UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Aepervius]

Sideroxylon,

Sure, except there are plenty of UFO reports from people who are sure it wasn't some perceptual illusion, and just because you refuse to believe them doesn't mean you are correct ... you weren't even there to see it for yourself, which means that in the absence of contrary evidence, you have no justification for your criticism or prejudicial evaluations.

Except there are also plenty of report of people which are sure they saw bigfoot, nessie, and ghost, and just because you refuse to acknowledge that "being sure of seing something" does REALLY not mean they saw it, does not mean you are correct. You weren't there to double check for yourself, which means in absence of corroborative evidence you have no justification to believe them.

That is the correct way to do it. Assuming that a witness did really see what he think he saw, is downright wrong.

By contrast, I have plenty of justification for believing that Earth has bene visited by alien craft. I've seen one myself and so have many other people.

No. You BELIEVE you saw one. Just like those other guys saw angels, faeries, and kobold.
Absence of corroborative evidence is pretty damning for the UFO=Alien hypothesis. And the fact that the various governement military, astronomy and space departement stopped taking it seriously after the initial scare , is even more damning.

Too bad you haven't. Maybe someday you will. Lastly, I never claimed that aliens have taken any special interest in me, so I don't know where you got that from. I'm not even sure I'd want them to take a special interest in me. Not all encounters go well for the witness ... that is if the Cash Landrum case has any merit.

EVen if taking the claim at face velue, sounds more like a military SNAFU than anything else, apparentely the other witness saw chinook helicopter rather than UFO.

 

[Drs_Res]

"Mr. Chambers.... Mr. Chambers.... Don't get on that ship! The rest of the book, "To Serve Man"... it's.... it's a cookbook!!"


The Twilight Zone Marathon was on today.

 

[Akhenaten]

The Twilight Zone Marathon was on today.

It's been running here since 13 October, 2009.

 

[wollery]

Sideroxylon,

Sure, except there are plenty of UFO reports from people who are sure it wasn't some perceptual illusion, and just because you refuse to believe them doesn't mean you are correct ... you weren't even there to see it for yourself, which means that in the absence of contrary evidence, you have no justification for your criticism or prejudicial evaluations.

Because if someone is certain that they weren't fooled by a perceptual illusion then it stands to reason that they weren't.

 

[Resume]

By contrast, I have plenty of justification for believing that Earth has bene visited by alien craft. I've seen one myself and so have many other people. Too bad you haven't. Maybe someday you will. Lastly, I never claimed that aliens have taken any special interest in me, so I don't know where you got that from. I'm not even sure I'd want them to take a special interest in me. Not all encounters go well for the witness ... that is if the Cash Landrum case has any merit.

If by plenty of justification you mean practically none, and by seen one yourself you mean a firefly, I'm in complete agreement.

 

[23_Tauri]

By contrast, I have plenty of justification for believing that Earth has bene visited by alien craft. I've seen one myself and so have many other people.

uolf, you are such a liar. You have not seen an Alien Space Ship. You've seen some lights which could have been all manner of things. Now why don't you stop telling porkies and get real with us?

 

[carlitos]

ufology,

You haven't replied to one of these posts in a long time. I wonder why?

Sure, except there are plenty of UFO reports from people who are sure it wasn't some perceptual illusion, and just because you refuse to believe them doesn't mean you are correct ... you weren't even there to see it for yourself, which means that in the absence of contrary evidence, you have no justification for your criticism or prejudicial evaluations.

there are plenty of witnesses to Jesus from people who are sure it wasn't some perceptual illusion, and just because you refuse to believe them doesn't mean you are correct ... you weren't even there to see it for yourself, which means that in the absence of contrary evidence, you have no justification for your criticism or prejudicial evaluations.

there are plenty of bigfoot reports from people who are sure it wasn't some perceptual illusion, and just because you refuse to believe them doesn't mean you are correct ... you weren't even there to see it for yourself, which means that in the absence of contrary evidence, you have no justification for your criticism or prejudicial evaluations.

there are plenty of ghost sightings from people who are sure it wasn't some perceptual illusion, and just because you refuse to believe them doesn't mean you are correct ... you weren't even there to see it for yourself, which means that in the absence of contrary evidence, you have no justification for your criticism or prejudicial evaluations.

there are plenty of intraterrestrial space fish sightings from people who are sure it wasn't some perceptual illusion, and just because you refuse to believe them doesn't mean you are correct ... you weren't even there to see it for yourself, which means that in the absence of contrary evidence, you have no justification for your criticism or prejudicial evaluations.

