UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Tauri,

It's not that I missed your point, it's that I don't agree with it. "Thousands upon thousands of seemingly credible and respectable witnesses" is evidence, just not the kind of evidence you want. Why? Because if you did accept it you'd have to admit that UFOs are real and you can't do that.

What...? UFOs trivially exist as everyone in this thread has acknowledged. A few people from this thread have reported seeing things that appeared to be Flying, were Unidentified, and appeared to be Objects. Is your memory so poor as that that you can't remember anything?

So you dismiss human perception and memory even though it provides evidence for many things on a daily basis. In fact it is so important and works so well that without it we could not survive.

No, your assertion that perception and memory are dismissed does not align with reality or facts. I hesitate to accuse you of outright lying, I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part.

You also forget that in the end all evidence is based on observation and memory, including the outcomes of scientific experiements.

You're referring to scientific experiments with testable hypotheses and repeatable outcomes? They also have a null hypothesis. The J Randall Murphy Null hypothesis is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

Without observation and memory all scientific experiments become meaningless.

Also if they don't have a null hypothesis. Fortunately, you do.

Furthermore scientific experiments are often further removed from direct experience through the use of machines or experiements that are themselves subject to breakdowns and faulty data. So for example, seeing something with your own eyes is one step closer to the objective reality that observing it through a video camera or radar. That is why when UFOs are picked up on radar, jets are launched to get a visual confirmation ... and there have been such cases where such confirmation has been made ... as in the 1952 DC Sightings.

How many Alien Space Ships did the jets retrieve?

Furthermore not all scientific experiments can be 100% precisely duplicated and the laws of probability apply to all scientific experiments, meaning that even the best scientific conclusions aren't 100% certain.

I'll attribute that to your general ignorance of the scientific method.

So the best science can do is claim a virtual certainty using a statistical model to calculate the probabilities of future outcomes based on past experiments. In such science, particularly medicine, the anecdotal evidence plays a critical role in establishing the value of particular treatments and medicines. With respect to UFOs, the Batelle Memorial Institute statistical analysis of UFO reports determined that it is a virtual certainty that UFOs are extraordinary objects.

Another one that I'll attribute to your faulty memory rather than outright lying on your part.

Therefore it is reasonable to pursue further knowledge about them, and in doing so propose possible explanations. Because there is nothing scientifically impossible about alien craft visiting planet Earth and because it is a virtual certainty that the phenomenon is real, the ETH offers a perfectly reasonable direction for further investigation. Beyond that we have our personal opinions and many of those, including mine, are based on firsthand experience and observation.

The above I'll attribute to your overall credulousness. No UFOs have ever turned out to be Alien Space Ships.

So please review ... I have never claimed to possess demonstrable proof of alien craft, only that I and many other people have a personal belief in them, and that the significant number of people who have had a UFO experience constitutes enough evidence to warrant further investigation. In this effort there are surely many other explanations for UFO reports other than alien craft, and what I was hoping to do here is network with skeptics who can supply mundane explanations for UFO reports without resorting to ridicule, mockery and changing stories to suit themselves. Such would involve pointing out logical inconsistencies, mistakes, faulty reasoning, serious and applicable credibility flaws of those who make or provide reports ... and so on, and lastly to keep those evaluations in proper focus and context, so that when issues are uncovered they are put into their proper perspective.

And yet when we poined out the logical inconsistencies in your own Hoax, you balked. Please don't be disingenuous about your wanting to network with skeptics any longer.

 

[Resume]

And yet when we poined out the logical inconsistencies in your own Hoax, you balked. Please don't be diseingenuous about your wanting to network with skeptics any longer.

Yeah that's most irritating. If you think you're not gonna like the answer, don't ask the question.

 

[alphahelix]

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

You forgot the vodka, ice and nice spiffy glass

 

[23_Tauri]

Tauri,

It's not that I missed your point, it's that I don't agree with it. "Thousands upon thousands of seemingly credible and respectable witnesses" is evidence, just not the kind of evidence you want. Why? Because if you did accept it you'd have to admit that UFOs are real and you can't do that. So you dismiss human perception and memory even though it provides evidence for many things on a daily basis. In fact it is so important and works so well that without it we could not survive.

