UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

With respect to the other posters, I don't actually have a problem with this. In casual usage, people do sometimes use "UFO" as shorthand for "flying saucer."

Of course, this changes ufology's argument not a whit. You can't define something into existence with a word. Otherwise, you'd have to explain Thor, Narnia, ghosts, leprauchauns, bigfoot, etc. We have words that mean those things, but it doesn't mean those things exist in real life.

If he were honest, ufology would just say "alien craft" and stop messing about with semantics. But then he'd have to re-christen his pseudoscience of ufology, and that ain't gonna happen.

carlitos,

Stop misrepresenting my position. You are smart enough to know that I'm not trying to "define UFOs into existence" and you are merely spewing your anti-ufology propoganda.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sideroxylon,

I see no reason to disbelieve that the Wikopedia article on the null hypothesis. What you are missing however, is that even though the Project Blue book Special Report 14 statistical analysis establishes that it is reasonable to believe that the objects in some UFO reports are alien craft, it contains no substantial physical evidence and therefore is not the kind of proof that is ultimately required by those who have never seen a UFO for themselves. It should however be sufficient to demonstrate that there is a genuine mystery involving material craft for which no explanation of origin or purpose has been established.

It isn't the kind of evidence that anyone would accept for alien visitation (you've misused the word "proof" again, as has been pointed out to you many times). There is a genuine mystery as to what is in everyone's pockets. Do you believe that there is an alien in everyone's pockets?

So let's deal with the concept of "unexplained". When you say, to quote, "Unexplained means just that. It does not mean insert favorite speculative idea as fact." you are making an obvious statement for which I take no issue. However merely being unexplained is far different than cannot be explained as something manmade or natural even when given what should be sufficient information to do so. An unremarkable vague object in the distance is unexplained. So are UFOs. But UFOs are a different and specific class of unexplained phenomena.

No doubt you would admit that the above poster's argument is idiotic. An unremarkable vague object in the distance is an Unidentified Flying Object. Why would you think it isn't an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO)?

To illustrate further, the unremarkable vague object in the distance may become the subject of a UFO report, but that doesn't make it a UFO, it just makes it the subject of a UFO report. However if that vague object instantly zooms over to you with a maneuver impossible for any Earthly technology and doesn't look like any Earthly technology, then what had merely been a vague unexplained object in the distance becomes a UFO. There is still no certain explanation for it, but it's far from being anything "mundane". For all practical purposes it is an alien craft, but that's not an explanation ... just a description, which why we have the ubiquitous depictions of UFOs as some sort of alien spaceship, usually a flying saucer.

No, the remote object remains a UFO (Unidentified Flying Object or "firefly"). Do you have evidence that any object instantly zoomed over to anyone?

Lastly, just because all we have are descriptions without any explanations does not mean that UFOs aren't real.

Of course UFOs are real. We've seen people in this thread claiming to have seen them. Why would you think they aren't real?

Skeptics choose to doubt the reality of UFOs ( alien craft ) while those who have seen them for themselves have no reservations.

Oh, you mean Alien Space Ships! Why didn't you say Alien Space Ships? Yes, those are the ones for which you've provided no evidence. It would be just stupid to say that UFOs don't exist, though.

Such is the basic state of affairs with respect to the issue. But it doesn't end there. We also have highly polarized fanatics on each side ranging from ufology bashers to contactee cult religions. Add to that the scientific and cultural factors and it isn't surprising why so many people find ufology to be such an interesting topic. Yes UFOs have remained an unexplained phenomenon ... and a real one. Certainly nobody here, including me can say with any certainty exactly what they are.

We definitely have one polarized fanatic who believes in giant bunnies and that some UFOs are Alien Space Ships. That is the status quo with the pseudoscience of UFOlogy.

 

[ufology]

You know how you change the highlighted? Provide credible evidence.

Got any?

Yes. There's plenty of "credible" evidence in the form of high quality eyewitness accounts from "credible" people and I have several hundred books on the topic with many such accounts. They are not hard to find, so go get some yourself and read about it.

Note: Don't just move the goalposts now and exclude eyewitness observations from the evidence. Actually go and read up. If you can only afford one book get Beyond Top Secret by Timothy Good.

 

[TjW]

It really is a mystery, isn't it?

Perhaps it's just that "Alienspaceshipology" is too hard for the kiddies to get their little mouths around.

I can feel a new logo coming on . . .

Dude... an ASSology t-shirt would sell!

"Is that a rocket in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?"

 

[RoboTimbo]

carlitos,

Stop misrepresenting my position. You are smart enough to know that I'm not trying to "define UFOs into existence" and you are merely spewing your anti-ufology propoganda.

