UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

There's no evidence at all to support any claims of "appearance" or "performance characteristics." Claims do not represent evidence for themselves. Claims unsupported by evidence are dismissed for lack of evidence. That is rational thinking. It is not ignorant.

Assuming something is true simply because you want to believe it, is not rational. That is willfully ignorant thinking. It is the exact same kind of thinking that inspires belief in gods, the supernatural, old wives' tales and other forms of superstition. You're total unwillingness to learn or adapt your mode of thinking to account for reality is proof that it is irrational.

John Albert,

There you go again claiming human sensory perception and memory doesn't count as evidence. It's the same old tired rant you always use. It's also faulty. Human sensory perception and memory just doesn't count as the kind of evidence you will accept.

Then as per usual you thrown is superstition and old wives tales ... and whatever other straw ... as if they are equivalent to the kinds of experiences people have with UFOs. The fact is that because you've never seen one you are simply airing your biased opinion. On the other hand, those people who have seen them know they're nothing like the fairy tales you try to equate them with, and all your rants to the contrary won't change that.

Just to remind you how serious this is, the military establishments of the world have spent decades investigating cases and studying the phenomenon. They don't that with fairy tales. You are also well aware of the radar/visual cases and the reports from professional pilots, so your not fooling anyone with your faulty portrayal of this topic.

 

[Stray Cat]

Or is everything you remember all just a fuzzy mush of uncertainty?

You see, that's the point, no one's memory is a "fuzzy mush of uncertainty". The structure of memories in our heads is rarely fuzzy.
But there is a difference here, those who are aware and acknowledge the fallibility of memory realise that clean, concise memories can be wrong.

When we are dealing with memories that rely solely upon sensory perception (something else which is very fallible) and have no physical trace to verify against, there is no way to tell how accurate (if at all) a memory is.

We have I'm sure, all revisited a place from our childhood or even a holiday destination, bar or museum ten years later only to find that it's not as big or it's bigger than we remembered it.

 

[Stray Cat]

Marduk,

So the default here then that when "those people" have no other way to explain an experience other than to call someone a liar, that's OK? That is really really really sad and does nothing to garner any trust or respect from the people who this forum claims to want to reach out and help.

Look at it like this;
Someone claims they saw Elvis in the local pizza shop (an honest mistake).
Evidence is shown to them that Elvis is dead and that they couldn't have seen Elvis in the pizza shop and that they must have been mistaken.
They continue to claim they saw Elvis in the pizza shop (turns into a lie).

The explanations have been given to you by the helpful sceptics who reached out to help you. You continue to claim "OMG-Aiens!", it's now a lie.

 

[Stray Cat]

John Albert,

There you go again claiming human sensory perception and memory doesn't count as evidence. It's the same old tired rant you always use. It's also faulty. Human sensory perception and memory just doesn't count as the kind of evidence you will accept.

Then as per usual you thrown is superstition and old wives tales ... and whatever other straw ... as if they are equivalent to the kinds of experiences people have with UFOs. The fact is that because you've never seen one you are simply airing your biased opinion. On the other hand, those people who have seen them know they're nothing like the fairy tales you try to equate them with, and all your rants to the contrary won't change that.

Just to remind you how serious this is, the military establishments of the world have spent decades investigating cases and studying the phenomenon. They don't that with fairy tales. You are also well aware of the radar/visual cases and the reports from professional pilots, so your not fooling anyone with your faulty portrayal of this topic.

Same old same old here... all been refuted already.

 

[Correa Neto]

Oh well, my car works pretty well too. Does it means I can always trust it? It always worked fine? Never broke?

I have some memories from childhood wich I consider to be pretty good. Do I consider them as perfect accounts of events? No. Every now and then when I speak with my mother about those long-gone days I find some discordances between our accounts. And yes, I do have are a few "weird" memories (I remember seeing a fuzzy dog that passed trough a fence, much like a ghost, for example). Does it means I believe I actually saw a ghost dog passing through a fence? No way. I have no clue of what I saw; actually I even don't know if I actually saw it and I'm fine with the situation. Feel free to say something like "you are denying your experiences because they clash with your worldview!"