Just like thousands and thousands of people used to see witches in the olden days then. And no, that wasn't evidence of witches just like people seeing UFOs today isn't evidence of alien space ships. One rule for the hunters of flying saucers, another for the hunters of flying sorceresses. You know what that's called, folo? Special pleading.

You also forget that in the end all evidence is based on observation and memory, including the outcomes of scientific experiements. Without observation and memory all scientific experiments become meaningless. Furthermore scientific experiments are often further removed from direct experience through the use of machines or experiements that are themselves subject to breakdowns and faulty data.

Don't see how this has got anything to do with what I asked or the pseudoscience of UFOlogy.

So for example, seeing something with your own eyes is one step closer to the objective reality that observing it through a video camera or radar. That is why when UFOs are picked up on radar, jets are launched to get a visual confirmation ... and there have been such cases where such confirmation has been made ... as in the 1952 DC Sightings.

I don't know all the ins and outs of the Washington case, but I'm pretty sure it was put forward that the radar traces could have been caused by temperature inversions. I'm sure other posters here can fill in the detail.

Furthermore not all scientific experiments can be 100% precisely duplicated and the laws of probability apply to all scientific experiments, meaning that even the best scientific conclusions aren't 100% certain. So the best science can do is claim a virtual certainty using a statistical model to calculate the probabilities of future outcomes based on past experiments. In such science, particularly medicine, the anecdotal evidence plays a critical role in establishing the value of particular treatments and medicines. With respect to UFOs, the Batelle Memorial Institute statistical analysis of UFO reports determined that it is a virtual certainty that UFOs are extraordinary objects. Therefore it is reasonable to pursue further knowledge about them, and in doing so propose possible explanations. Because there is nothing scientifically impossible about alien craft visiting planet Earth and because it is a virtual certainty that the phenomenon is real, the ETH offers a perfectly reasonable direction for further investigation. Beyond that we have our personal opinions and many of those, including mine, are based on firsthand experience and observation.

So please review ... I have never claimed to possess demonstrable proof of alien craft, only that I and many other people have a personal belief in them, and that the significant number of people who have had a UFO experience constitutes enough evidence to warrant further investigation.

People used to say that about witches too. "I've had a witch experience, let's hunt for the witch!".

In this effort there are surely many other explanations for UFO reports other than alien craft,

Yes, every UFO that has been identified has turned out to be something other than an alien craft. Well done, Mister Uf.

and what I was hoping to do here is network with skeptics who can supply mundane explanations for UFO reports without resorting to ridicule, mockery and changing stories to suit themselves. Such would involve pointing out logical inconsistencies, mistakes, faulty reasoning, serious and applicable credibility flaws of those who make or provide reports ... and so on, and lastly to keep those evaluations in proper focus and context. If anyone here is interested in actually doing that by all means please let me know.

Are you telling me that posters here haven't been pointing out "logical inconsistencies, mistakes, faulty reasoning, serious and applicable credibility flaws" in your arguments? You are reading this thread, right?

 

[GeeMack]

Double post.

 

[GeeMack]

In this effort there are surely many other explanations for UFO reports other than alien craft, and what I was hoping to do here is network with skeptics who can supply mundane explanations for UFO reports without resorting to ridicule, mockery and changing stories to suit themselves. Such would involve pointing out logical inconsistencies, mistakes, faulty reasoning, serious and applicable credibility flaws of those who make or provide reports ... and so on, and lastly to keep those evaluations in proper focus and context. If anyone here is interested in actually doing that by all means please let me know.

Seriously? Wow. Just wow.

For the last fifteen and a half thousand posts there have been skeptics "pointing out logical inconsistencies, mistakes, faulty reasoning, serious and applicable credibility flaws of those who make or provide reports ... and so on". There have been maybe a dozen alien believers, people who believe the unsupported (unsupportable?) claim that some unidentified flying objects are alien craft. Those folks have, for the most part, provided the examples which have been analyzed.