What you really hate is that everyone is smart enough to see that that is exactly what you are trying to do.

Do you have any evidence for Alien Space Ships that would falsify the J Randall Murphy null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

Anything at all?

 

[Resume]

Yes. There's plenty of "credible" evidence in the form of high quality eyewitness accounts from "credible" people and I have several hundred books on the topic with many such accounts. They are not hard to find, so go get some yourself and read about it.

Note: Don't just move the goalposts now and exclude eyewitness observations from the evidence. Actually go and read up. If you can only afford one book get Beyond Top Secret by Timothy Good.

So you have claims? Claims aren't evidence. You know this, which is why you attempt to redefine words.

As you are trying to do with the term moving (shifting) the goalpost.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes. There's plenty of "credible" evidence in the form of high quality eyewitness accounts

You mean you believe that the claims are evidence for themselves?

from "credible" people and I have several hundred books on the topic with many such accounts.

Do you have evidence that "credible" people are never mistaken about their interpretation of what they see? That they never perpetrate hoaxes like the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax?

They are not hard to find, so go get some yourself and read about it.

You will probably find that people in this thread are better read on the subject than you are. They simply aren't as gullibly credulous. Read up about it.

Note: Don't just move the goalposts now and exclude eyewitness observations from the evidence. Actually go and read up. If you can only afford one book get Beyond Top Secret by Timothy Good.

How would that be moving the goalposts? Claims have never been evidence of themselves. As Sagan so rightly said, "ECREE". That goalpost is planted firmly in concrete. Your goalposts seem to need a passport, they move around so much.

 

[Akhenaten]

carlitos,

Stop misrepresenting my position. You are smart enough to know that I'm not trying to "define UFOs into existence" and you are merely spewing your anti-ufology propoganda.

Mr Fology,

Your position is that lacking anything even resembling evidence for your beloved alien space ships you've been playing silly word games ever since you got here in an attempt to give some credence to the phrase UFO = "OMG . . . aliens!"

Misrepresenting that position would clearly be doing you a favour, but alas, I think carlitos has you pegged pretty well.

 

[ufology]

I'm curious about this whole UFO "definition" debate. I found this:

"Quote:
1. A flying or apparently flying object of an unknown nature, especially one suspected to have been sent by extraterrestrial beings.
2. A flying saucer."


(underlining mine)

So from that, it seems that while you can't necessarily wholesale equate "UFO = alien craft", you can't necessarily dismiss that usage, either. Any comments?

Mike,

This is what I've been trying to get through to the so-called skeptics here who refuse to acknowledge the obvious and instead misrepresent my poition by claiming I am trying to "define UFOs into existence". In the history of this discussion I've provided several other definitions, both from official USAF sources and independent dictionaries that when taken together in the context of the history and usage of the word UFO clearly illustrates that the word UFO is meant to convey the idea of an alien craft, or at the very least something seemingly extraordinary, if not out of this world. It was never intended to be used as a reference to ordinary objects that are simply "unidentified".

The reason the skeptics here refuse to accept this fact is because it reveals how they exploit the general public's lack of understanding of the meaning of the word UFO to spew their anti-ufology propoganda.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dude... an ASSology t-shirt would sell!

"Is that a rocket in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?"

Akhenaten scribbles a few notes on a piece of papyrus and darts off, cackling madly . . .

 

[carlitos]

carlitos,

Stop misrepresenting my position. You are smart enough to know that I'm not trying to "define UFOs into existence" and you are merely spewing your anti-ufology propoganda.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redefine.html

If not the fallacy of redefinition, please explain the purpose for your use of the highlighted phrase below.

Sideroxylon:

In the past I've suggested possible explanations for sightings other than as UFOs ( alien craft ), so I've already proven your assumption wrong.

GeeMack:

Unfortunately you choose to deny the overwhelming dicumented evidence in support of what the word UFO means to convey, and choose self-servingly to portray it using not the actual definition(s) or even the common understanding, but the mere word origin in the form of the individual words that makeup the acronym. So long as you continue misrepresenting the meaning of the word in this way, we have nothing further to discuss on the word origin, meaning or usage.

As for you saying that UFOs ( alien craft ) have never been demonstrated to exist. all you can say with any certainty is that they have never been demonstrated to you. They have however been demonstrated to me and many other people. I freely admit that I cannot replicate my observation and therefore cannot provide scientific proof. Therefore you may reasonably choose to dismiss that evidence and/or reserve judgement, ( reject the null hypothesis ), but going beyond that by claiming that because alien craft have never been proven to exist, it therefore proves they don't exist, is an argument from ignorance. Therefore you cannot make your claim with any certainty without revealing your bias.

