UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

You are wrong. Have you learned nothing in this thread regarding how memory works? Have you read through even one of the many articles and studies about memory linked in this thread?

Here's one more. I don't think it's been linked to, but then again, I may not be remembering correctly.

I'll even save you the bother of clicking on the link:


Elizabeth Loftus, "Our changeable memories: legal and practical implications," in Nature Reviews: Neuroscience (2003).

AdMan,

So you are saying I'm wrong. How exactly? I maintain that repetition reinforces memory and cited the examples of musicians and actors who use repetition in the form of rehearsal. In such instances there are no changes to content, only the delivery. After sufficient rehearsal, complex scripts and sheet music can be set aside. How much more obvious an example can their be ... apart perhaps from studying for a test, which as anyone knows involves repetiton.

All you've done is show some studies that illustrate how if someone wants to self servingly deceive someone they can concoct a story or use psychological trickery to make people think something may have happened that didn't. So what? That isn't the same thing at all as disproving the obvious truth that I've illustrated above. It also goes further to imply that UFO witnesses must either be deceitful dishonest people or the victims of such.

Imposing such interpretations on every UFO witness is irresponsible, if not cruel. In fact your examples could in fact work the reverse. Genuine witnesses might just as easily become convinced by overzealous debunkers and skeptics to believe they saw something other than what they did. The prevalence of mockery and ridicule are powerful psychological influences that can cause those afraid of being shunned or compromised to withold or change their stories. Such has been known to happen. Where is your responsibility to seek out the truth rather than simply win at your game?

 

[GeeMack]

Again you fail to recognoze that there are more kinds of evidence than you will accept. So saying there is no evidence is not accurate. And only a biased and unfair person would imply ( as you have ) that simply seeing something that has yet to be explained by your standards automatically makes someone irrational.

Seeing something that has yet to be explained and claiming that it is an alien craft is irrational. Don't you agree?

 

[Toke]

Seeing something that has yet to be explained and claiming that it is an alien craft is irrational. Don't you agree?

Of course I do, we all know that Thor goes for the occasional joyride.

 

[GeeMack]

So you are saying I'm wrong. How exactly? I maintain that repetition reinforces memory and cited the examples of musicians and actors who use repetition in the form of rehearsal. In such instances there are no changes to content, only the delivery. After sufficient rehearsal, complex scripts and sheet music can be set aside. How much more obvious an example can their be ... apart perhaps from studying for a test, which as anyone knows involves repetiton.

Completely irrelevant to your attempt to pass off your UFO hoax where the content is indeed what has been changing. This thread will remain a historical testament to that fact.

All you've done is show some studies that illustrate how if someone wants to self servingly deceive someone they can concoct a story or use psychological trickery to make people think something may have happened that didn't. So what? That isn't the same thing at all as disproving the obvious truth that I've illustrated above. It also goes furter to imply that UFO witnesses must either be deceitful dishonest people or the victims of such.

And that scenario fits perfectly your attempt to perpetuate your own UFO hoax.

Imposing such interpretations on every UFO witness is irresponsible, if not cruel.

For the nth time, nobody is persecuting you, and your self-pity act has worn out a very long time ago. You should just stop.

In fact your examples could in fact work the reverse. Genuine witnesses might just as easily become convinced by overzealous debunkers and skeptics to believe they saw something other than what they did. The prevalence of mockery and ridicule are powerful psychological influences that can cause those afraid of being shunned or compromised to withold or change their stories. Such has been known to happen. Where is your responsibility to seek out the truth rather than simply win at your game?

The responsibility for providing the truth falls to those who claim to have seen alien craft. Your very first posts here were attempts to dishonestly blame the helpful cooperative skeptics for your failure to be able to do that. And although that has been explained to you literally dozens of times, it appears you still don't understand. So let's try this again. It is not the fault of the skeptics that you have utterly failed to support your claim that some unidentified flying objects are alien craft.