There have been well over 200 other participants in this thread, folks who were not advocating that claim that some unidentified flying objects are alien craft. Over 200 people, helpful cooperative skeptics for the most part, have for the past 25 months been "pointing out logical inconsistencies, mistakes, faulty reasoning, serious and applicable credibility flaws of those who make or provide reports ... and so on". Thousands upon thousands of posts. It would be one of the most disingenuous, dishonest arguments ever put forth on this forum to insinuate that there might not be "anyone here [] interested in actually doing that". And that would include the dishonest, disingenuous arguments we so often see from Creationists and 9/11 Truthers. Seriously.

 

[ufology]

"And yet when we poined out the logical inconsistencies in your own Hoax, you balked. Please don't be diseingenuous about your wanting to network with skeptics any longer."

Yeah that's most irritating. If you think you're not gonna like the answer, don't ask the question.

Resume,

Typical misrepresentation. I did no such thing as "balk" at the logical inconsistencies. In fact there were no genuine "logical incosistencies", To remind you. There were only three main issues, none of any real substance for debunking purposes. The first was that I was accused of "changing the story" by making up things as the thread progressed. This is a blatant misrepresentation. I was asked about my sighting and I gave a brief answer. Follow up questions ensued wherein I gave further details. Providing further deatils to questions does not constitute "making things up".

The second issue was that in the rush of a forum posting I matched the music that was playing at the time to the wrong album name. The right one had been posted on my website description and I was called on it ... no problem ... it was a mistake made in the haste of a forum post and it has no bearing on the actual observations of the UFO itself.

The other issue was that I put the wrong direction in my website account for one of the object's maneuvers, a mistake that I acknowledged and corrected. That mistake however has no more bearing on the account than a typo. The object still made the maneuvers as was described ( right from its start position ).

Any other issues that were pointed out were not applicable because the critics arbitrarily changed or ignored elements of the story to suit themselves. For example my estimate of the distance of the object was ignored along with my reasons for being able to determine it. That allowed the critics to maintain that what I saw was a firefly. Such self serving ignorance of the relevant details does not count as constructive commentary.

The critics also created faulty graphics to support their faulty conclusions The fault with those graphics was pointed out and corrected with a proper scale drawing. The only other commentary from the critics has been ridicule, mockery and proclamations of a hoax. None of the above issues in any way are supportive of a hoax.

An example of a meaningful logical inconsistency might be if I had said I had seen the object in 1961, in which case I would have been living in Calgary instead of where I said I'd seen the object, and been far too young to have had a girlfriend or drive a car.

So again be reasonable and fair. Don't change the information to suit yourself or take minor and irrelevant details and blow them out of proportion and context. Don't create faulty graphics to give a false impression and don't resort to ridicule and mockery when all else fails. Is this really too much to ask?

 

[Daylightstar]

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.

When I press that link on my Android phone, it gives a blank webpage, but the file is sneakily downloaded and saved.

Perhaps the pdf file is somewhere on your Android tablet anyway.

 

[mike3]

Tauri,

It's not that I missed your point, it's that I don't agree with it. "Thousands upon thousands of seemingly credible and respectable witnesses" is evidence, just not the kind of evidence you want. Why? Because if you did accept it you'd have to admit that UFOs are real and you can't do that. So you dismiss human perception and memory even though it provides evidence for many things on a daily basis. In fact it is so important and works so well that without it we could not survive.

You also forget that in the end all evidence is based on observation and memory, including the outcomes of scientific experiements. Without observation and memory all scientific experiments become meaningless. Furthermore scientific experiments are often further removed from direct experience through the use of machines or experiements that are themselves subject to breakdowns and faulty data. So for example, seeing something with your own eyes is one step closer to the objective reality that observing it through a video camera or radar. That is why when UFOs are picked up on radar, jets are launched to get a visual confirmation ... and there have been such cases where such confirmation has been made ... as in the 1952 DC Sightings.

However, a scientific observation is different in a number of ways from UFO "observations". For one, scientific observations are controlled, UFO ones are not. For another, those observations are often recorded, especially quantitatively and with methods designed to reduce bias, where they happen.