Lastly, your analogy between UFOs and gods is false, and comparing the phenomena to fairy tales is equally false logic. Simply because unicorns or Santa Clause are fairy tales is not proof that UFOs are also fairy tales, and to make that assertion with such certainty once again only reveals your prejudice and bias. Consequently, it seems we have nothing further to discuss. Perhaps I'll run across some video or case study that you can help debunk and I'll look forward to your responses at that time.

AdMan,

We are talking about UFOs, not fairies. There have been scientists and other professionals who have taken them very seriously. There is also no scientific reason that UFOs ( alien craft ) are not possible or even likely. The main point of contention is whether or not any of them have visited Earth.

So once again, the Internet is full of accounts and articles and science that all have a bearing on the subject matter. Can you please offer up something useful and positive to help those interested in ufology appreciate the skeptical/non-believer's point of view?

Dear Readers,

Now we see more denial and the use of huge fonts, as though that somehow makes their position valid. They are also confusing the idea of "claims" and "evidence". The claim is that people have seen UFOs ( alien craft ), the evidence is their testimony. Testimony is counted as evidence in dictionaries and courts of law and in this thread. Moving the goalposts to make "scientific evidence" the only allowable evidence is not valid. Points can be made regarding the validity of firsthand knowledge and anecdotal evidence, but it cannot be fairly ruled as inadmissible.

mike3,

Thanks for the comment mike. Regarding scientific evidence, the concept of scientific evidence isn't as clear cut as it seems. For example, there is no universally accepted definition of "scientific evidence". Generally it must be empirical, which is something gained through observation or experimentation. Certainly UFOs have been observed, so that would seem to qualify. However there is also the concept that it should be measurable. In the case of UFOs we have radar tracks that have measured speed and distance, so we also have that information. Lastly we also have a lot of statistical information based on observation, some including measurements like speed, size and distance.

Given the above, observations by firsthand witnesses, particularly those backed by instrumentation such as radar would seem to count as scientific evidence. But is this really good enough? I would contend that it's not ... at least not as proof. Had I not seen a UFO myself I would demand proof before adopting any definitive stance on the issue. I would also believe that it's reasonable to accept for the purpose of investigation, that UFOs ( alien craft ) have probably been here, but I couldn't say for sure which cases represented that as a certainty.

wollery, wollery, wollery,

I've never claimed there is proof that Earth has been visited by . I've only stated I am convinced from my own experience, and that it is reasonable given the vast amount of other eyewitness accounts, some backed by instrumentation such a radar, that some UFOs ( alien craft ) have visited the Earth. As for the proof that will satisfy the critics, that remains as elusive as ever ... if not moreso, and the critics have every right, whether I think they are being unreasonable or not, to remain skeptical and unconvinced until they either have an experience of their own, or more substantial evidence is presented.

Regarding Above: "Reliable evidence is not necessarily of physical nature (like a flying saucer or an alien); it might as well come as imagery (from a reliable source and preferentially sharp, detailed) for example."

Apparently the poster above is then less skeptical than I am. I don't think videotaped images prove anything. They are just pictures. Perhaps a live feed of some kind might prove something, but only if it can be shown that the live feed is verifiable by independent civilians. But even then, all it amounts to are images on a monitor of some kind. Pixels of color and luminosity on a matrix. There's no physical proof. However I would be inclined to think it would be reasonable evidence ... but not much more reasonable than an Air Force pilot's account of his pursuit of a flying saucer in broad daylight.

So far as I'm concerned, real material objective physical evidence that can be studied using the scientific method is the best you can get. If you want to start accepting less based on what you think is reasonable, then things aren't so clear-cut anymore. That's the realm I live in constantly with ufology, and it's why, contrary to the skeptical opinion, that I think reliable eye-witnesses are the best evidence we have. Hoaxed videos are so easy to make now that I don't even bother keeping up with them. Also, because we are out of the loop where the military is concerned, we don't have access to unsanitized, unfiltered data, or access to equipment. So we're down to civilian accounts ... everyday people. Their reports are complicated further by the fact that modern technology has become so amazing that it's getting harder and harder to differentiate extraordinary sightings from what we could conceivably have created ourselves. But once in a while you'll get a really good account, and they're worth waiting for.

Regarding what the MUFON and UFO hunter people regard as objective physical evidence. Perhaps they do have something that can be studied empirically, but all that proves it that they have some odd metal fragments. It doesn't prove where they originated. I don't think they can draw the conclusion that it came from an alien craft.