Read this: It is not the fault of the skeptics that you have utterly failed to support your claim that some unidentified flying objects are alien craft. It is not the responsibility of the skeptics to demonstrate your claim to be false. It is your responsibility to demonstrate it to be true. And in the case where you are unable to do that, it is the honest, decent thing to do to admit that you can't. Stop blaming other people for your failure.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Imposing such interpretations on every UFO witness is irresponsible, if not cruel.

The above poster is dishonestly misrepresenting what has been discussed regarding memory. Again.

lo, I thought you wanted to discuss recent events concerning purported Alien Space Ships but then you ignored any discussion about the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax. Why do you think the story was changed over such a short span of time as the inconsistencies were pointed out? Since you don't think your memory could be at fault, are you saying that it is deliberate and therefore you're admitting your perpetration of the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax?

 

[ufology]

Nobody is saying that, either. It's not at all irrational to simply see something that one cannot explain.

What is irrational is jumping to the conclusion that such a thing is therefore identified as an alien spacecraft, simply because it is unexplained.

John Albert,

It isn't necessary that one say something outright to imply it, and such innuendos are constantly made here. So thankyou for clearing that up.

Now we'll clear up the other misnomer that is constantly promoted here, which is connected to your second statement ... the idea that people are prone to automatically jumping to the conclusion that all unidentified objects in the sky are UFOs ( alien craft ). Such characterizations are nothing more than anti-ufology propoganda.

In reality people in general don't jump immediately to outlandish explanations without considering more likely everyday things. No official UFO investigation ever undertaken has done that either. To do so would be irresponsible. However when given enough information in a sighting report to discard with reasonable certainty every other explanation, it is perfectly rational to propose that what was observed was probably some kind of alien craft. If you don't think so, then perhaps you could explain why?

 

[carlitos]

However when given enough information in a sighting report to discard with reasonable certainty every other explanation, it is perfectly rational to propose that what was observed was probably some kind of alien craft. If you don't think so, then perhaps you could explain why?

The same reason that we don't propose that it's intraterrestrial space fishes or Thor's thunderbolts. We have no evidence that "alien craft" exist and are flying around the earth. Will you be providing some?

 

[RoboTimbo]

In reality people in general don't jump to outlandish explanations [about UFOs]...

UFOs ( alien craft ).

LOL. Only dishonest and fraudulent hoaxers.

 

[ufology]

The above poster is dishonestly misrepresenting what has been discussed regarding memory. Again.

lo, I thought you wanted to discuss recent events concerning purported Alien Space Ships but then you ignored any discussion about the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax. Why do you think the story was changed over such a short span of time as the inconsistencies were pointed out? Since you don't think your memory could be at fault, are you saying that it is deliberate and therefore you're admitting your perpetration of the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax?

RoboTimbo,

You're just being ignorant and misrepresenting my past statements by proclaiming outright falsehoods and posing out of context loaded questions in an attempt to flame the thread. I have not hoaxed anything and your constant statement that I have, using my name in conjunction with it is a personal and unsupported attack on my character. Please try something more constructive.

 

[John Albert]

Now we'll clear up the other misnomer that is constantly promoted here, which is connected to your second statement ... the idea that people are prone to automatically jumping to the conclusion that all unidentified objects in the sky are UFOs ( alien craft ). Such characterizations are nothing more than anti-ufology propoganda.

(emphasis mine)

There you go with yet another strawman. Nobody said that either. Nobody has ever argued that UFOlogists are jumping to the conclusion that all unidentified objects in the sky are alien spacecraft. Why do you make these accusations that everyone knows are untrue? Is it just because you're just itching for another opportunity to use the phrase, "anti-ufology propoganda"?

In reality people in general don't jump immediately to outlandish explanations without considering more likely everyday things.

Just because people in general don't do it, that doesn't mean that nobody ever does it, or that some people don't do it quite often.

"Outlandish," by the way, is an excellent choice of wording. That's a very good descriptor for those kinds of claims.

No official UFO investigation ever undertaken has done that either.

This is another unprovable, unfalsifiable claim. There's no way you can possibly know this, let alone prove it.

