UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[John Albert]

But if it's unidentified, how am I gonna know which craft to get on? Is there a ticket or a schedule? Where's the station or terminal?

Don't worry. When you see it, there will be no doubt in your mind about what it is and nobody will ever be able to convince you otherwise.

I'd also like to opt out of any probing, gratis or not.

Oh, your reservation has already been made for the "Iridium Deluxe Full Service Package™."

Don't worry, just tell them you're a "first timer" and they'll be gentle. I have heard their hypersensual massage techniques are truly Out Of This World™!

 

[carlitos]

Philip K. Dick did a cracking fine job of defining it, especially for a crankhead, schizophrenic, science fiction author from the South side of Chicago:

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."​

Wow. As a fellow South Sider, I'm honored.

ufology's silly taunts about my 7th grade science class don't really mean much. Mrs. Burleson taught me a lot about critical thinking.

 

[ufology]

I'm not Robrob and the original alleged sighting isn't recent but the changes to it have been.

It's the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax. We've seen on this forum how the details have changed greatly over time as the contradictions were shown to the hoaxer. Do you have any more information on that one? The great thing is that there are so many witnesses to the hoaxer's "corrections" over time. They're still on this forum in black and white for posterity to see the evolution of an outright hoax.

Robo Robo Robo ...

It's the same old, same old, same old, with you every time. You have no evidence I've hoaxed anything. Simply because someone started asking questions about my UFO sighting and I took the time to address individual questions instead of slapping down a 20000 word response is not evidence of fabrication. I saw an alien craft ... you haven't. Maybe someday you will, but probably not. In the meantime your lack of belief doesn't give you justification to label witnesses as hoaxers.

 

[carlitos]

I saw an alien craft ... you haven't. Maybe someday you will, but probably not.

Yeah, because the UFOs use cloaking devices that shield rational thinkers from seeing them. You are special.

 

[ufology]

Yeah, because the UFOs use cloaking devices that shield rational thinkers from seeing them. You are special.

What isn't rational about the possibility of alien craft visiting Earth? Your very statement is irrational so maybe you've got your theory backwards. I'm just a normal guy who saw something extraordinary and you are irrational because you deny it's possible when it is in fact entirely possible.

 

[John Albert]

It's the same old, same old, same old, with you every time. You have no evidence I've hoaxed anything. Simply because someone started asking questions about my UFO sighting and I took the time to address individual questions instead of slapping down a 20000 word response is not evidence of fabrication. I saw an alien craft ... you haven't. Maybe someday you will, but probably not. In the meantime your lack of belief doesn't give you justification to label witnesses as hoaxers.

Anybody reading through that portion of this thread will be able to see you patching and amending your obviously fabricated story to account for the numerous factual and logical errors, and physical impossibilities. There are several very good reasons why some people have identified your story as a hoax. The facts as you have described them simply do not add up. Quit blaming others for your own inability to fabricate a convincing lie. If you'd shown a little humility, admitted when you're wrong and told the truth in the first place, you probably wouldn't be made to look so foolish on the Internet.

What isn't rational about the possibility of alien craft visiting Earth? Your very statement is irrational so maybe you've got your theory backwards. I'm just a normal guy who saw something extraordinary and you are irrational because you deny it's possible when it is in fact entirely possible.

What isn't rational about your UFO story, you ask?

The same kinds of things that aren't rational about saying you had a near automobile accident with science fiction characters driving a late '60s Cadillac that left behind a supernatural vapor trail, or boasting that as a child you were capable of levitating into the air and flying through your house, or claiming that you had a normal conversation in plain English with a 4-foot-tall bunny rabbit. If you honestly can't see what's irrational about a grown adult saying things like that and actually expecting to be taken seriously, then I advise you to seek psychological counseling. Seriously, get some help because there's something wrong with your mind.

 

[Robrob]

Robrob,

So you're claiming not to be associated with those here who participate in mockery, ridicule, misrepresentation, character attacks and other pseudoskeptical deviousness? OK ... in that case I'm glad to meet you.
Thanks

Maybe I should repeat it for you - the person making wild crazy claims directly in contravention to reality - that's the person who needs to provide evidence. Not the other way around.

 

[Krikkiter]

What isn't rational about the possibility of alien craft visiting Earth? Your very statement is irrational so maybe you've got your theory backwards. I'm just a normal guy who saw something extraordinary and you are irrational because you deny it's possible when it is in fact entirely possible.

Nothing really irrational about the possibility. It's just that you insist that not only are alien visitations possible, not only are they probable, they are in fact occurring. Further, you insist that to question this assertion is irrational

 

[LSSBB]

Wow. As a fellow South Sider, I'm honored.

ufology's silly taunts about my 7th grade science class don't really mean much. Mrs. Burleson taught me a lot about critical thinking.

One more southsider here (actually south suburbs). Near the infamous "Tinley Park" sightings.

