UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

Hi LogicFail,

Old friends reunited.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

I've been gone for a couple of hundred pages-Any evidence yet?

Not even a little bit.

 

[John Albert]

I've been gone for a couple of hundred pages-Any evidence yet?

Not even a little bit.

Not like the days of good old Rramjet.

He often came forth with the evidence, and argued heartily in favor of his "nuts and bolts craft." It's just too regrettable for him that all his "evidence" was complete garbage.

 

[BravesFan]

Hi LogicFail,

All good points until you make the comment, "Yet folks continue to jump from the first possible explanation to the most extreme "solution" without out stopping anywhere in between."

I've been interested in ufology since I was a child and talked with hundreds of people, many of them witnesses. None of them have simply jumped to the conclusion that what they saw was some kind of alien craft. In fact, most had a hard time accepting that what they saw could have been an alien craft even if that explanation seemed to fit. Typically, if the object was something odd, they will say something like, "I don't know what it was".

In two cases, the witness saw the object clearly in daylight within a few hundred yards, but even these people had to be asked outright where they think it came from. Up to that point they simply called it a "thing" or described it as a "flying saucer thing ... you know ... a UFO".

So in reality, the notion that everyone who isn't some kind of indoctrinated skeptic jumps to the conclusion that all mysterious flying objects are UFOs ( alien craft ), seems to be an opinion propogated by the skeptics; perhaps to prop up the image that anyone who believes in UFOs is irrational and impulsive. That idea is simply untrue.

Lastly, as for all the reasons the skeptics give as to why alien visitation is improbable: There is no scientific reason why alien visitation isn't possible, and we don't know all the variables to be able to make an accurate assessment of the probabilities. The more we learn, the closer we get to inventing the technology that will make interstellar travel possible for us. Unless civilization comes to an end, I would not bet against interstellar travel becoming a reality by the end of the next century.

Nobody said it was impossible. Just highly improbable. The lack of evidence alone helps the following statement "Alien's have very probably not visited earth" be much more likely to be true than" Aliens have visited earth one time" and much MUCH MUCH more likely than "aliens visit earth all the time and get sighted by people 500 times a year "


BTW, indoctrinated? If there was some indoctrination of using common sense and probability to formulate opinions as well as actually requiring PHYSICAL EVIDENCE instead of relying on anecdotes well, sign me up!

 

[John Albert]

Claims unsupported by evidence can be safely dismissed without evidence.

 

[ufology]

I kind of agree with you for once. I find that "folks" are more willing to say they saw something they couldn't identify.
It's silly UFOlogists who jump to the conclusion that those "folks" saw aliens in flying saucers.

Perhaps you have seen too many poorly editied clips that badly portray ufologists. Can you provide any specific examples where a ufologist has assumed prior to reading and studying a report that it represents an alien craft?

 

[Stray Cat]

Perhaps you have seen too many poorly editied clips that badly portray ufologists.

I'm talking about the books written by UFOlogists and the articles they publish on the internet. Their own words, not other people's manipulation of them.

Can you provide any specific examples where a ufologist has assumed prior to reading and studying a report that it represents an alien craft?

No one said anything about "prior", it's irrelevant whether they think "it woz aliens wot did it" before or after their [cough] 'investigation'.

Just the fact that they reach the 'aliens did it' conclusion at all is jumping to a conclusion based upon the evidence because there is not, to date any evidence of aliens.

But on a broader note yes... Look at any written [cough] investigation of any UFO incident that centers around the USAF FoI released files. The UFOlogists constantly flog these as if it was aliens (Leslie Kean's book for instance), where as the more sober USAF and intelligence agencies that actually took statements from airmen and ground crew and undertook investigation of the incidents, don't mention aliens at all (and in every case I've ever looked at the original files for, neither do those direct witnesses who make the reports). Your favourite Washington UFO flap of 1952 being just one specific example.

 

[Akhenaten]

Perhaps you have seen too many poorly editied clips that badly portray ufologists.

Too many threads started by them on internet forums, actually.

Can you provide any specific examples where a ufologist has assumed prior to reading and studying a report that it represents an alien craft?

Yep.

