UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

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.

But if you already know what they are, if you're already convinced that they are indeed alien craft, then it's not impossible to discern their size. Duh!

 

[John Albert]

But if you already know what they are, if you're already convinced that they are indeed alien craft, then it's not impossible to discern their size. Duh!

You can't know how far away they are, how big they are, and consequently anything at all about their "performance" without identifying them first.

So, if the "performance characteristics" are what identify them as alien craft, and you can't know their "performance characteristics" without first determining their size and distance, and you can't know that without knowing what they are in the first place...

See how it just goes round and round, in the absence of verifiable, material evidence?

 

[GeeMack]

Simply because it's possible that people can be fooled by a perceptual illusion doesn't mean that they were.

So? Nobody is saying that. If that's what you think they're saying you are seriously misunderstanding the argument. If you do know that's not what they mean, but are dishonestly attributing that incorrect meaning to them anyway, your argument would be definitively dishonest.

In the absence of a deliberate and professional hoax, the chances of being fooled into certainty about anything is exceedingly small.

If you don't have references to some objective research that demonstrates your above comment to be true, then I think it's reasonable to accept that you just made it up. And although making stuff up might be a common practice in the pseudoscience of "ufology", it's not how rational people determine the truth about the universe we live in.

You don't want to believe that and prefer instead to think that UFO witnesses are incompetent.

Nobody is saying that. If that's what you think they're saying you are seriously misunderstanding the argument. If you do know that's not what they mean, but are dishonestly attributing that incorrect meaning to them anyway, your argument would be definitively dishonest.

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.

Exactly what are the traits and characteristics of 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.

Seen them? Them? There are highly qualified people who have seen things they were unable to identify? Wow.

Your stubborn choice to dismiss such evidence amounts to willful ignorance.

Nobody is dismissing the fact that people have seen things they are unable to identify. But there is no way on Earth someone saying they don't know what something is can possibly be evidence that what they saw is some particular thing. Not in this world where truth and reality are directly related, as opposed to the pseudoscience of "ufology" where truth and reality are completely different and unrelated things.

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.

It's not only possible, but in all the history of humanity any unidentified flying object which was later determined to be some particular thing has pretty much always been the result of misidentification, hoaxes, and other natural or man-made phenomena. By contrast, never in the history of humanity has any unidentified flying object later been identified as an alien craft. Not once. Ever.

What's your excuse?

Excuse? For accepting that UFOs are likely misidentification, hoaxes, and other natural or man-made phenomena? I don't think anyone needs an excuse for that. But if you mean what's our excuse for not believing that some UFOs are alien craft, it all falls back to your null hypothesis...

"All UFOs are of mundane origin."​

.. and how you are apparently unable to falsify it. Falsify that and you'll have a whole lot of people who accept it. Making any progress?

 

[wollery]

wollery,

Simply because it's possible that people can be fooled by a perceptual illusion doesn't mean that they were.

I never said it did.

But the reverse is also true - just because it's possible that people can see through a perceptual illusion doesn't mean that they will or have.

In the absence of a deliberate and professional hoax, the chances of being fooled into certainty about anything is exceedingly small.

Perhaps you can show us some peer reviewed scientific research to back up that claim.

You don't want to believe that and prefer instead to think that UFO witnesses are incompetent.

Perhaps you can show where I've ever said that.

And while we're on the subject, are you claiming that there are some people who are infallible?

But the fact is that you are just plain wrong.

That would be the case, if I in fact held that position, which I don't, so I'm not.

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

All evidence to the contrary.

There are huge numbers of UFO sightings that have subsequently been shown definitively to be misperceptions and misinterpretations of mundane objects. So it is demonstrably the case that many people, no matter how well informed, can and have failed to tell the difference between natural or manmade objects and things that are "out of this world".

Then there are highly qualified people familiar with things seen in the sky who have also seen them.

Who are also capable of making mistakes, as evidenced by several cases.

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.

Are you suggesting that it's impossible for them to have been mistaken?

Your stubborn choice to dismiss such evidence amounts to willful ignorance.

I have never denied the possibility that some sightings were genuinely of alien craft. I have only ever pointed out that, in the absence of hard evidence, there is no way to know for certain if any of them were.

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.

Congratulations.

Of course, denying that would be insane, since it's proven by case after case.

What's your excuse?

For what?

 

[John Albert]

There are huge numbers of UFO sightings that have subsequently been shown definitively to be misperceptions and misinterpretations of mundane objects. So it is demonstrably the case that many people, no matter how well informed, can and have failed to tell the difference between natural or manmade objects and things that are "out of this world".

More than 97% of the people who've reported UFO sightings have in fact been demonstrably unable to tell that difference, as opposed to 0% who have actually been shown to have witnessed an actual alien spaceship.