So ufology, stop playing this old fallacious tactic of distorting your opponents' arguments. As I wrote before (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7763537&postcount=15143), no one is saying our memory and our perception never work. We´re saying sometimes something goes wrong and that's when a weird experience may happen.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Just to remind you how serious this is, the military establishments of the world have spent decades investigating cases and studying the phenomenon. They don't that with fairy tales. You are also well aware of the radar/visual cases and the reports from professional pilots, so your not fooling anyone with your faulty portrayal of this topic.

And after all the long ago ended decades(?) of serious government investigation what was there to show for it? Only a collection of stories, many with reasonable non-saucer explanations, and a few unknowns. Still leaves plenty of space to set up the flying saucer book stand for those touting the myth, doesn't it. Like a lot of other baloney it thrives in the the vacuum of the unknown, actual or manufactured.

No military or government takes this kind of thing seriously. It's just a crank sideshow.

Think I am being unfair, dismissive or harsh? Then stop with the rhetoric and pony up the evidence. Like that Monty Python cheese shop, this thread is certainly uncontaminated by what it purports to contain.

 

[Aepervius]

No military or government takes this kind of thing seriously. It's just a crank sideshow.

Case in point, there is no missile launcher or weapon in the shuttle which could be used against another space ship, all space weapon which were projected (and some might have been implemented) were mostly satellite killer, and the bulk of our tech for missile is destined to ground troup/buildings or very earthly mundane airplane. Meanwhile the space budget of the NASA looks laughable, the shuttle abandoned , and the replacement a pie-in-the-sky. Other government don't fare better.

It is quite clear, that no government on earth is *expecting* any intelligent threat from space.

Pretty much buzzkill any alien CT.

 

[Stray Cat]

No military or government takes this kind of thing seriously. It's just a crank sideshow.

And even back in the day when it did take it more seriously, it never, I repeat NEVER! concluded "aliens"

 

[Resume]

Just to remind you how serious this is, the military establishments of the world have spent decades investigating cases and studying the phenomenon.

And the results? No WTFALIENS!

 

[RoboTimbo]

John Albert,

There you go again claiming human sensory perception and memory doesn't count as evidence.

Let's talk about the memories and perceptions of everyone in this thread. Their memories and perceptions are that you are perpetrating the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax. They remember you telling one story and when confronted with inconsistencies, you changed your story. You lied.

Are our memories and perceptions evidence of your hoax?

It's the same old tired rant you always use. It's also faulty. Human sensory perception and memory just doesn't count as the kind of evidence you will accept.

So isn't it fortunate that we have the actual evidence of your own posts still on this forum for everyone to read how you changed your story over time to account for inconsistencies as they were shown to you.

If we didn't have the evidence in black and white, you would be telling us that our memories were faulty, despite how much you continue to gush about how your memory is infallible.

Then as per usual you thrown is superstition and old wives tales ... and whatever other straw ... as if they are equivalent to the kinds of experiences people have with UFOs. The fact is that because you've never seen one you are simply airing your biased opinion. On the other hand, those people who have seen them know they're nothing like the fairy tales you try to equate them with, and all your rants to the contrary won't change that.

Everyone who believes their own fairy tale thinks it isn't like any other fairy tale. Your rants to the contrary won't change reality, which you have divorced yourself from. Seen any giant rabbits lately?

Just to remind you how serious this is, the military establishments of the world have spent decades investigating cases and studying the phenomenon. They don't that with fairy tales. You are also well aware of the radar/visual cases and the reports from professional pilots, so your not fooling anyone with your faulty portrayal of this topic.

Just to remind you how juvenile that is, no military in the world is asking for nor receiving funding for defense against Alien Space Ships. You are also well aware of FLIR cases so you're not fooling anyone with your embracing of this juvenile topic.

gy, are our memories and perceptions of the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax faulty? Or are they evidence for the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax?