"What I saw, regadless of the name of the album that was playing on the stereo, or whether or not it rose vertically 200 meters or so many feet, the idea was to get across that the thing was an object that could instantly deccellerate and accellerate to and from a dead stop, perform precise maneuvers, and that when it departed it travelled over 25Km in 1 ( one ) second. There is nothing conventional, natural or manmade that I or anyone else I've ever met knows about that explains how an object ( a glowing sphere of light ) could do that."

j.r.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Perhaps you have seen too many poorly editied clips that badly portray ufologists. Can you provide any specific examples where a ufologist has assumed prior to reading and studying a report that it represents an alien craft?

The problem is that after the report had been read and "studied" with out any actual evidence that can be studied, tested, measured, recorded, in any other way examined, the UFOlogist then, based on nothing more than personal belief, claims that the term "UFO" means "Alien space craft".

You badly portray your own "peers" by claiming that what you "study" are "reports", when in fact nothing you have posted here would be mistaken for a technical report submitted as evidence. They are clearly annectdotes and stories thaat have been "listened to" by a suferer of confirmation bias.

UFOlogy is not even a real ology. It is a self appointed title to prove your confirmation bias before you even begin to "study". The difference between UFOlogy and actual physics, psychology, engineering and actual fields of study that might be used to investigate the phenomona is pretty much the same as between "Ghostology" and the forensics disciplines.

 

[Resume]

Perhaps you have seen too many poorly editied clips that badly portray ufologists. Can you provide any specific examples where a ufologist has assumed prior to reading and studying a report that it represents an alien craft?

Ufologist?

What's that?

Trashcanlidologist?

 

[BravesFan]

The problem is that after the report had been read and "studied" with out any actual evidence that can be studied, tested, measured, recorded, in any other way examined, the UFOlogist then, based on nothing more than personal belief, claims that the term "UFO" means "Alien space craft".

You badly portray your own "peers" by claiming that what you "study" are "reports", when in fact nothing you have posted here would be mistaken for a technical report submitted as evidence. They are clearly annectdotes and stories thaat have been "listened to" by a suferer of confirmation bias.

UFOlogy is not even a real ology. It is a self appointed title to prove your confirmation bias before you even begin to "study". The difference between UFOlogy and actual physics, psychology, engineering and actual fields of study that might be used to investigate the phenomona is pretty much the same as between "Ghostology" and the forensics disciplines.

I would submit that Ufology was much more akin to the study of folklore and historical social constructs than any hard science.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I would submit that Ufology was much more akin to the study of folklore and historical social constructs than any hard science.

But again, then it would be a context of study by anthrologists, sociologists, historians, folklorists and legitimate fields. "Ufology" itself is not a subject of study. It is not a field of study. It is a title that people adopt to pretend they are in a field of genuine study.

Anybody who calls themselves a UFOlogist should, by necessity, be treated with the same suspicion as self describing "para"Psychologists who have just heard somewhere that was what forteans are meant to call themselves, or any other quack "unappreciated" field of "real science honest".

Saddly, that means the actual parapsychologists who bothered to get there BA in psychology and specialised in a particularly odd branch, are forever tarred by the same brush as the numpties with EMF monitors and infrared thermometers that can magically detect an insubstantial object that does not reflect infrared light.

 

[23_Tauri]

I would submit that Ufology was much more akin to the study of folklore and historical social constructs than any hard science.

You'll find a protracted discussion on the subject of what is ufology on this thread if you would like to read more, LogicFail.

 

[BravesFan]

But again, then it would be a context of study by anthrologists, sociologists, historians, folklorists and legitimate fields. "Ufology" itself is not a subject of study. It is not a field of study. It is a title that people adopt to pretend they are in a field of genuine study.

Anybody who calls themselves a UFOlogist should, by necessity, be treated with the same suspicion as self describing "para"Psychologists who have just heard somewhere that was what forteans are meant to call themselves, or any other quack "unappreciated" field of "real science honest".

Saddly, that means the actual parapsychologists who bothered to get there BA in psychology and specialised in a particularly odd branch, are forever tarred by the same brush as the numpties with EMF monitors and infrared thermometers that can magically detect an insubstantial object that does not reflect infrared light.

Good point

 

[ufology]

I'm talking about the books written by UFOlogists and the articles they publish on the internet. Their own words, not other people's manipulation of them.


No one said anything about "prior", it's irrelevant whether they think "it woz aliens wot did it" before or after their [cough] 'investigation'.

Just the fact that they reach the 'aliens did it' conclusion at all is jumping to a conclusion based upon the evidence because there is not, to date any evidence of aliens.