I have never denied the possibility that some sightings were genuinely of alien craft. I have only ever pointed out that, in the absence of hard evidence, there is no way to know for certain if any of them were.

That's being generous.

While it is of course true that no one can say for certain that no sightings have ever been alien craft, there's absolutely no evidence or reason to support that conclusion either.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So is there any evidence that any of the sightings were unexplainable by natural means?

As if not why is anybody even pretending we should take a randomly chosen unnatural explanation seriously?

 

[23_Tauri]

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.

I'll believe you....

 

[23_Tauri]

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?

Sigh.

Flying saucers or flying sorceresses, it's just the same, folou.

 

[23_Tauri]

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.

I agree with you, John. However, people can change and lose their woo-beliefs. I am testament to that. I used to believe in alien visitation, making crop circles no less, would meditate upon my chakras and put amethysts in strange places. But then I discovered scepticism and realised that these beliefs did not define me. Nor did they make me happier than I would be otherwise. On the contrary, they created a gulf between me and most of humanity. I am special anyway, as is Mr J Randall Murphy. Sadly, I think his UFO obsession means that he fails to see the real depth and beauty of his inherent specialness, for it is built upon the shaky foundations of "made up lies and nonsensical redefinitions".

 

[John Albert]

I agree with you, John. However, people can change and lose their woo-beliefs. I am testament to that. I used to believe in alien visitation, making crop circles no less, would meditate upon my chakras and put amethysts in strange places. But then I discovered scepticism and realised that these beliefs did not define me. Nor did they make me happier than I would be otherwise. On the contrary, they created a gulf between me and most of humanity. I am special anyway, as is Mr J Randall Murphy. Sadly, I think his UFO obsession means that he fails to see the real depth and beauty of his inherent specialness, for it is built upon the shaky foundations of "made up lies and nonsensical redefinitions".

Agreed. It's not impossible for him to change. I just don't see any indication that he intends to. It seems to me that he appears too invested in this particular belief to just give it up. I wish he'd prove me wrong.

 

[carlitos]

Take your baby by the wrists, and in her mouth an amethyst...


/wang chung

 

[GeeMack]

Agreed. It's not impossible for him to change. I just don't see any indication that he intends to. It seems to me that he appears too invested in this particular belief to just give it up. I wish he'd prove me wrong.

Proving things doesn't seem to be part of the toolkit in the pseudoscience of "ufology".

 

[Resume]

Proving things doesn't seem to be part of the toolkit in the pseudoscience of "ufology".

So what's in that toolbox? Well, certainly a copy of Houses of the Holy.The 45, not the album. Or do I have that backwards? Also, No Doz. But no entomology field guides.

 

[Krikkiter]

Krikkiter,

Thanks for the useful commentary. You make an excellent point and you do it with clarity and reason. I will try to respond in the same vein. First of all, one of the best documented UFO cases goes back to the 1952 Washington DC sightings. It's pretty well documented by both public ( news ) and the Air Force. There are also a number of other sightings that have come from official government records around the world. There are also good quality reports that come from professional civilian pilots. Then there are the reports from police and other civilians all the way down to the chance observer. So there are a lot of witnesses at every level of society. Given this fact, it isn't reasonable to dismiss all UFO reports as mundane when the descriptions provided by many witnesses are anything but mundane. But like you point out, that doesn't mean every individual case is absolutely true and perfectly accurate, only that it is reasonable to believe that somewhere within the vast body of reports, there are true and accurate enough accounts from which to deduce that the probability that we are dealing with extraordinary objects is so high as to be a virtual certainty. In fact, as mentioned previously, a statistical study was done by the USAF that reached this same conclusion. But how do we apply the general to the specific? This is the crux of the problem.


The only way to provide absolute proof for individual cases is to secure material testable evidence. Such evidence is not within the grasp of the public at large. So for those who can only form a judgement as to what is reasonable to believe based on that kind of evidence alone, the phenomenon simply doesn't exist. Such reasoning is perfectly valid within the narrow scope of human experience that it applies to. However there is a wider reality that encompasses human perception and memory.

Now I anticipate all the usual flames from the peanut gallery here, but none of what I'm saying here necessarily applies to me personally. What we're talking about are general and self-evident principles that makeup our everyday experience. When you read a story about a certain tank battle, you are reading a record of the everyday experiences of people who were in tank battles. In UFO books, particularly those written by investigators, you are reading about the everyday experiences of UFO investigators. In your books about tank battles a lot of information is probably relayed second or third-party through an author and references rather than directly from the participant. The same holds true for most works in ufology.

