UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

Sorry to spoil your concept of critical thinking but a real critical thinker wouldn't [...]

We had a lengthy discussion where it was determined without any doubt that you don't understand what comprises critical thinking, so your opinion on what is and is not critical thinking is not a qualified opinion.

So lack of proof positive doesn't grant you the right to "assume" your opinions are true.

It is reasonable to dismiss extraordinary claims when they are not objectively shown to be true.

OK so let's consider your normality barometer in the context of childhood experiences. Since many children have unusual experiences, strange childhood experiences are actually fairly normal.

Children have imaginary friends. Children believe in Santa Claus. The normality of your claim would lead to the conclusion that you made it up. Pretty much the same as you made up your UFO hoax. And notice how nobody is buying that malarkey either.

As for my personal experience with the rabbit. Rabbits are known to live in grassy fields. In fact rabbits still live in that same area where I had the strange childhood experience. So since neither strange childhood experiences or rabbits in grassy fields are abnormal, it's not unreasonable to believe a child who says they had an unusual experience involving a rabbit.

It's reasonable to accept the rabbit story as made up from scratch when it involves a rabbit larger than any known species, and when being told by a person with a demonstrated propensity to make stuff up.

How do we explain it?

It can easily be explained as a simple fabrication, a lie.

I don't know. But simply because we have no scientific explanation doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's more reasonable to invoke the "kids have wild imaginations" theory. But I'm not convinced all such experiences are the result of wild imaginations.

No, but you believe in aliens even though there is no objective evidence of any sort to support the notion that such a thing exists. You have also admitted that you consider reality and truth to be unrelated. You have no credibility. So although it may not be a result of a kid's wild imagination, it can easily be explained as the result of a full grown adult's propensity to dishonestly make up tales and present them as if they were true.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robrob,

You are contradicting the people here who say that repetition reinforces memory. You're also wrong. In fact, it's more likely that you'll lose accuracy by not telling a story very often than by regular repetition. Any actor or musician will assure you that repetition reinforces accuracy of memory. The polish just makes the recall and delivery more precise. By contrast, parts that are not played in a long time often require review. You really should spend more time thinking through your assertions.

But we see here on this forum how your own account has been changed and embellished over time. You're a perfect example of how relating your story allows you to change it and that becomes your new story, until even you believe it.

 

[carlitos]

Seriously, he's reduced to denying the reality that 6 year olds are significantly taller than rabbits. That's pathetic.

 

[GeeMack]

You are contradicting the people here who say that repetition reinforces memory.

Repetition is quite a different thing than what you've been doing. You've changed your story as you've felt necessary to sidestep the criticisms of each previous version. That's not how memory works. That's how lies work.

 

[Stray Cat]

So you've been appointed as the gang's spokesperson now. This should be refreshing. Where's the cute graphic?

What are you on about?
I am simply one of the people who have replied to your silly post.

Sorry to spoil your concept of critical thinking but a real critical thinker wouldn't make the mistake of assuming the rabbit was "giant".

And sorry to spoil your assumption that I was supposed to be accurately describing your fairy tale.

The rabbit, if that's what it even really was, was about as tall as me, and since I was only about as tall as the tall grass in the field, we must have both been pretty short.

But now that you bring it up. Do I need to do a cute graphic of a regular sized wild rabbit next to a young child to show you how silly you sound?

The other thing is that critical thinking doesn't endorse the concept of making the kind of assumptions you do. Lack of proof positive is not proof of the negative. So lack of proof positive doesn't grant you the right to "assume" your opinions are true.

Lols.
So critical thinking doesn't allow me to assume that rabbits don't talk?

Have you learned nothing of use whilst visiting this hallowed place of learning... we have this thing called the null hypothesis, it covers thing like "All UFO's are mundane in origin" as well as "Rabbits don't talk"

Now I'm beginning to see your point. You've just demonstrated how you failed to properly remember the actual details of something we have previouisly discussed.

So you didn't get all confused as to which song and album you were listening to? (remember it's all still there in the thread).

You sound so sure? Have you taken a poll?

Why do I need a poll?
I read what people are saying and I understand it. I have not read anyone who says any of what you implied they had said.
If I am wrong, please link to those posts where people are saying those things.

