation of the word origin in the Project Bluebook microfilm archives. You simply have no case and your mere proclamations don't change that.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No folo, even the dictionary definition you give says UFOs are sometimes believed to be alien. They are unidentified. Live. With. It.

 

[Krikkiter]

Krikkiter,

If you just want to ignore what I'm saying and are looking for an excuse to join the ufology bashers club here then go ahead, I'm sure they'd be glad to have you. However if you are serious about understanding ufology, and insist you saw a UFO, then you need to explain why the object you saw can't be explained as something conventional.

You admit that you have a sneaking suspicion the object was a satellite, so what reason have you given for me to think it was anything other than that? None. What made it so extraordinary that you can justify calling it a UFO? Please explain.

That's all you need? A sneaking suspicion? It might have been a satellite, it might have been a whole lot of things (it could even have been an alien craft if there was any evidence that alien craft exist. Why not? Do all alien craft behave as if they are alien?) but to this day it remains unidentified. If you want to do a UFOlogy investigation and report on it to clear things up then go ahead.

To me it remains unidentified, as in Unidentified Flying Object but NOT an alien craft.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Seriously. Nobody is foolled by the redefinition. Why even try? It does nothing but undermine your arguments.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Tomtomkent,

I've posted numerous official and dictionary definitions here in the past as independent references and done a complete investigation of the word origin in the Project Bluebook microfilm archives. You simply have no case and your mere proclamations don't change that.

"Look at that light in the sky. It is moving in a way that no known terrestrial craft can - OMG ... Aliens!"

The problem with the above interpretation is that the size, distance and speed of the phenomena is pure speculation. While UFO=Alien craft may be in common use, serious UFO researchers like yourself must see the problem of using this definition and go with "unidentified".

 

[Tomtomkent]

Besides which the definitions have been shown to say what folo believes. "Sometimes believed to be" does not mean "is always and accepted as". Some people believing a ufo to be alien does not mean it is. Not unidentified. Besides, did folo not argue himself that the object was not "identified" as alien but "seemed to be"? That is NOT the same either.

Very poor logic.

 

[Daylightstar]

ufology,


Let's get back to your giant talking rabbit for a moment.
You stated "it had big black almond shaped eyes".
Do you think that the giant talking rabbit might have been an alien?

Did the giant talking rabbit perhaps have other features which might be considered strange, like for instance somewhat human or humanoid facial features?
Did the giant talking rabbit offer you sweeties?
Did the giant talking rabbit want to play 'wheeeeeere's the bunny' with you?

 

[Correa Neto]

Funny. I would guess the first reaction the regular Joe/Jane will have when seeing something unidentified in the sky would be something roughly like "What the [F-word] was that?" instead OMG! Aliens! I thus propose now that we should let go the UFO acronym and start using the brand new WTFWT.

WTFWT covers all your bases:

Mundane misidentified things
Unknown mundane things (ex: new drone)
A prank or hoax
Extraterrestrial craft
Craft from other universes
Time travellers (from the future and/or from the past)
Space borne lifeforms
Lifeforms from the upper atmosphere
Lifeforms from other universes
Secret terrestrial craft (human)
Craft from unknown non-human sentient terrestrial species
Craft from unknown human civilizations
Manifestations of Jungian archetypes
Paranormal projections of human minds
Manifestations of "Trickster"-like beings
Angels
Demons
Souls of the dead
Beings from inside the Hollow Earth
Telepathic projections
Manifestations of the collective subconscious
Atmospheric electrical charges reacting with piezoelectric charges from the lithosphere
A glitch in the matrix
[add stuff here]

So, how was that for a positive contribution?

 

[dlorde]

Oh yeah, dude. The stories are all here:

http://www.ufopages.com/Common/Control/Reframe_T1.htm?../../Reference/FS/Murphy-02a.htm

Wow, how lucky was he, to do all those things for real that the rest of us only get to do in our dreams... could he be the 'chosen one'?

 

[Aepervius]

Krikkiter,

If you just want to ignore what I'm saying and are looking for an excuse to join the ufology bashers club here then go ahead, I'm sure they'd be glad to have you. However if you are serious about understanding ufology, and insist you saw a UFO, then you need to explain why the object you saw can't be explained as something conventional.

