UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[23_Tauri]

We could do with a clean sweep... I'll get my broom out.

 

[TjW]

I have a feeling this poor old thread is about to enter a whole newt phase.

Fixed your typo.

 

[ufology]

So we said: ( see link for all the quotes ).

No guarantees that the above are the first examples of each, but the variety and creativity (and a little snark) are cool. If I missed any good ones, be sure to document with good links.

Too much spare time this weekend, looks like.

Of recent, I've taken a liking to being addressed as "Mr. Ufology" ... there's a nice ring there.

I've also noticed the latest contribution of artful mockery "Witchology". Never have I been so complimented as to be mocked with the style presented by this forum.

 

[R.A.F.]

Why should the UFO phenomenon be treated any differently?

Because there is no evidence aliens even exist, let alone visiting us.

 

[R.A.F.]

I certainly don't maintain that civilians have any substantial material evidence for UFOs that can be openly displayed.

What do you mean by "openly displayed"? Are you claiming that material evidence exists, but is hidden for some stupid reason?

Prove it.

...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.

Does that mean that aliens are visiting us...CERTAINLY NOT.

 

[Akhenaten]

We could do with a clean sweep... I'll get my broom out.

 

[R.A.F.]

Of recent, I've taken a liking to being addressed as "Mr. Ufology" ... there's a nice ring there.

"Mr. Credulous" has a nicer "ring" and is a more accurate description.

I've also noticed the latest contribution of artful mockery "Witchology". Never have I been so complimented as to be mocked with the style presented by this forum.

So you consider it a compliment to be mocked? Do you also get joy out of being proven wrong?

Talk about a glutton for punishment...sheesh.

 

[Akhenaten]

Fixed your typo.

Thanks. I owe you some wing of bat.

 

[Stray Cat]

Thanks. I owe you some wing of bat.

Vegetarian witch's spell potion;

Ear of corn
Eye of potato
Head of lettuce
Skin of tomato

Mix together
til soft and tender
Maybe even
Use a blender

 

[ufology]

Because there is no evidence aliens even exist, let alone visiting us.

Same old ... same old ... tired "no evidence" argument that doesn't even address the issue we had been discussing ... that of requiring "tactile evidence" before something can become "reputable" as a topic of study. So I shall continue here with my comparison of ufology studies to a so-called "reputable" topic of study where no "tactile evidence" exists, the study of Halley's Comet.

Thousands of people have seen UFOs and thousands have seen Halley's Comet, yet we don't have a material piece of either one. But Halley's Comet has been easier to study than UFOs and therefore over a long period of time humans have figured out what it is.

However by your logic, because there was no "tactile evidence", we never should have bothered trying to figure it out. In actual fact there is still no definitive "tangible" or "tactile" evidence for Halley's Comet ... the kind that is demanded here. As mentioned before, finally in 1986 we managed to get more than just anecdotal evidence and fuzzy pictures because we sent a space probe ( Giotto ) up to look at at it.

Again, had we used your logic, we never would have bothered building the space probe because there would not have been any evidence of the type that you would have been satisfied with to justify the effort. Let's try not to forget that Halley's prior appearance before 1986 had been in 1910 ... there was no space program then and the best evidence we had were some observations and some nice blurry pictures like this one:

Prior to 1910, Halley's most recent appearance had ben in 1835 ... before airplanes had even been invented. And if we go back before the invention of the telescope, comets seemed to appear out of nowhere in the sky and gradually vanish out of sight. They were usually considered bad omens of deaths of kings or noble men, or coming catastrophes, or even interpreted as attacks by heavenly beings against terrestrial inhabitants. By your logic we would have never learned anything more than this. ​

Only with persistent study have we determined what comets are, and this is my view with respect to UFOs, or for that matter any mysterious phenomenon. There have been enough credible witnesses to remove UFOs from the category of fiction, and given the properties suggested by these observations they are easily as important to learn about as comets. Simply because they pose more of a challenge is no reason to abandon the pursuit of knowledge about them, and if the only evidence we have at our disposal are eye witnesses, then it would be irresponsible not to hear them out and try to extract all we can from their observations.​

Helfin Photo - Photo Analysis Here​

 

[23_Tauri]

Same old ... same old ... tired "no evidence" argument that doesn't even address the issue we had been discussing ... that of requiring "tactile evidence" before something can become a "reputable" as a topic of study. So I shall continue here with my comparison of a "reputable" study where no "tactile evidence" exists, the study of Halley's Comet.

What of my 'reputable' study of the similarities between witch hunts of the Early Modern Period in Europe and modern day UFOlogy? Any thoughts on that, Mister Uf?

 

[carlitos]

Just fyi, that photo analysis link redirected to google.ca and won't load on this android tablet. Curious to read about the hubcap or whatever.

 

[Resume]

Same old ... same old ... tired "no evidence" argument that doesn't even address the issue we had been discussing ... that of requiring "tactile evidence" before something can become "reputable" as a topic of study. So I shall continue here with my comparison of ufology studies to a so-called "reputable" topic of study where no "tactile evidence" exists, the study of Halley's Comet.