Regarding the supposition that, "No skeptic will actually 'deny that alien craft exist'." I wouldn't be so sure all skeptics won't deny that alien craft exist. Perhaps the poster really means "No true skeptic". In this regard I'm most impressed with Robo's constant insistence on the "null hypothesis". He has stated that from his perspective, UFOs ( alien craft visiting Earth ) could exist, but that their existence still needs to be proven. So he's reserved judgement pending "falsification" of his "null hypothesis". It's not the way I look at the issue, but at least his point of view is logically coherent.

Q: Are Ufologists doing pseudoscience when they are talking about links between UFOs and energy vortexes, time and faster-than-light travels, magnetic fields, radiation, paralell universes, wormholes, portals, convergent evolution, plasma, holograms, etc.?
A: It depends on whether or not they are talking informally with respect to the topics ( like we are now ), or whether they are presenting it as some sort of bona fide science, as in, "It's a scientific fact that UFOs come from a parallel universe." Otherwise it's just talk and I wouldn't call it crackpottery. It's all interesting and we're all entitled to explore topics we find interesting in an informal way without being persecuted, at least to the extent that we aren't hurting anyone else.

j.r.

 

[carlitos]

Mike,

This is what I've been trying to get through to the so-called skeptics here who refuse to acknowledge the obvious and instead misrepresent my poition by claiming I am trying to "define UFOs into existence". In the history of this discussion I've provided several other definitions, both from official USAF sources and independent dictionaries that when taken together in the context of the history and usage of the word UFO clearly illustrates that the word UFO is meant to convey the idea of an alien craft, or at the very least something seemingly extraordinary, if not out of this world. It was never intended to be used as a reference to ordinary objects that are simply "unidentified".

The reason the skeptics here refuse to accept this fact is because it reveals how they exploit the general public's lack of understanding of the meaning of the word UFO to spew their anti-ufology propoganda.

You of course ignored 2 posters above who agreed with Mike's definition that yes, sometimes people use "UFO" as shorthand for aliens.

Which still changes your argument not a whit. Do you have any evidence for aliens?

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes. There's plenty of "credible" evidence in the form of high quality eyewitness accounts from "credible" people and I have several hundred books on the topic with many such accounts.

Those are claims. Claims ≠ evidence. Claims require evidence.

The existence of alien space ships is an extraordinary claim.

Extraordinary claims require _______________________ ?


Go on, fill it in. I know you can do it.

They are not hard to find, so go get some yourself and read about it.

When I could be sitting here watching this paint dry? No way.

Note: Don't just move the goalposts now and exclude eyewitness observations from the evidence.

They were never part of the evidence, ufology. The goalposts remain right where they've always been.

Actually go and read up. If you can only afford one book get Beyond Top Secret by Timothy Good.

I'll bet it's chock full of "things they don't want you to know".

 

[carlitos]

Things they don't want you to know. You have to emphasize "they."

 

[Akhenaten]

The reason the skeptics here refuse to accept this fact is because it reveals how they exploit the general public's lack of understanding of the meaning of the word UFO to spew their anti-ufology propoganda.

Believing nonsense like that is even weirder than believing in Martians.

Apart from anything else, you've been carping on endlessly about how you reckon the most widely understood meaning of UFO is "alien space ship" and now you describe "the general public's lack of understanding of the meaning of the word UFO".

I think you need to pick just one of the above, although a wiser path might probably lie somewhere between the two.

 

[Akhenaten]

Things they don't want you to know. You have to emphasize "they."

 

[John Albert]

... when I use quotes from the same source as the people who created the word UFO in the first place it's called "special pleading", as if that somehow makes it invalid.

This is a textbook example of a genetic fallacy. Read that Wikipedia article and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

By that logic if we define chemicals the way chemists do that's also invalid. There is no end to the self-serving hypocrisy of the skeptics on this forum.

This is of course a false analogy.

"UFO" is a neologism, or coined term, whereas "chemical" is a derivative of the word "chemistry," which is in turn a derivative from the old Arabic word "al-kimiya," meaning alchemy.


"UFO" literally means "unidentified flying object." Every single definition you find spells it out in those specific words, "unidentified flying object." Those definitions that do mention aliens, extraterrestrials, etc., offer that context as a secondary (subordinate) meaning, and also clearly stipulate that it's a subjective belief, assumption, suspicion, or characterization.