So to conclude, while it is reasonable to presume that some level of error is possible, if not likely, especially when it comes to multiple recollections, the workings of human perception, memory and intelligence are such that most of the time we are reasonably accurate when it comes to simple observation and recall. Corroboration and cross referencing can help refine that information further and that is a perfectly legitimate way of reconstructing an event. In the end we may have enough information to believe that an even happened in which the primary factors are a virtual certainty, even if the finer details are less certain and there remains no tangible testable evidence.

Thanks for the reply.

The reason I brought up the book is because it seems like you're trying to use an historical methodology to explain the phenomenon. The problem is that historians use more than just anecdotes to come to reasonable conclusions, especially when it comes to modern history. Historians of modern history often use scientific means to gather factual information. Why? Because they can, and because it strengthens their case to the point where only the details are contested.

And when I say scientific means I mean tactile evidence. In the case of the book I mentioned, the only dispute would be in the anecdotal details - that the general sequence of events happened is not in dispute because there's tactile evidence as "proof".

I'm sorry if my thoughts seem a bit muddled but hopefully you can see what I'm trying to get at.

No self-respecting modern historian would announce an event as factual without some tactile evidence to back up their claims.

Pfffft... that was a pretty bad post. I'm at the final stages of a mix-down and my head gets pretty messed up right about this time.

 

[ufology]

.... No self-respecting modern historian would announce an event as factual without some tactile evidence to back up their claims ...

Krikkiter,

So by tactile, I presume you mean something that isn't simply observed, but can also be touched ... at least that is the general interpretation of "tactile". If that's the case then what about historians who have written about transient phenomena such as comets? Is it only because a lot of people can see comets at the same time and for a longer period of time that makes writing about their observations "respectable"? Perhaps you should review the 1952 DC Sightings ( as previously mentioned ).

As for what constitutes a "self-respecting historian", one would think that all any respectable writer who records any event can do is provide as honest and accurate an account as is possible. I certainly don't maintain that civilians have any substantial material evidence for UFOs that can be openly displayed. But should that mean nobody should be allowed to write about people's UFO experiences? Certainly not. Does it automatically mean that every UFO experience is a fabrication or hoax? Certainly not. Does it mean that there is no value in sharing UFOs experiences via the written word? Certainly not.

P.S. WHat do you mean by a "mix-down"

 

[RoboTimbo]

Does it automatically mean that every UFO experience is a fabrication or hoax?

The J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax is one of the more obvious ones. The hoaxer changed his story over time as the inconsistencies in his story were pointed out.

We have the anecdotal evidence from numerous unrelated witnesses on this forum along with the physical evidence of the hoaxer's own posts that he can no longer delete or change so everyone can see them.

 

[GeeMack]

Krikkiter,

So by tactile, I presume you mean something that isn't simply observed, but can also be touched ... at least that is the general interpretation of "tactile". If that's the case then what about historians who have written about transient phenomena such as comets? Is it only because a lot of people can see comets at the same time and for a longer period of time that makes writing about their observations "respectable"? Perhaps you should review the 1952 DC Sightings ( as previously mentioned ).

Yes or no, were those sightings objectively demonstrated to have been alien craft?

As for what constitutes a "self-respecting historian", one would think that all any respectable writer who records any event can do is provide as honest and accurate an account as is possible. I certainly don't maintain that civilians have any substantial material evidence for UFOs that can be openly displayed. But should that mean nobody should be allowed to write about people's UFO experiences? Certainly not. Does it automatically mean that every UFO experience is a fabrication or hoax? Certainly not. Does it mean that there is no value in sharing UFOs experiences via the written word? Certainly not.

Of all those UFO experiences, how many exactly have been conclusively and objectively identified as alien craft?

 

[carlitos]

A mix down is when Led Zeppelin's producers are bouncing Houses of the Holy down from 24 tracks to 4 for the quadrophonic 8-track.

 

[GeeMack]

The J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax is one of the more obvious ones. The hoaxer changed his story over time as the inconsistencies in his story were pointed out.

We have the anecdotal evidence from numerous unrelated witnesses on this forum along with the physical evidence of the hoaxer's own posts that he can no longer delete or change so everyone can see them.

I find the J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax to be rather intriguing, mostly because we've actually watched it evolve before our eyes. It's curious that someone who professes to have an avid interest in all things UFO should be so reluctant to actually discuss a UFO hoax which he himself appears to be involved in perpetrating.

 

[ufology]

The J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax is one of the more obvious ones. The hoaxer changed his story over time as the inconsistencies in his story were pointed out.

We have the anecdotal evidence from numerous unrelated witnesses on this forum along with the physical evidence of the hoaxer's own posts that he can no longer delete or change so everyone can see them.

RoboTimbo,

Keep on misrepresenting me and my story all you want. It only serves to demonstrate that your ufology bashing agenda relies on such pseudoskeptical tactics along with your constant flames. When will you actually contribute something useful?