On the other hand, one thing we definitely know for certain is that no UFO investigation—official or otherwise—has ever uncovered evidence for the existence of any form of extraterrestrial life or intelligence, let alone any spacecraft of extraterrestrial origin.

To do so would be irresponsible.

It would also be irresponsible to take peoples' word for it when they come forward with extraordinary claims without a shred of evidence to back them up. Yet we see self-described "UFOlogists" doing that all the time.

However when given enough information in a sighting report to discard with reasonable certainty every other explanation, it is perfectly rational to propose that what was observed was probably some kind of alien craft.

Nope. It's not rational at all to assume it was an alien spacecraft, any more than it would be rational to propose it was any other imaginary thing that has never ever been proven to exist. It would be equally rational to assume it was a fairy, a ghost, an angel, a BVM apparition, a glob of ball lightning, a dragon, a pegasus, a will 'o' the wisp, one of Thor's thunderbolts, or just about any other crazy thing the human mind can imagine.

You can't make the logical jump from something real to something fictional through process of elimination. Critical thinking doesn't work that way; that's why they call that kind of thinking "lunacy."

 

[ufology]

The same reason that we don't propose that it's intraterrestrial space fishes or Thor's thunderbolts. We have no evidence that "alien craft" exist and are flying around the earth. Will you be providing some?

carlitos,

I came here to network with skeptics for the purpose of identifying flaws in recent cases and sensational stories made in the media. Do you have anything you can share on that or are you just going to sit back and make wise cracks?

 

[RoboTimbo]

RoboTimbo,

You're just being ignorant and misrepresenting my past statements by proclaiming outright falsehoods and posing out of context loaded questions in an attempt to flame the thread. I have not hoaxed anything and your constant statement that I have, using my name in conjunction with it is a personal and unsupported attack on my character. Please try something more constructive.

No, your failure at comprehension has been your downfall. You are unable to comprehend your own J Randall Murphy null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origni"​

and you've proven it time and time again.

You failed to answer my question about UFOlogic in determining that the story you've related here is a hoax.

Multiple independent witnesses who all claim that your story is a HOAX.

Corroborating evidence in the form of your own posts on this forum showing how your story has changed over time as the inconsistencies have been pointed out.

Is there anything wrong with the UFOlogic as I've applied it to the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax?

 

[abaddon]

RoboTimbo,

You're just being ignorant and misrepresenting my past statements by proclaiming outright falsehoods and posing out of context loaded questions in an attempt to flame the thread. I have not hoaxed anything and your constant statement that I have, using my name in conjunction with it is a personal and unsupported attack on my character. Please try something more constructive.

Um, no not really.

The title of the thread is UFOs: The Research, the Evidence.

You have presented precisely none of either, just some anecdotes from your dimly remembered childhood, none of which count as evidence. All you have done is attempt the redefinition that UFO=Alien spacecraft by stealth. So it is beyond time that you present actual research and evidence, or admit there is none such which stands up to scrutiny.

 

[RoboTimbo]

carlitos,

I came here to network with skeptics for the purpose of identifying flaws in recent cases and sensational stories made in the media. Do you have anything you can share on that or are you just going to sit back and make wise cracks?

No, you came here to use skeptics as a sounding board for uncovering the inconsistencies in your UFO ( firefly ) story so that you could embellish it properly.

What was a wisecrack in carlitos's post?

 

[GeeMack]

Now we'll clear up the other misnomer that is constantly promoted here, which is connected to your second statement ... the idea that people are prone to automatically jumping to the conclusion that all unidentified objects in the sky are UFOs ( alien craft ).

Unidentified objects in the sky are indeed UFOs. The mistake gets made where UFOs are dishonestly equated with alien craft.

Such characterizations are nothing more than anti-ufology propoganda.

Nobody is persecuting you or any other person who claims to have seen an alien craft. People are asking you to provide some objective evidence that supports your claim. Calling you out on your intentional and dishonest avoidance of supporting your own claim should not be misconstrued as anti-ufology propaganda. If you don't have the stuff, you don't have it. And these helpful cooperative skeptics, of all people, aren't going to let you BS your way around that.