there are plenty of chupacabra reports from people who are sure it wasn't some perceptual illusion, and just because you refuse to believe them doesn't mean you are correct ... you weren't even there to see it for yourself, which means that in the absence of contrary evidence, you have no justification for your criticism or prejudicial evaluations.

there are plenty of Virgin of Guadalupe reports from people who are sure it wasn't some perceptual illusion, and just because you refuse to believe them doesn't mean you are correct ... you weren't even there to see it for yourself, which means that in the absence of contrary evidence, you have no justification for your criticism or prejudicial evaluations.

there are plenty of fairy-in-the-garden reports from people who are sure it wasn't some perceptual illusion, and just because you refuse to believe them doesn't mean you are correct ... you weren't even there to see it for yourself, which means that in the absence of contrary evidence, you have no justification for your criticism or prejudicial evaluations.​

By contrast, I have plenty of justification for believing that Earth has bene visited by alien craft. I've seen one myself and so have many other people. Too bad you haven't. Maybe someday you will.

By contrast, I have plenty of justification for believing that Earth has been visited by angels. I've seen one myself and so have many other people. Too bad you haven't. Maybe someday you will.

By contrast, I have plenty of justification for believing that Earth has been visited by ghosts. I've seen one myself and so have many other people. Too bad you haven't. Maybe someday you will.

By contrast, I have plenty of justification for believing that Earth has been visited by space fishes. I've seen one myself and so have many other people. Too bad you haven't. Maybe someday you will.

By contrast, I have plenty of justification for believing that Earth has been visited by bigfoot. I've seen one myself and so have many other people. Too bad you haven't. Maybe someday you will.
​

Seriously, why not just head over to wikipedia and see if you can edit their entry for "special pleading." That would be as productive as what you're doing here.

 

[RoboTimbo]

By contrast, I have plenty of justification for believing that Earth has bene visited by alien craft. I've seen one myself and so have many other people.

Which is enough evidence for you because you're credulous. Here is the definition of credulous: "ready to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence".

ogy, do you see why you fit the definition of credulous?

 

[Resume]

Which is enough evidence for you because you're credulous. Here is the definition of credulous: "ready to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence".

ogy, do you see why you fit the definition of credulous?

I'm quoting this because I would very much like ufology to reply. Whether it will be genuine or not, who knows.

 

[GeeMack]

Seriously, why not just head over to wikipedia and see if you can edit their entry for "special pleading." That would be as productive as what you're doing here.

Maybe you don't understand. Special pleading, while it may apply perfectly well to discussions about things like ghosts and Bigfoot, when we're talking about "ufology", it's an entirely different situation. That's when special pleading doesn't... really... uh...

 

[Sideroxylon]

ufology,

You haven't replied to one of these posts in a long time. I wonder why?

Mr Ufology really needs to consider this question in order to answer the accusations of special pleading on the subject of flying saucers. Either there is some important difference between these claims and his own that needs to be made explicit, or he must accept them all as being as valid, and/or admit that his is a faith position.

 

[John Albert]

Because if someone is certain that they weren't fooled by a perceptual illusion then it stands to reason that they weren't.

It's just like that old argument of Rramjet's that "it's a well-known fact that less than 5% of UFO cases are hoaxes."

Anyone who can't understand the logical absurdity of a statement like that really ought to get a new BS detector.

Now why don't you stop telling porkies and get real with us?

Because it's his thing. It's the "alternative lifestyle" he's chosen to define himself by. Just like how psychics are always blathering about their special powers of foretelling the future, and the Jesus freaks are always trying to out-religious everyone else, J. Randall Murphy's thing is being that weird "UFO guy" and arguing with skeptics.

"You can't tell me I didn't see what I saw and nothing anybody can say will convince me otherwise." Get it? Having his crazy stories doubted and opposed is nothing new to J. Randall Murphy. I'm guessing he's been telling these kinds of tall tales his entire life, ever since discovering at an early age that it is an easy way to call attention to himself. So he goes around telling these goofy lies that nobody believes, drives a car with custom vanity license plates that read "UFOLOGY," operates an imaginary worldwide UFO club (that's really just an online bookstore with a few titles related to the paranormal and 1950s military aviation), and squanders his time on Internet forums answering UFO-related questions and arguing with nonbelievers.