 

[Daylightstar]

However, a scientific observation ... where they happen.

Like in Sweden: A crashed ufo pilot having unsuccesfully tried the 'J Randall Murphy triple bounce manoeuvre'?
Recorded in glorious detail, from various angles no less.

 

[GeeMack]

Typical misrepresentation. I did no such thing as "balk" at the logical inconsistencies.

That is absolutely not true.

In fact there were no genuine "logical incosistencies", To remind you. There were only three main issues, none of any real substance for debunking purposes. The first was that I was accused of "changing the story" by making up things as the thread progressed. This is a blatant misrepresentation. I was asked about my sighting and I gave a brief answer. Follow up questions ensued wherein I gave further details. Providing further deatils to questions does not constitute "making things up".

The second issue was that in the rush of a forum posting I matched the music that was playing at the time to the wrong album name. The right one had been posted on my website description and I was called on it ... no problem ... it was a mistake made in the haste of a forum post and it has no bearing on the actual observations of the UFO itself.

The other issue was that I put the wrong direction in my website account for one of the object's maneuvers, a mistake that I acknowledged and corrected. That mistake however has no more bearing on the account than a typo. The object still made the maneuvers as was described ( right from its start position ).

Any other issues that were pointed out were not applicable because the critics arbitrarily changed or ignored elements of the story to suit themselves. For example my estimate of the distance of the object was ignored along with my reasons for being able to determine it. That allowed the critics to maintain that what I saw was a firefly. Such self serving ignorance of the relevant details does not count as constructive commentary.

The critics also created faulty graphics to support their faulty conclusions The fault with those graphics was pointed out and corrected with a proper scale drawing. The only other commentary from the critics has been ridicule, mockery and proclamations of a hoax. None of the above issues in any way are supportive of a hoax.

An example of a meaningful logical inconsistency might be if I had said I had seen the object in 1961, in which case I would have been living in Calgary instead of where I said I'd seen the object, and been far too young to have had a girlfriend or drive a car.

All of that nonsense is just more excuses and rationalizations, all of which have been mentioned before, none of which were convincing the other several times they were tried, and most of which have been shown to be total fabrications. Consequently they have been rejected.

So again be reasonable and fair. Don't change the information to suit yourself or take minor and irrelevant details and blow them out of proportion and context. Don't create faulty graphics to give a false impression and don't resort to ridicule and mockery when all else fails. Is this really too much to ask?

How did that other fellow put that?...

You are not being persecuted. Your faith is being mocked and ridiculed... righteously. Your arguments are being trashed... easily... because they consist almost exclusively of logical fallacies and nonsense. Your request for the assistance of the helpful cooperative skeptics here is being met with vigor and zeal. Do not mistake that help and cooperation for persecution.​

Oh, that wasn't another fellow. It was me. And it's still true and relevant.

 

[23_Tauri]

The critics also created faulty graphics to support their faulty conclusions The fault with those graphics was pointed out and corrected with a proper scale drawing.

What faulty graphics? Posted by whom?

 

[Resume]

Resume,

Typical misrepresentation. I did no such thing as "balk" at the logical inconsistencies. In fact there were no genuine "logical incosistencies", To remind you. There were only three main issues, none of any real substance for debunking purposes. The first was that I was accused of "changing the story" by making up things as the thread progressed. This is a blatant misrepresentation. I was asked about my sighting and I gave a brief answer. Follow up questions ensued wherein I gave further details. Providing further deatils to questions does not constitute "making things up".

The second issue was that in the rush of a forum posting I matched the music that was playing at the time to the wrong album name. The right one had been posted on my website description and I was called on it ... no problem ... it was a mistake made in the haste of a forum post and it has no bearing on the actual observations of the UFO itself.

The other issue was that I put the wrong direction in my website account for one of the object's maneuvers, a mistake that I acknowledged and corrected. That mistake however has no more bearing on the account than a typo. The object still made the maneuvers as was described ( right from its start position ).

Any other issues that were pointed out were not applicable because the critics arbitrarily changed or ignored elements of the story to suit themselves. For example my estimate of the distance of the object was ignored along with my reasons for being able to determine it. That allowed the critics to maintain that what I saw was a firefly. Such self serving ignorance of the relevant details does not count as constructive commentary.