 

[ufology]

Maybe I should repeat it for you - the person making wild crazy claims directly in contravention to reality - that's the person who needs to provide evidence. Not the other way around.

Robrob,

Absence of proof that a claim is true is not proof that it is false. To claim otherwise is an argument from ignorance. Because it is entirely possible that alien craft exist, without proof that of a hoax, all you can do without being unfair is reserve judgement and remain skeptical. Taking it that extra step and accusing someone of a hoax without any proof is prejudicial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[ufology]

Nothing really irrational about the possibility. It's just that you insist that not only are alien visitations possible, not only are they probable, they are in fact occurring. Further, you insist that to question this assertion is irrational

Krikkiter,

You have not stated my position with accuracy. My position is that Earth has been visitited and probably still is being visited by craft of alien origin. The rest of what you have said is a misrepresentation of a point I had made in another post. The issue of probability is relevant in the context of past USAF studies, and to deny those studies and the experiences of thousands of witnesses is indeed irrational. A rational person would take the phenomenon seriously. On the other hand, irrational people will mock and ridicule people the way the little group of ufology bashers here does.

 

[Robrob]

Robrob,

Absence of proof that a claim is true is not proof that it is false. To claim otherwise is an argument from ignorance. Because it is entirely possible that alien craft exist, without proof that of a hoax, all you can do without being unfair is reserve judgement and remain skeptical. Taking it that extra step and accusing someone of a hoax without any proof is prejudicial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

"Absence of proof that faeries exist is not proof it's false? To claim otherwise is an argument from ignorance. Because it is entirely possible that faeries exist, without proof that of a hoax, all you can do without being unfair is reserve judgement and remain skeptical. Taking it that extra step and accusing someone of a hoax without any proof is prejudicial."

I saved the best for last. From your own link:

"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof."

"Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does."

"The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent."

 

[John Albert]

Absence of proof that a claim is true is not proof that it is false. To claim otherwise is an argument from ignorance. Because it is entirely possible that alien craft exist, without proof that of a hoax, all you can do without being unfair is reserve judgement and remain skeptical. Taking it that extra step and accusing someone of a hoax without any proof is prejudicial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

This is wrong. The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. If you claim alien life exists, you must provide evidence or else there's no reason at all to believe you. "Remaining skeptical" and using critical thinking instead of credulous thinking, would mean rejecting your claim for lack of evidence. That is not an argument from ignorance.

My position is that Earth has been visitited and probably still is being visited by craft of alien origin.

Neither you nor anyone else has ever provided any credible, verifiable evidence to support that position. Therefore, believing that claim requires an irrational leap of faith, not unlike the kind of belief people have in religion. It is fine to hold such beliefs as long as you're able to admit there's no logical basis, so you believe it on faith. Otherwise your position doesn't have a leg to stand on, and pointing that out is not an argument from ignorance either.

As for your own UFO sighting story, it was filled with factual inconsistencies and physical impossibilities. The tale you related here was also very different from how it was presented on your website. Even with your own Web page as a reference, you still were unable to tell it with any consistency. Furthermore, you were blatantly observed adjusting and retooling your story as these discrepancies were pointed out to you. Anyone reading the thread can plainly witness this dishonest behavior of yours as the investigation played out.

Is this concrete proof that you did not see something that you were unable to identify? No.

But what it does prove is that the story you told (which is also published on your website) is so full of holes that it cannot stand up to even the barest of critical scrutiny. In other words, it may be the result of wild memory confabulations, or may be largely deliberately fabricated, but there's absolutely no way it could have happened as you described it. For all intents and purposes, it's a hoax.

 

[Krikkiter]

Krikkiter,

You have not stated my position with accuracy. My position is that Earth has been visitited and probably still is being visited by craft of alien origin. The rest of what you have said is a misrepresentation of a point I had made in another post. The issue of probability is relevant in the context of past USAF studies, and to deny those studies and the experiences of thousands of witnesses is indeed irrational. A rational person would take the phenomenon seriously. On the other hand, irrational people will mock and ridicule people the way the little group of ufology bashers here does.

I think those studies have been taken seriously and the conclusion - from the investigators and the people on this board - is that UFO's remain, by definition, unidentified. Maybe you could show me in the reports where they conclude that such-and-such a UFO sighting is definitive evidence of alien craft/visitation? I'd be happy to read anything you have to present but obviously I'm not interested in going through all the files if there's nothing to find anyway.

Also, probability is useless if all you have are claims which, as I'm sure you're aware (or at least as has been pointed out), are not evidence in themselves.

ETA: A genuine question here: are you saying that the sheer volume of reports means that statistically speaking, one of them must be true?

 

[Akhenaten]

Paul,

Perhaps you are right, just like the definition of addition is the process of calculating the sum of two numbers. Maybe you would like to loosen up that one as well. It would certainly help at the bank, or when I'm paying my credit card bills.

Except that it's nothing like that at all.