 

[tsig]

Let's talk about the memories and perceptions of everyone in this thread. Their memories and perceptions are that you are perpetrating the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax. They remember you telling one story and when confronted with inconsistencies, you changed your story. You lied.

Are our memories and perceptions evidence of your hoax?


So isn't it fortunate that we have the actual evidence of your own posts still on this forum for everyone to read how you changed your story over time to account for inconsistencies as they were shown to you.

If we didn't have the evidence in black and white, you would be telling us that our memories were faulty, despite how much you continue to gush about how your memory is infallible.


Everyone who believes their own fairy tale thinks it isn't like any other fairy tale. Your rants to the contrary won't change reality, which you have divorced yourself from. Seen any giant rabbits lately?


Just to remind you how juvenile that is, no military in the world is asking for nor receiving funding for defense against Alien Space Ships. You are also well aware of FLIR cases so you're not fooling anyone with your embracing of this juvenile topic.

gy, are our memories and perceptions of the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax faulty? Or are they evidence for the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax?

Having watched his story grow and change with time do you think if we keep asking him about it it will morph into a full blown alien encounter complete with probing?

 

[Paul2]

Paul,
Why can't you just admit that you have plenty of perfectly good memories that extend back years, some all the way to your childhood?

What part of

Some memories are right

don't you understand?

Just to be perfectly clear, I have some perfectly good memories from childhood, and I have some memories from childhood that are incorrect, too. I haven't done an exhaustive study, but it stands to reason that the memories about the one-time incidents would be mis-remembered more often than the repeated ones.

 

[ehcks]

Paul,

You really love to waffle around. Why can't you just admit that you have plenty of perfectly good memories that extend back years, some all the way to your childhood? Or are you really that far gone that you don't have any?

I also have plenty of memories that extend back to childhood that I know are wrong. Some I made up at the time, others are outright impossible. Looking back, I know that they're wrong and not worth thinking about.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So the guy claiming memories are accurate, is the one who has had to revise his memories to make them more accurate over many, many, posts. Does that not invalidate your own statements Ufol? If your memories were accurate why would they have to be revised and made more accurate?

 

[ufology]

What part of
don't you understand?

Just to be perfectly clear, I have some perfectly good memories from childhood, and I have some memories from childhood that are incorrect, too. I haven't done an exhaustive study, but it stands to reason that the memories about the one-time incidents would be mis-remembered more often than the repeated ones.

Thanks Paul,

So you're not part of the crowd here who seems to be claiming that human perception and memory is so poor that none of it can be counted on to be accurate. Perhaps you are part of that other crowd who claims that only those things we remember that don't fit our worldview must be in error, or maybe you're with the crowd who thinks everyone else's memory is faulty ... especially when someone else's memory doesn't match your worldview? At least when someone says something that doesn't match your world view, you don't act like the bigots here who assume such people are liars. Or at least I tend to get that impression. But I could also be wrong. Do you recognize that it is entirely possible for someone to observe a UFO well enough to compare its appearance and performance to natural and manmade objects?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Thanks Paul,

So you're not part of the crowd here who seems to be claiming that human perception and memory is so poor that none of it can be counted on to be accurate. Perhaps you are part of that other crowd who claims that only those things we remember that don't fit our worldview must be in error, or maybe you're with the crowd who thinks everyone else's memory is faulty ... especially when someone else's memory doesn't match your worldview?

Then now you're claiming that our perceptions and memories are correct about the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax which you attempted to perpetrate right here on this forum. We don't even need the additional evidence of your own posts, we need only rely on our perceptions and memories, even though it upsets your worldview.

Good to know.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Thanks Paul,

So you're not part of the crowd here who seems to be claiming that human perception and memory is so poor that none of it can be counted on to be accurate. Perhaps you are part of that other crowd who claims that only those things we remember that don't fit our worldview must be in error, or maybe you're with the crowd who thinks everyone else's memory is faulty ... especially when someone else's memory doesn't match your worldview? You don't seem to be among the bigots here who call people liars, so at least that's encouraging.