But on a broader note yes... Look at any written [cough] investigation of any UFO incident that centers around the USAF FoI released files. The UFOlogists constantly flog these as if it was aliens (Leslie Kean's book for instance), where as the more sober USAF and intelligence agencies that actually took statements from airmen and ground crew and undertook investigation of the incidents, don't mention aliens at all (and in every case I've ever looked at the original files for, neither do those direct witnesses who make the reports). Your favourite Washington UFO flap of 1952 being just one specific example.

You are missing the point. Jumping from the first possible explanation to the most extreme "solution" without stopping anywhere in between is the same thing as not bothering to study, investigate or consider other possibilities prior to making the call that an alien craft was responsible. You have not provided any examples where any ufologist has simply jumped to an alien coclusion without first studying the case and considering mundane explanations ... this is the "stopping in between" that we are talking about.

Here is my response as a ufologist to the example you gave:

The Washington UFO flap of 1952 was heavily investigated. Those ufologists who believe that alien craft were involved stopped at several "points between" before arriving at their conclusion. For example were the glowing balls of light that the USAF pilot watched as they encircled his jet simply birds? ... Radar reflections? ... Balloons? ... Airplanes? ... Flares? ... Celestial phenomena? ... Hallucinations? Do any of these explanations fit the descriptions of these objects or phenomena? The answer is no. So what were they? Several possibilities have been considered and eliminated. Could they have been alien craft? Yes. Do we have proof? No. Does that mean they weren't alien craft? No. What other reasonable explanations are there?

Perhaps you can tell us?

 

[Sledge]

What makes you think they could have been alien craft? Please come up with an explanation that cannot equally be used for unicorns, giant floating testicles or Team Laser Explosion taking to the skies to do battle.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You are missing the point. Jumping from the first possible explanation to the most extreme "solution" without stopping anywhere in between is the same thing as not bothering to study, investigate or consider other possibilities prior to making the call that an alien craft was responsible. You have not provided any examples where any ufologist has simply jumped to an alien coclusion without first studying the case and considering mundane explanations ... this is the "stopping in between" that we are talking about.

Here is my response as a ufologist to the example you gave:

The Washington UFO flap of 1952 was heavily investigated. Those ufologists who believe that alien craft were involved stopped at several "points between" before arriving at their conclusion. For example were the glowing balls of light that the USAF pilot watched as they encircled his jet simply birds? ... Radar reflections? ... Balloons? ... Airplanes? ... Flares? ... Celestial phenomena? ... Hallucinations? Do any of these explanations fit the descriptions of these objects or phenomena? The answer is no. So what were they? Several possibilities have been considered and eliminated. Could they have been alien craft? Yes. Do we have proof? No. Does that mean they weren't alien craft? No. What other reasonable explanations are there?Perhaps you can tell us?

At which point, given we have no evidence they exist, or would explain the phenomona you describe if they did exist, did you assume Alien Craft to be counted as a reasonable explanation?

And since when did "Well gee, I can't think of anything else" become a good reason to assume it was an Alien craft? Or anything else?

Or to be more precise "Well gee, hallucinations, celestial phenomona and good old fashioned psychology of leading questions and narrative memories WOULD explain what people claim they thought they saw, but I don't like that explanation so I don't buy anything other than Aliens..." as your post seems to suggest. None of the other explanations match the descriptions in your subjective opinion.


Besides which, do you have any proof there even WAS anything for those people to claim to have seen?

 

[Akhenaten]

What other reasonable explanations are there?

Other??? Reasonable???

 

[ehcks]

You are missing the point. Jumping from the first possible explanation to the most extreme "solution" without stopping anywhere in between is the same thing as not bothering to study, investigate or consider other possibilities prior to making the call that an alien craft was responsible.

This is irony, right? I think it is, but I'm never sure anymore.

You're the one jumping from the first possible explanation, that it's an entirely mundane event, to the most extreme "solution," that it's something we've never had any evidence for.

You have no evidence that aliens visit Earth. You have no evidence that aliens are capable of visiting Earth. You can't even show evidence that aliens exist. You can't use something that, as far as evidence shows, doesn't exist as an explanation for anything.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I suspect what UFOlogy is describing are CLAIMED UFO sightings over Washington, and one of the "points between" they forgot to stop at was material evidence of there having been an object for people to have seen.

Or "Validation of the claim", if you will.