OK so let's consider your normality barometer in the context of childhood experiences. Since many children have unusual experiences, strange childhood experiences are actually fairly normal.

No, they may be common, they are not normal (the clue is in them being called strange experiences)

As for my personal experience with the rabbit. Rabbits are known to live in grassy fields. In fact rabbits still live in that same area where I had the strange childhood experience. So since neither strange childhood experiences or rabbits in grassy fields are abnormal, it's not unreasonable to believe a child who says they had an unusual experience involving a rabbit.

Twaddle.
It is not unreasonable to think they were talking hogwash about the talking rabbit, because... rabbits don't talk.

How do we explain it? I don't know. But simply because we have no scientific explanation doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Argument from ignorance... remember the null hypothesis.

It's more reasonable to invoke the "kids have wild imaginations" theory. But I'm not convinced all such experiences are the result of wild imaginations.

Oh well you're not convinced... that makes you... errr... special right?

 

[RoboTimbo]

logy, exactly how tall were you, the grass, and the rabbit?

 

[Stray Cat]

Robrob,

You are contradicting the people here who say that repetition reinforces memory. You're also wrong. In fact, it's more likely that you'll lose accuracy by not telling a story very often than by regular repetition. Any actor or musician will assure you that repetition reinforces accuracy of memory. The polish just makes the recall and delivery more precise. By contrast, parts that are not played in a long time often require review. You really should spend more time thinking through your assertions.

Actors and musicians have a script or a score to refer to ensuring that if they forget a line or a few bars, they can look it up from a non altering reference.
All you have is your fallible memory to refer to.

 

[Krikkiter]

But we see here on this forum how your own account has been changed and embellished over time. You're a perfect example of how relating your story allows you to change it and that becomes your new story, until even you believe it.

Sort of like a musician who writes a song then changes it constantly because people keep pointing out the melodic and harmonic dissonance and out of time rhythm parts. Unfortunately the musician is tone deaf and rhythmically challenged and he ends up with a song that's completely different from the original but equally terrible.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Robrob,

You are contradicting the people here who say that repetition reinforces memory. You're also wrong. In fact, it's more likely that you'll lose accuracy by not telling a story very often than by regular repetition. Any actor or musician will assure you that repetition reinforces accuracy of memory. The polish just makes the recall and delivery more precise. By contrast, parts that are not played in a long time often require review. You really should spend more time thinking through your assertions.

Mr Ufology, just in case you were referring to what I said earlier, it's not the repetition that I claimed was important but rather coherence between details that reoccur across multiple memories. As has been pointed out to you by Stray Cat, actors and musicians memories of have a immutable base with which to maintain coherence.

Do you believe that it is possible for someone to add new childhood memories to your inventory or perhaps embellish existing ones?

 

[ufology]

Mr Ufology, just in case you were referring to what I said earlier, it's not the repetition that I claimed was important but rather coherence between details that reoccur across multiple memories. As has been pointed out to you by Stray Cat, actors and musicians memories of have a immutable base with which to maintain coherence.

Do you believe that it is possible for someone to add new childhood memories to your inventory or perhaps embellish existing ones?

Sideroxylon,

To answer your question. I think that what you are saying and a lot of other are possible.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Sideroxylon,

To answer your question. I think that what you are saying and a lot of other are possible.

Mr Ufology, it has been well demonstrated to be the case and recognized by law enforcement agencies and judicial bodies. So is it possible that you did not actually levitate or speak to a rabbit? Would these otherwise extraordinary events be best assessed as mental artifacts?

 

[John Albert]

The rabbit, if that's what it even really was, was about as tall as me, and since I was only about as tall as the tall grass in the field, we must have both been pretty short.

"When kids get 'small,' they get real 'small'..."

 

[John Albert]

it's not unreasonable to believe a child who says they had an unusual experience involving a rabbit.

It's not unreasonable to believe the fantasies of a child? Um, yeah I'd say it actually is. I'd say it's not unreasonable to encourage the play activities of a child, even to the point of humoring a child in some harmless fantasies. But would I believe a child who said a rabbit talked to him? Absolutely not. I would put that claim down to imaginative play and nothing more.