It's what makes him happy, so it's how he's chosen to live his life. We're never going to convince him otherwise, because he doesn't want to be convinced and he doesn't care about reality or the truth anyway. He's laid his opinion out in clear, plain language: he doesn't think the truth has "anything to do with objective reality or any other reality."

We'll never convince him, so all we can do is prevent him from using this forum as a platform to spout his undeucated notions about science and critical thinking, by challenging and exposing his made-up lies and nonsensical redefinitions.

 

[ufology]

Because if someone is certain that they weren't fooled by a perceptual illusion then it stands to reason that they weren't.

wollery,

Simply because it's possible that people can be fooled by a perceptual illusion doesn't mean that they were. In the absence of a deliberate and professional hoax, the chances of being fooled into certainty about anything is exceedingly small. You don't want to believe that and prefer instead to think that UFO witnesses are incompetent. But the fact is that you are just plain wrong. Most witnesses are reasonably well informed people who can tell the difference between something natural or manmade and something out of this world. Then there are highly qualified people familiar with things seen in the sky who have also seen them. Then there are even more highly trained and rigorously tested people familiar with the most advanced aircraft in the world who have also seen them. Your stubborn choice to dismiss such evidence amounts to willful ignorance. By contrast, at least I can admit that it's both possible, likely and actually the case, that some number of UFO reports are the result of misidentification, hoaxes and other natural or manmade phenomena. What's your excuse?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Then there are highly qualified people familiar with things seen in the sky who have also seen them. Then there are even more highly trained and rigorously tested people familiar with the most advanced aircraft in the world who have also seen them. Your stubborn choice to dismiss such evidence amounts to willful ignorance. By contrast, at least I can admit that it's both possible, likely and actually the case, that some number of UFO reports are the result of misidentification, hoaxes and other natural or manmade phenomena. What's your excuse?

So you're saying that pilots and military personnel never make perceptual mistakes?

Let's go over the definition of credulous again, shall we?

 

[Resume]

By contrast, at least I can admit that it's both possible, likely and actually the case, that some number of UFO reports are the result of misidentification, hoaxes and other natural or manmade phenomena.

Can you point to evidence that supports reports in favor of WTFAliens!?

Other than anecdotes or claims.

 

[R.A.F.]

wollery,

Simply because it's possible that people can be fooled by a perceptual illusion doesn't mean that they were. In the absence of a deliberate and professional hoax, the chances of being fooled into certainty about anything is exceedingly small.

Bullcrap...What is the most likely explanation...a person being "fooled" by mundane phenomena, of alien flying saucers?

Heck, you can't even prove the existence of aliens, and you want us to believe they are visiting us?

You don't want to believe that and prefer instead to think that UFO witnesses are incompetent. But the fact is that you are just plain wrong.

If you can't prove it with evidence, then you really need to STOP making such outrageous statements.

Most witnesses are reasonably well informed people who can tell the difference between something natural or manmade and something out of this world.

No, they are not...continually repeating something that simply isn't true is not a very good debate "tactic"...then again, you haven't presented any evidence for us to believe that most witness can tell the difference between mundane phenomena they can recognize, and mundane phenomena they can not.

Then there are highly qualified people familiar with things seen in the sky who have also seen them. Then there are even more highly trained and rigorously tested people familiar with the most advanced aircraft in the world who have also seen them. Your stubborn choice to dismiss such evidence amounts to willful ignorance.

Are you even reading responses to your posts? It has been explained to you ad nausem why you are incorrect to assume this, so what are we to think?...that you are incapable of processing information you disagree with?

By contrast, at least I can admit that it's both possible, likely and actually the case, that some number of UFO reports are the result of misidentification, hoaxes and other natural or manmade phenomena.

Bully for you...although it changes nothing that you give the "appearence" of reasonability/rationality...your posts demonstrate otherwise.

 

[John Albert]

UFOlogy, have you ever flown in a commercial airliner, with a window seat on a clear day?

 

[carlitos]

Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?

Exactly the same thing went through my mind when I read that post.

 

[John Albert]

Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?

Exactly the same thing went through my mind when I read that post.

Ever see a grown man naked?




But seriously, I'm trying to present a familiar situation where one can look out over very long distances and have a clear view of faraway objects without any nearby landmarks to compare them to. The idea is to emphasize that when looking at things in the sky, it's impossible to discern their size and/or proximity with any accuracy, without first identifying exactly what they are.