In reality people in general don't jump immediately to outlandish explanations without considering more likely everyday things.

In reality some people do.

No official UFO investigation ever undertaken has done that either. To do so would be irresponsible. However when given enough information in a sighting report to discard with reasonable certainty every other explanation, it is perfectly rational to propose that what was observed was probably some kind of alien craft.

No UFO sighting report ever... ever... has allowed us to discard with reasonable certainty every explanation other than alien craft. Consequently it is perfectly irrational to propose that what was observed was probably some kind of alien craft.

If you don't think so, then perhaps you could explain why?

Because no UFO sighting report ever has allowed us to discard with reasonable certainty every explanation other than alien craft.

 

[ufology]

(emphasis mine)

You can't make the logical jump from something real to something fictional through process of elimination. Critical thinking doesn't work that way; that's what they call "lunacy."

John Albert,

Objects that people see in the sky, that by reason of their appearance and performance characteristics don't conform to any known natural or manmade object or phenomena are not fictional. If you think so you are being willfully ignorant and to insist on remaining that way is not rational either.

 

[ufology]

No UFO sighting report ever... ever... has allowed us to discard with reasonable certainty every explanation other than alien craft. Consequently it is perfectly irrational to propose that what was observed was probably some kind of alien craft.

GeeMack,

When you use the word "us" above, you must only be referring to your little cabal of ufology bashers here on the JREF, because there have been many UFO sightings that have allowed many other people to become reasonably certain that Earth has been visited by alien craft.

 

[abaddon]

John Albert,

Objects that people see in the sky, that by reason of their appearance and performance characteristics don't conform to any known natural or manmade object or phenomena are not fictional. If you think so you are being willfully ignorant and to insist on remaining that way is not rational either.

That still does not give you the ability to declare them "alien craft", they are just unidentified, that is all.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

John Albert,

It isn't necessary that one say something outright to imply it, and such innuendos are constantly made here. So thankyou for clearing that up.

Now we'll clear up the other misnomer that is constantly promoted here, which is connected to your second statement ... the idea that people are prone to automatically jumping to the conclusion that all unidentified objects in the sky are UFOs ( alien craft ). Such characterizations are nothing more than anti-ufology propoganda.

In reality people in general don't jump immediately to outlandish explanations without considering more likely everyday things. No official UFO investigation ever undertaken has done that either. To do so would be irresponsible. However when given enough information in a sighting report to discard with reasonable certainty every other explanation, it is perfectly rational to propose that what was observed was probably some kind of alien craft. If you don't think so, then perhaps you could explain why?

Your obvious fallback position is always this; "If I am not presented with a reasonable alternative, alien spacecraft is probably the answer" Do you understand why this is logically wrong? Do you also understand that most people here would LOVE to be presented with evidence of alien spacecraft (and following from that, alien life). I would at least. We don't jump to those conclusions because we like to be grounded in reality, and we're not going to abandon reality just to satisfy our own desires to re-enact "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"

 

[GeeMack]

When you use the word "us" above, you must only be referring to your little cabal of ufology bashers here on the JREF, because there have been many UFO sightings that have allowed many other people to become reasonably certain that Earth has been visited by alien craft.

Do you have any examples of a UFO sighting which has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt to be an alien craft? No? I didn't think so. So the "many other people" you refer to in your above comment are being irrational in jumping to a conclusion which is not objectively supported.

Hey, how about that J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax we've been trying to talk about? Why so shy about discussing that one?

You failed to answer my question about UFOlogic in determining that the story you've related here is a hoax.

Multiple independent witnesses who all claim that your story is a HOAX.

Corroborating evidence in the form of your own posts on this forum showing how your story has changed over time as the inconsistencies have been pointed out.

Is there anything wrong with the UFOlogic as I've applied it to the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax?

Let's talk UFO hoaxes, okay?