The critics also created faulty graphics to support their faulty conclusions The fault with those graphics was pointed out and corrected with a proper scale drawing. The only other commentary from the critics has been ridicule, mockery and proclamations of a hoax. None of the above issues in any way are supportive of a hoax.

An example of a meaningful logical inconsistency might be if I had said I had seen the object in 1961, in which case I would have been living in Calgary instead of where I said I'd seen the object, and been far too young to have had a girlfriend or drive a car.

So again be reasonable and fair. Don't change the information to suit yourself or take minor and irrelevant details and blow them out of proportion and context. Don't create faulty graphics to give a false impression and don't resort to ridicule and mockery when all else fails. Is this really too much to ask?

Speaking of changing information, try and quote me correctly. Not that my view differs much from Robo's, but if you're gonna biotch about accuracy, you gotta be accurate yourself.

 

[RoboTimbo]

bla ... bla ... bla ...

<dishonest rationalization snipped>

Are you saying that anecdotal evidence from multiple independent witnesses backed up by the tactile evidence of your own posts isn't enough "proof" for you?

It isn't enough evidence to prove something we know to exist (hoaxes) but it is more than enough to satisfy you of something that doesn't (Alien Space Ships).

How do you handle the cognitive dissonance every day?

 

[Resume]

The critics also created faulty graphics to support their faulty conclusions The fault with those graphics was pointed out and corrected with a proper scale drawing. The only other commentary from the critics has been ridicule, mockery and proclamations of a hoax. None of the above issues in any way are supportive of a hoax.

How could you possibly assess the proper scale from a 40-year old memory of an extremely brief event? Unless you would like to retrofit more information into your tale.

 

[Stray Cat]

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 ).

Is there any piece of information you can actually get factually correct?

Adobe Acrobat (.pdf file reading software) is a free download on both PC and Mac. It enables files originating from any source and format to be readable on any system (hardly "elitist")

And you don't have to download it at all, if you have the pdf browser plug in, it will open in your browser.

 

[John Albert]

Tauri,

It's not that I missed your point, it's that I don't agree with it.

<snipped 4 long paragraphs that demonstrate completely missing Tauri's point>

The point she made—the one you completely ignored—is that thousands of people over the course of hundreds of years used anecdotes, perceptions and memories as the evidence for believing witches and their spells were real.

If all those people could have been wrong about something as well-storied as that, then how can you say that the anecdotes, perceptions and memories about UFOs aren't just as faulty?

The magnitude of your willful ignorance is astounding.

 

[Robrob]

Is there any piece of information you can actually get factually correct?

Adobe Acrobat (.pdf file reading software) is a free download on both PC and Mac. It enables files originating from any source and format to be readable on any system (hardly "elitist")

And you don't have to download it at all, if you have the pdf browser plug in, it will open in your browser.

 

[ufology]

However, a scientific observation is different in a number of ways from UFO "observations". For one, scientific observations are controlled, UFO ones are not. For another, those observations are often recorded, especially quantitatively and with methods designed to reduce bias, where they happen.

mike,

Good points in theory, except not all scientific experiments and/or observations are completely controlled, especially those involving transient phenomena like meteors, lightning, earthquakes, anything to do with the weather and a number of others. Of course the idea is still to have as much control as is possible, but in the absence of such control, we can only study what information is available.

 

[ufology]

Is there any piece of information you can actually get factually correct?

Adobe Acrobat (.pdf file reading software) is a free download on both PC and Mac. It enables files originating from any source and format to be readable on any system (hardly "elitist")

And you don't have to download it at all, if you have the pdf browser plug in, it will open in your browser.

Stray ...

So what if their stupid PDF reader plugin is free. It's a lousy way to publish on the web. And have you ever tried to buy the Acrobat authoring software ... it's a pile of garbage and costs hundreds of dollars. BTW ... I use the Foxit PDF Reader because it's better than Adobe's crap reader and it's also free. You should try it ... you'll like it.