Thousands of people have seen UFOs and thousands have seen Halley's Comet, yet we don't have a material piece of either one. But Halley's Comet has been easier to study than UFOs and therefore over a long period of time humans have figured out what it is.

However by your logic, because there was no "tactile evidence", we never should have bothered trying to figure it out. In actual fact there is still no definitive "tangible" or "tactile" evidence for Halley's Comet ... the kind that is demanded here. As mentioned before, finally in 1986 we managed to get more than just anecdotal evidence and fuzzy pictures because we sent a space probe ( Giotto ) up to look at at it.

Again, had we used your logic, we never would have bothered building the space probe because there would not have been any evidence of the type that you would have been satisfied with to justify the effort. Let's try not to forget that Halley's prior appearance before 1986 had been in 1910 ... there was no space program then and the best evidence we had were some observations and some nice blurry pictures like this one:

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Halley%27s_Comet%2C_1910.JPG/633px-Halley%27s_Comet%2C_1910.JPG[/qimg]​

Prior to 1910, Halley's most recent appearance had ben in 1835 ... before airplanes had even been invented. And if we go back before the invention of the telescope, comets seemed to appear out of nowhere in the sky and gradually vanish out of sight. They were usually considered bad omens of deaths of kings or noble men, or coming catastrophes, or even interpreted as attacks by heavenly beings against terrestrial inhabitants. By your logic we would have never learned anything more than this. ​

Only with persistent study have we determined what comets are, and this is my view with respect to UFOs, or for that matter any mysterious phenomenon. There have been enough credible witnesses to remove UFOs from the category of fiction, and given the properties suggested by these observations they are easily as important to learn about as comets. Simply because they pose more of a challenge is no reason to abandon the pursuit of knowledge about them, and if the only evidence we have at our disposal are eye witnesses, then it would be irresponsible not to hear them out and try to extract all we can from their observations.​

[qimg]http://www.ufoera.com/images/ufo/ufo-photo-california_029.jpg[/qimg]​

Helfin Photo - Photo Analysis Here​

In the voice of Curly Howard. "Ohhh look, a hubcap!"

Or. "Hey, it's a doiby!"

 

[RoboTimbo]

Same old ... same old ...

<snipped same old ... same old ...>

...if the only evidence we have at out disposal are eye witnesses, then it would be irresponsible not to hear them out and try to extract all we can from their observations.

We've heard from the independent witnesses on this forum and they conclude that the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax was deliberately perpetrated here. It would be irresponsible not to hear thm out and try to extract all we can from their observations. For example, they are all borne out by the additional evidence of the hoaxer's own posts. The original story changed over time as the inconsistencies were pointed out.

What do you think of the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax?

 

[Daylightstar]

...There have been enough credible witnesses to remove UFOs from the category of fiction,...

And then it turns out, it's not about the comet, it's about your credulity.

 

[ufology]

Just fyi, that photo analysis link redirected to google.ca and won't load on this android tablet. Curious to read about the hubcap or whatever.

carlitos,

Thanks for the FYI ... I checked the link here on a real computer and it works, but because it's a PDF download, you have to allow the download, or you won't get the PDF ( another reason to avoid PDFs and anything else Adobe for that matter ... ourageously overpriced elitist software ). At least you aren't using a Mac or an iPad ... those little android tablets are pretty cool.

 

[23_Tauri]

Just fyi, that photo analysis link redirected to google.ca and won't load on this android tablet. Curious to read about the hubcap or whatever.

Took me to a pdf from a journal called Scientific Exploration:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_4_druffel.pdf

 

[ufology]

What of my 'reputable' study of the similarities between witch hunts of the Early Modern Period in Europe and modern day UFOlogy? Any thoughts on that, Mister Uf?

Tauri,

Actually I'd say that the ufology bashers here bear a striking resemblance to witch hunters. Fortunately for me they've banned public executions ( at least in Canada where I live ), so you'll have to continue the ritual here on the holy back-lot of pseudoskepticism ... the JREF forum ... by continuing to fling mockery and ridicule instead of rocks, and by throwing flames instead of burning me at the stake.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Tauri,

Actually I'd say that the ufology bashers here bear a striking resemblance to witch hunters. Fortunately for me they've banned public executions ( at least here in Canada ), so you'll have to continue the ritual here on the holy back-lot of pseudoskepticism ... the JREF forum ... by continuing to fling mockery and ridicule instead of rocks, and by throwing flames instead of burning me at the stake.

A twofer! You simultaneously ignored 23_Tauri's question while strawmanning the entire forum.

No comment on the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax? You said you wanted to discuss some of the recent happenings in the pseudoscience of UFOlogy. What gives?

 

[23_Tauri]

Tauri,

Actually I'd say that the ufology bashers here bear a striking resemblance to witch hunters. Fortunately for me they've banned public executions ( at least in Canada where I live ), so you'll have to continue the ritual here on the holy back-lot of pseudoskepticism ... the JREF forum ... by continuing to fling mockery and ridicule instead of rocks, and by throwing flames instead of burning me at the stake.

So I take it you completely missed my point about anecdotes from thousands upon thousands of seemingly credible and respectable witnesses not equalling evidence for a real phenomenon?