You are right. My worldview doesn't include talking rabbits, flying saucers or levitation. I am not going to accept a decades old and changing recollection of lights as evidence of flying saucers. I will not take your childhood stories of flying at face value when they could be explained by hypnagogic hallucinations and your willingness to take such fancies at face value.

 

[Stray Cat]

Thanks Paul,

So you're not part of the crowd here who seems to be claiming that human perception and memory is so poor that none of it can be counted on to be accurate. Perhaps you are part of that other crowd who claims that only those things we remember that don't fit our worldview must be in error, or maybe you're with the crowd who thinks everyone else's memory is faulty ... especially when someone else's memory doesn't match your worldview? At least when someone says something that doesn't match your world view, you don't act like the bigots here who assume such people are liars. Or at least I tend to get that impression. But I could also be wrong. Do you recognize that it is entirely possible for someone to observe a UFO well enough to compare its appearance and performance to natural and manmade objects?

Thanks Ufol

So you're not part of the crowd here who thinks...


Actually I'll leave that post right there.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Thanks Paul,

So you're not part of the crowd here who seems to be claiming that human perception and memory is so poor that none of it can be counted on to be accurate. Perhaps you are part of that other crowd who claims that only those things we remember that don't fit our worldview must be in error, or maybe you're with the crowd who thinks everyone else's memory is faulty ... especially when someone else's memory doesn't match your worldview? At least when someone says something that doesn't match your world view, you don't act like the bigots here who assume such people are liars. Or at least I tend to get that impression. But I could also be wrong. Do you recognize that it is entirely possible for someone to observe a UFO well enough to compare its appearance and performance to natural and manmade objects?

It isn't your world view that means you are not given the benefit of the doubt.

It is the changes (call them what you want, clarifications, making more accurate, etc) of your story in response to critique. It is your attempt to redifine a word, and the dishonest way you treat other users.

That would be criticised what ever your world view.

The sneaky use of the straw men attacks. Calling other users bigotted , and mistaking the belief that memory is fallible and eye witness reports are not evidence for out of hand dismissal (despite great pains having been taken to explain what the flaws of witness evidence and annectdotes are) is pretty bigotted. Thanks for that.

Time and again users here have clearly stated what would convince them of the possibility of your claims being valid: Over come the null, supply valid evidence. You have done neither, and made special pleadings. You have been shown far more respect than you care to spend on any of those you belittle as bigotted. Well done.

 

[John Albert]

John Albert,

There you go again claiming human sensory perception and memory doesn't count as evidence. It's the same old tired rant you always use. It's also faulty. Human sensory perception and memory just doesn't count as the kind of evidence you will accept.

Claims are not evidence for themselves. That's a simple, inescapable fact, no matter how hard you try to spin it otherwise.

Then as per usual you thrown is superstition and old wives tales ... and whatever other straw ... as if they are equivalent to the kinds of experiences people have with UFOs.

From the standpoint of a third party, exactly how are they different?

The fact is that because you've never seen one you are simply airing your biased opinion. On the other hand, those people who have seen them know they're nothing like the fairy tales you try to equate them with, and all your rants to the contrary won't change that.

Some people may think they know that, but those people might be mistaken, delusional, or simply lying. Lacking evidence, there's no way to know for sure.

Just to remind you how serious this is, the military establishments of the world have spent decades investigating cases and studying the phenomenon. They don't that with fairy tales.

Not so. Military establishments also spent decades investigating mind control, ESP, remote viewing, psychic warfare, and many other forms of modern "fairy tales." It happens.

Did you ever serve in the military? If you had, you might realize the military culture is not nearly as scientific and sophisticated as you seem to think it is.

You are also well aware of the radar/visual cases and the reports from professional pilots, so your not fooling anyone with your faulty portrayal of this topic.

You're also well aware that there's not a single iota of conclusive, physical, measurable, testable evidence for any of it. And that's where we stand.

The J. Randall Murphy UFO (alien craft) null hypothesis,

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

has never been falsified.

Come back when you have some conclusive, physical, measurable, testable evidence to falsify the null hypothesis. Then we'll talk.

Until then, it's just fairy tales.