But a 53-year-old adult, on the other hand?

There's certainly something unreasonable about that. Mentally healthy adults are able to discern reality from fantasy.

 

[Correa Neto]

NG is showing a good documentary on how human mind can be fooled. Loftus is featured, performing an experiment that clearly shows -much to people's surprise- how flawed their memories can be. But hey, UFOhunters and Ancient Aliens at pseudoHistory Channel are more cozy, since they do not challenge woo beliefs and the reality of experiences certain people believe to be key in their lives.

The discussions about the size of the rabbit are by themselves another red flag for ufology's alleged experiences. He's speaking about a (talking) rabbit about the size of a 6-years old child which was as tall as grass. Well, if a talking rabbit were not by itself something very extraordinary outside fantasy books and lore, ufology must have been a very small child (about the size of a 6-month old baby) if the grass and the rabbit were of normal size. There are three other options-

(a) His stature was average and the rabbit was HUGE!
(b) His memories are not faithful to the event, his size estimates are bogus, rabbits can't speak.
(c) The whole story is a fabrication.

Note that the last two options are potential blows against his accounts of an alleged UFO sighting and the speed/size estimations as well.

The odds are he saw or read "Alice in Wonderland" and somehow incorporated it in a dream, false memory, whatever. Now he is confusing it all with reality. Similar chains of events can explain his MIB encounters and other weird experiences.

Playing the web shrink now, I believe the most plausibe situation is that in his mind, his weird experiences define him, make him apart from the rest of mankind, since he feels they are insights, brief revelations of a hidden reality masked from the eyes of the peasants and the commoners. They are his world's axis, they must be true, they must never be challenged, for if they are not real, all his views, everything he believe he is, the whole life he built for himself would crumble. I also believe many people with woo beliefs share this situation.

To summarize, its not intentional dishonest debate tactics we are seeing. Its blindness, denial, self delusion created by sheer despair and fear. He probably believe he is debating in a fair, ballanced, way. He probably believes his interpretations of the null hypothesis are OK, he probably even believes his distorted accounts of skeptic's points are accurate. The alternative is too dire for him to endure.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sideroxylon,

To answer your question. I think that what you are saying and a lot of other are possible.

You didn't answer the question, how tall were you, the grass and the rabbit?

 

[Resume]

. Lack of proof positive is not proof of the negative. So lack of proof positive doesn't grant you the right to "assume" your opinions are true.

Lack of proof means there is none. A lack. Of proof. In this case evidence of a 42" talking rabbit. As we've seen, an anecdote isn't evidence, it's a claim. One that can be dismissed for lack of evidence.

 

[Stray Cat]

You didn't answer the question, how tall were you, the grass and the rabbit?

How tall were you: Average height chart here
How tall was the rabbit: Sorry there is no height chart available
How tall is grass: World's tallest grass (Obviously not that one then)
Alternative: Worlds shortest grass (Obviously not that either then)

ETA: World's silliest claims

 

[Spektator]

Are we getting any forrader at all? The thread title implies research and evidence about UFOs, not talking rabbits and such. As far as I can see,

• There has been vanishingly little scientific research that points to the existence of alien craft.
• Memories are not evidence.
• Claims (accounts) are not in themselves evidence.
• While some people may assume that UFO means "alien spacecraft," the consensus seems to be that UFO means "unidentified flying object."
• Even this is a misnomer, since some things reported as unidentified flying objects have later been identified, or were not actually flying, or were not physical objects.

What else?

 

[Toke]

The last giant rabbits I saw were as a boyscout, there were a whole trailer full of them.
Even after we stretched them out on a stick to roast over a fire they were much much smaller than a 13-17 year old scout. And nowhere near the size of even a 6 year old.

 

[Correa Neto]

Man, rabbitzilla is an alien. It came from beyond the borders of what we call nature aboard a flying saucer. Rabbitzilla and the MIB drive a black cadillac that can open portals through spacetime. Kids wearing pajamas gather at the cadillac's garage to play spaceship commander and hear Led Zeppelin. Rabbitzilla's mothership can launch bright blue beetle-probes that fly at 25000km/h whithout a sonic boom.