You admit that you have a sneaking suspicion the object was a satellite, so what reason have you given for me to think it was anything other than that? None. What made it so extraordinary that you can justify calling it a UFO? Please explain.

Well we have a sneaking suspicion that what you saw were firefly. That did not stop you arguing for 100 of pages over that.

Pot. kettle.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

You continue to misuse the word "proof". Not surprising given your penchant for also over using the fallacy of redefinition. If you don't believe his claims, why give them a moment's notice? What was particularly compelling about that fantastic story that made you not want to lift a finger to research it but to present it here? So, Uh ... yes, you are trying to switch the burden of proof in a particularly lazy manner.

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.

You aren't trying to dig up anything. You're asking others to do your work for you. I asked what research methods you had already done. No answer.

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.

No, you do some research. On the face of it, the fantastical story you linked to has no factual basis. It has done nothing to falsify the J Randall Murphy null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

How many more idiotic stories will you post here and ask others to do your work for you?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Tomtomkent,

I've posted numerous official and dictionary definitions here in the past as independent references and done a complete investigation of the word origin in the Project Bluebook microfilm archives. You simply have no case and your mere proclamations don't change that.

No, you've cherry picked an outdated and superseded definition that fits your irrational belief system. The other woos at that other forum even make fun of the idea. Numerous contemporary definitions have been given showing that UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. It is simply your dishonesty that compels you to attempt to cling to your beloved cherry picked, outdated, and superseded Rredefinition.

UFO means Unidentified Flying Object and that's the definition used here. When you mean Alien Space Ship, say Alien Space Ship.

Do you have any evidence for Alien Space Ships? You aren't going to be allowed to Rredefine them into existence.

 

[Akhenaten]

Tomtomkent,

I've posted numerous official and dictionary definitions here in the past as independent references and done a complete investigation of the word origin in the Project Bluebook microfilm archives.

You've posted all manner of fairytale nonsense amongst which your interpretation of UFO as "OMG . . .aliens!" is but one more comedic highlight in a galaxy of bright, shiny failure.

You simply have no case and your mere proclamations don't change that.

Pretending that you speak for the status quo won't work, Mr Fology.

Last time I looked it was your proclamations that were the most effectless thing since the invention of the lead blimp.

 

[GeeMack]

If you just want to ignore what I'm saying and are looking for an excuse to join the ufology bashers club here then go ahead, I'm sure they'd be glad to have you.

There is no "ufology" bashers club. Nobody is persecuting "ufologists". We recognize "ufology" as pseudoscience, definitively. We find some of the arguments made by some self proclaimed "ufologists" to be ridiculous, some to be silly, some to be logical fallacies, some to be lies, and none of them objectively support the claim that some UFOs are alien craft. None. Skeptics continuing to point out the total failure to provide support for your claim should not be misconstrued as bashing. We're just being cooperative, helpful skeptics.

However if you are serious about understanding ufology, and insist you saw a UFO, then you need to explain why the object you saw can't be explained as something conventional.

Nonsense. If he saw something that appeared to be a flying object, and that he was unable to identify, it was a UFO. If you think it may have been an alien craft, the burden of proof is on you to objectively demonstrate that. Otherwise it was and will likely forever remain a UFO.

You admit that you have a sneaking suspicion the object was a satellite, so what reason have you given for me to think it was anything other than that? None. What made it so extraordinary that you can justify calling it a UFO? Please explain.

Nonsense again. Something doesn't have to be considered extraordinary for it to be deemed a UFO. He can justify calling it a UFO because it appeared to be an object, appeared to be flying, and is unidentified. Duh.

 

[Astrophotographer]

As far as McClelland is concerned, I was doing some research on Kecksburg. He was one of the original promoters of the case when he wrote an article for Len Stringfield about it. McClelland basically copied the flawed work of Ivan Sanderson and threw a few interviews with locals in to flavor it. He, as all the Kecksburg crash advocates, completely ignored all the scientific evidence suggesting it was just a bright fireball. We have been over that in this thread. If McClelland was hyping a UFO non-event in 1980, it does not say much for his objectivity if you ask me. McClelland was working with NASA at one time but that does not make him much of an expert if you ask me especially when he ignores scientific data (as in Kecksburg).