That you are trying to override the literal definition of the acronym for "unidentified flying object" to make it represent something identified is pretty obvious proof of your dishonesty.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Mike,

This is what I've been trying to get through to the so-called skeptics here who refuse to acknowledge the obvious and instead misrepresent my poition by claiming I am trying to "define UFOs into existence". In the history of this discussion I've provided several other definitions, both from official USAF sources and independent dictionaries that when taken together in the context of the history and usage of the word UFO clearly illustrates that the word UFO is meant to convey the idea of an alien craft, or at the very least something seemingly extraordinary, if not out of this world. It was never intended to be used as a reference to ordinary objects that are simply "unidentified".

The reason the skeptics here refuse to accept this fact is because it reveals how they exploit the general public's lack of understanding of the meaning of the word UFO to spew their anti-ufology propoganda.

In the context we're using it here, UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. At your own website you may redefine it however you please in whatever context you please.

Do you have any evidence that would falsify theJ Randall Murphy null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

and prove that Alien Space Ships exist?

As you can see by the null hypothesis, UFOs are mundane and cannot be UFOs ( Alien Space Ships ). Not until you've falsified the J Randall Murphy null hypothesis may you say that in the context of this thread. Only a dishonest pseudoscientist would do that.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Sideroxylon,

I see no reason to disbelieve that the Wikopedia article on the null hypothesis.

No, lets not just make an argument from authority and one you have been accused of failing to understand and cherry picking. Explain why the null hypothesis is limited as you have been arguing. Show us that you grasp the idea and teach us all here something.

What you are missing however, is that even though the Project Blue book Special Report 14 statistical analysis establishes that it is reasonable to believe that the objects in some UFO reports are alien craft, it contains no substantial physical evidence and therefore is not the kind of proof that is ultimately required by those who have never seen a UFO for themselves. It should however be sufficient to demonstrate that there is a genuine mystery involving material craft for which no explanation of origin or purpose has been established.

So let's deal with the concept of "unexplained". When you say, to quote, "Unexplained means just that. It does not mean insert favorite speculative idea as fact." you are making an obvious statement for which I take no issue. However merely being unexplained is far different than cannot be explained as something manmade or natural even when given what should be sufficient information to do so. An unremarkable vague object in the distance is unexplained. So are UFOs. But UFOs are a different and specific class of unexplained phenomena.

Has there ever been a case of a sighting described by an observer as unexplainable by mundane phenomena that has been latter explained by same?

To illustrate further, the unremarkable vague object in the distance may become the subject of a UFO report, but that doesn't make it a UFO, it just makes it the subject of a UFO report. However if that vague object instantly zooms over to you with a maneuver impossible for any Earthly technology and doesn't look like any Earthly technology, then what had merely been a vague unexplained object in the distance becomes a UFO. There is still no certain explanation for it, but it's far from being anything "mundane". For all practical purposes it is an alien craft, but that's not an explanation ... just a description, which why we have the ubiquitous depictions of UFOs as some sort of alien spaceship, usually a flying saucer.

How do I know that my perceptions of size and distance of the object, and consequently its speed and acceleration, are correct? How do I know I am not looking at a reflected light? How do I know that I am not missing important details that could solve the mystery? How do I know that my memory of the events have not been corrupted? How do later examiners properly assess my claims as unexplainable in the light of such problems I have mentioned? How do they rule out hoaxes?

Lastly, just because all we have are descriptions without any explanations does not mean that UFOs aren't real. Skeptics choose to doubt the reality of UFOs ( alien craft ) while those who have seen them for themselves have no reservations. Such is the basic state of affairs with respect to the issue. But it doesn't end there. We also have highly polarized fanatics on each side ranging from ufology bashers to contactee cult religions. Add to that the scientific and cultural factors and it isn't surprising why so many people find ufology to be such an interesting topic. Yes UFOs have remained an unexplained phenomenon ... and a real one. Certainly nobody here, including me, knows exactly what they are.

You can't justify transmuting "unexplained" to "only explainable by alien craft." We have no evidence to believe that alien craft exist.

 

[Paul2]

Could you demonstrate that your claim of this limitation of the null hypothesis is not simply an argument form authority built through cherry picking and distortion of the Wikipedia article? The most effective way to do this would be to explain what elements of the null hypothesis cause such a limitation to exist.

I see no reason to disbelieve that the Wikopedia article on the null hypothesis.

Even though someone might have written the Wikipedia article with a slightly more narrow focus than necessary (limiting a null hypothesis to statistical studies)?

Even when the whole concept of Wikipedia is that it can be edited (it's not dogma from heaven)?

Even though we've given you an actual reason to disbelieve the idea that a null hypothesis applies in general, and not just to statistical studies?

Even though you failed to say why it must only apply to statistical studies when asked directly?