UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[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.

 

[Stray Cat]

Come on, he is not jumping to conclusions on which specific alien race or mission parameters just from an UFO report.
That is at least some restraint.

We can leave it in the capable hands of Clifford Stone to explain how he has managed to identify 57 different species (varieties) of aliens.

 

[EHocking]

Come on, he is not jumping to conclusions on which specific alien race or mission parameters just from an UFO report.
That is at least some restraint.

I think Toke simply meant, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that ufology hasn't quite gone the whole nine yards yet and attempted to name the exact planet* that his aliens hail from, that being "most extreme conclusion".

Yeah, I got that - I just didn't want to give Ufology that amount of weasel room to play with.

 

[Resume]

What does your comment have to do with the issue of ufologists "jumping to conclusions"?

It's pointing out that's what you guys do.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yeah, I got that - I just didn't want to give Ufology that amount of weasel room to play with.

​

 

[Toke]

Well, this is true, but following Floggy-Logic to its logical (?) conclusion, it would not be unreasonable for us to ask our resident ufologist why he doesn't make an attempt to specify the planetary or celestial home of a particular UFO. Why is this, ufology?

Yes, why show such restraint?
When you have accepted the idea of alien craft as the default hypothesis I don't see what stops you from making up e.g. 57 alien races to pick from.

Compare to the church who have something like 9 angelic choirs with assorted titles for members of each.

We can leave it in the capable hands of Clifford Stone to explain how he has managed to identify 57 different species (varieties) of aliens.

Ok, I kind of missed the actual explanation part.

ETA: As the Pharao pointed out I were not quite serious, just wanted to point out how Ufology apparently see himself as one of the serious flyingsaucerologists that does not go completely overboard with the alien classification.

 

[Correa Neto]

Fear not! 57 alien species are no match for the Republican Space Rangers!
Warning: NSFW youtubbie linkie
http://m.youtube.com/watch?desktop_uri=/watch?v=aOcWx8j-Ogw&v=aOcWx8j-Ogw&gl=CA

 

[23_Tauri]

Yes, why show such restraint?
When you have accepted the idea of alien craft as the default hypothesis I don't see what stops you from making up e.g. 57 alien races to pick from.

Well quite. If Clifford Stone and Steven Greer know enough about the 57 varieties that they know which ETs can detect colour with their - alien - eyes closed, and have, or know people who have, studied alien vehicles to the extent where the military can manufacture (quote) "alien reproduction vehicles", then why can't ufologists, after their years of painstaking study, differentiate between the different alien vehicles as seen in our skies? Huh? Huh, ufology?

 

[Akhenaten]

Yeah, witch alien is witch, Mr Fology?

 

[GeeMack]

Come on, he is not jumping to conclusions on which specific alien race or mission parameters just from an UFO report.
That is at least some restraint.

Perhaps only because the typical "ufologist" doesn't possess the imagination or apply the creativity necessary to get beyond the starting point of "UFO = aliens". Look at the simple J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax we've seen described in this thread and perpetrated under the "Murphy, Joseph Randall" tale on the pseudoscience book pedlar site and alien believers club, the Ufology Society International. Not a stitch of creativity in that hoax. Run of the mill unimaginative drivel. (Although talking to giant rabbits when he was a kid and the paranoid fear of being stalked by the Men In Black are nice touches, even if cliché.)

"Ufology" tales, as told by the mainstream faithful, are a dime a dozen.

 

[Toke]

So he is not showing restraint or trying to look serious, but just unimaginative.
I am kind of disappointed.

 

[EHocking]

So he is not showing restraint or trying to look serious,

He's an apologist for the pseudoscience dubbed ufology. What he's been trying to do is give the appearance of restraint and serious consideration, but it is mere dissembling.

but just unimaginative.

VERY unimaginative.
How many threads have been started by a "skeptic", only to have their agenda slowly unfold as their posts are ripped to pieces by logical argument? It has been merely an attempt to buy himself some credibility on the threads by disengenously declaring his position is that of a sceptical researcher.

I am kind of disappointed.

I'm impressed by the other poster's stamina in continuing to respond to him.

 

[ufology]

Rubbish.

Here is your definition of UFO on your site.

The resulting new definition for UFO is as follows:
UFO or ufo
​

Pronounciation: yoo-ef-oh ( plural UFOs ) or yoo-foe ( plural ufos ) noun

1. A craft of alien origin.
​

2.The object or phenomenon that is the focus of a UFO report or investigation.
​

For you to argue that "ufologists" don't take the a priori assumption that UFO=alien, by quoting other people's definition of the acronym, is disingenuous.

What happened to addressing the argument and not the arguer? There is nothing disingenuous in quoting other ufologists definitions when ufologists in general are we are talking about, especially ones from historical interest groups that have played a significant role.

On the topic of the definition. Provided that one keeps the usage within its proper context there are no issues. For example one might be of the opinion that UFOs do not exist and/or have never visited Earth while others might be of another opinion. Whatever the case may be, the definition is only providing a clear and unambiguous description of the subject matter. In other words, it's simply being used to delineate the topic of discussion, not to "jump to conclusions" or "define UFO into existence".

Lastly when used in the context of a UFO report ( as in 2. above ), there is no preconceived opinion about the nature of the object other than it requires further study. I hopes thgis helps to clarify.

 

[RoboTimbo]

What happened to addressing the argument and not the arguer? There is nothing disingenuous in quoting other ufologists definitions when ufologists in general are we are talking about, especially ones from historical interest groups that have played a significant role.

How was that addressing the arguer?