Your wrong-headed definitions of the null hypothesis, UFO. evidence, alien, etcetera are in no way comparable to the actual definitions that people use in the course of exchanging ideas and information.

Given your abysmal track record with this sort of thing I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that you're working from an incorrect definition of the word 'definition'.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Sideroxylon,

Interesting phrasing above ... the part that says, "we should keep pressing him". I almost forgot that I was amid a cabal of ufology bashers. But by all means let's continue. How about we start with this point regarding the null hypothesis:

"The term was originally coined by Englishgeneticist and statistician Ronald Fisher in 1935."
​

And move on to the Principple of use ...

"Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how likely the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true."
​

Now what part about the above is in error? Or are you going to insist that we revert back to Carlitos' grade seven explanation? Unless the null hypothesis is used as it was designed to be used it's nothing more than pseudoskeptical way of saying, "Until you prove it I won't believe it" ... which actually I would be fine with.

And BTW: You can refer to me not merely as "him" but as "Mr. Ufology"

Mr Ufology, I think we should keep pressing you because I am interested in knowing what this impasse in agreement on this simple definition is all about. Could you please stop insisting on repeating the arguments from authority, and inadequate ones at that, and answer the question of what it is about the null hypothesis that limits it statistical analysis. I don't think you have an argument on this at all but simply have gone out and cherry picked some quotes that you think supports your position. Am ı wrong?

 

[Akhenaten]

Robo Robo Robo ...

It's the same old, same old, same old, with you every time. You have no evidence I've hoaxed anything. Simply because someone started asking questions about my UFO sighting and I took the time to address individual questions instead of slapping down a 20000 word response is not evidence of fabrication.

No, the evidence of fabrication is in the gaps in the plot that you could drive a blimp a fleet of Volkswagens an alien mothership through.

I saw an alien craft ... you haven't.

Apart from the appalling grammatical mismatch, this assertion is factually unsupportable. You lack the evidence you need to know whether either statement is correct.

Maybe someday you will, but probably not.

How odd. This is actually correct.

In the meantime your lack of belief doesn't give you justification to label witnesses as hoaxers.

No, the ridiculously implausable nature of the story told by the alledged witnesses takes care of that all by itself.

 

[Akhenaten]

What isn't rational about the possibility of alien craft visiting Earth?

Nothing, and if acceptance of that possibility was as far as one went then one's rationality wouldn't be in question.

Claiming that it happens all the time, that the anecdotes of alleged witnesses are verification of this and that oneself is, despite all evidence to the contrary, one of the witnesses is another kettle of space fishies altogether.

Your very statement is irrational so maybe you've got your theory backwards. I'm just a normal guy who saw something extraordinary and you are irrational because you deny it's possible when it is in fact entirely possible.

Speaking of kettles.

 

[Akhenaten]

Nothing really irrational about the possibility. It's just that you insist that not only are alien visitations possible, not only are they probable, they are in fact occurring. Further, you insist that to question this assertion is irrational

Krikkiter,

You have not stated my position with accuracy.

What???

Are you hoping that nobody will notice that Krikkiter's description of your position above and your own below are almost exactly the same?

My position is that Earth has been visitited and probably still is being visited by craft of alien origin. The rest of what you have said is a misrepresentation of a point I had made in another post. The issue of probability is relevant in the context of past USAF studies, and to deny those studies and the experiences of thousands of witnesses is indeed irrational.

We'd have to be blind to miss it.

A rational person would take the phenomenon seriously.

Which phenomenon? That people see things in the sky that they can't identify or that there are flying saucers buzzing about all over the place?

Contrary to your delusion, these are not the same thing. The first might at least be acknowledged, if not taken seriously, the second is just plain barmy.

On the other hand, irrational people will mock and ridicule people the way the little group of ufology bashers here does.

Poor you.

 

[wollery]

Sideroxylon,

Interesting phrasing above ... the part that says, "we should keep pressing him". I almost forgot that I was amid a cabal of ufology bashers. But by all means let's continue. How about we start with this point regarding the null hypothesis:

"The term was originally coined by Englishgeneticist and statistician Ronald Fisher in 1935."
​

And move on to the Principple of use ...

"Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how likely the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true."
​

Now what part about the above is in error? Or are you going to insist that we revert back to Carlitos' grade seven explanation? Unless the null hypothesis is used as it was designed to be used it's nothing more than pseudoskeptical way of saying, "Until you prove it I won't believe it" ... which actually I would be fine with.

And BTW: You can refer to me not merely as "him" but as "Mr. Ufology"

Do you think that superglue shouldn't be used for sticking broken pottery back together?

Do you think that Teflon shouldn't be used for non-stick frying pans?

Do you think that the general public shouldn’t have access to the internet?

Do you think that cassette tapes should only be used for recording dictation?

Do you think that CCDs should only be used as data transfer devices?

Do you think that rockets should only be used as a form of weaponry?

Because that’s what you seem to be arguing above, that things should only be used for the purpose for which they were originally intended, even if they have other applications.