On the topic of the definition. Provided that one keeps the usage within its proper context there are no issues. For example one might be of the opinion that UFOs do not exist and/or have never visited Earth while others might be of another opinion. Whatever the case may be, the definition is only providing a clear and unambiguous description of the subject matter. In other words, it's simply being used to delineate the topic of discussion, not to "jump to conclusions" or "define UFO into existence".

No, you are misrepresenting your own position here. You define UFO to equal Alien Space Ship so that you can try to define them into existence. It also illustrates that you jump to your conclusion that UFO=Alien Space Ship while there has never been any evidence that any UFO has been an Alien Space Ship.

Lastly when used in the context of a UFO report ( as in 2. above ), there is no preconceived opinion about the nature of the object other than it requires further study. I hopes thgis helps to clarify.

No, it doesn't help clarify since you were actually intending to obfuscate further. You have a preconceived idea which you've leapt to without justification or evidence that UFO=Alien Space Ship.

I hope that helps clarify for you and therefore you won't repeat the mistake.

 

[Akhenaten]

What happened to addressing the argument and not the arguer?

What in the name of fortune are you on about?

There is nothing disingenuous in quoting other ufologists definitions when ufologists in general are we are talking about, especially ones from historical interest groups that have played a significant role.

What's disingenuous is quoting someone else's valid definition and pretending it's the one you use yourself.

<waffle>

I hopes thgis helps to clarify.

How would it? It's nonsense.

 

[Sideroxylon]

What happened to addressing the argument and not the arguer? There is nothing disingenuous in quoting other ufologists definitions when ufologists in general are we are talking about, especially ones from historical interest groups that have played a significant role.

On the topic of the definition. Provided that one keeps the usage within its proper context there are no issues. For example one might be of the opinion that UFOs do not exist and/or have never visited Earth while others might be of another opinion. Whatever the case may be, the definition is only providing a clear and unambiguous description of the subject matter. In other words, it's simply being used to delineate the topic of discussion, not to "jump to conclusions" or "define UFO into existence".

Lastly when used in the context of a UFO report ( as in 2. above ), there is no preconceived opinion about the nature of the object other than it requires further study. I hopes thgis helps to clarify.

All reports of objects in the sky deemed by observers to be of a form matching no known natural phenomena or man made object, or deemed not behaving in a manner consistent with any known object/phenomena, while deemed to be exhibiting elements a priori assumed to be features or behavioral characteristics of the alien craft, are the alien craft.

Mr Ufology, this is a paraphrasing of a position that you have repeatedly argued for in your UFO=OMG, Aliens definition. As you point out I can call a chicken any label I like provided I declare it before hand. I could even make subsequent changes if I wished by following the same protocol. But this is not what is happening when I declare that an unknown entity is of a category of unproven things.

 

[Stray Cat]

ETA: As the Pharao pointed out I were not quite serious, just wanted to point out how Ufology apparently see himself as one of the serious flyingsaucerologists that does not go completely overboard with the alien classification.

I know you're not being quite serious mate.
It's difficult to take anything offered by Mr Foo seriously.

I just wanted to point out some UFOlogists not only jump to the conclusion of OMG Aliens!!!, but have also fabricated an unevidenced plethora of those aliens divided into species. It's silly and it puts the lie to Mr Fossil Gout's claim that it doesn't happen. Not only does it happen but it happens very high profile (high profile in the small word of UFOlogy that is).

 

[ufology]

All reports of objects in the sky deemed by observers to be of a form matching no known natural phenomena or man made object, or deemed not behaving in a manner consistent with any known object/phenomena, while deemed to be exhibiting elements a priori assumed to be features or behavioral characteristics of the alien craft, are the alien craft.

Mr Ufology, this is a paraphrasing of a position that you have repeatedly argued for in your UFO=OMG, Aliens definition. As you point out I can call a chicken any label I like provided I declare it before hand. I could even make subsequent changes if I wished by following the same protocol. But this is not what is happening when I declare that an unknown entity is of a category of unproven things.

And your point exactly is what?

Perhaps you might also consider losing the mockery by doing away with that little catch phrase "UFO=OMG Aliens" ... maybe make it a New Year's resolution or something.

 

[Sideroxylon]

And your point exactly is what?

Perhaps you might also consider losing the mockery by doing away with that little catch phrase "UFO=OMG Aliens" ... maybe make it a New Year's resolution or something.

It is a caricature of what you have been doıng, is it not? If you don't like the caricature, refer to the formal paraphrasing that I used in the beginning of my post. Are you going to be continuing this line in the new year or are your recent posts a move to distance yourself from it?

 

[ufology]

I know you're not being quite serious mate.
It's difficult to take anything offered by Mr Foo seriously.

I just wanted to point out some UFOlogists not only jump to the conclusion of OMG Aliens!!!, but have also fabricated an unevidenced plethora of those aliens divided into species. It's silly and it puts the lie to Mr Fossil Gout's claim that it doesn't happen. Not only does it happen but it happens very high profile (high profile in the small word of UFOlogy that is).

There is a differrence between jumping to the conclusion of alien visitation and jumping to that conclusion without stopping at any points between, which was the original assertion. There is also a difference between jumping to a conclusion of alien visitation and holding an opinion based on personal experience and/or study. I've also made it clear that ufologists who exploit and exaggerate UFO reports for media attention or in some other way act irresponsibly ( like fabricate reports ) should not be seen as the norm nor be recognized as legitimate anymore than scientists who fabricate data. In other words it's not fair to brand the entire field based on the actions of those who mar its character.