UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

For the "umpteenth time" anecdotal evidence is evidence.

No matter how many times you put your fingers in your ears and repeat it, they still are claims, not evidence. Your story is just one in a long line of dissimilar stories with no basis in truth.

It is often used to provide direction for further investigation and to determine the liklihood of a given situation, particularly in the evaluation of medical treatments and legal cases.

They are also often used to perpetrate hoaxes. Do you see why anecdotal claims are not evidence?

In ufology anecdotal evidence a story is used to create statistical models and to reinforce case studies our preconceptions.

I had to fix a lot of your errors above.

For example if several unconnected witnesses all report seeing the same object at a particular time and location, it is likely that some sort of object was indeed seen. It would be irresponsible from an investigative standpoint to ignore this evidence simply because it is anecdotal.

So if several unconnected witnesses all report reading the same posts and seeing the story change over time, it's likely that the story is a hoax? You're saying it would be irresponsible to claim that the story is NOT a hoax?

 

[ufology]

And why is your evidence for aliens any better than my evidence for witches? As pointed out to you earlier in this thread, thousands of people have had first hand experience of witches over the centuries, have seen them flying, performing acts of superhuman trickery in the skies. Why don't you accept that evidence? It's no better or worse than your evidence for alien space ships.


Where have I misrepresented you? You believe some UFOs are Alien Space Ships, right?


I too ignore flames, after they were used to kill all my relatives back in the 1580s.


As long as others accommodate your belief in UFOs being Alien Space Ships? Is that what you mean?

Q. Why is your evidence for aliens any better than my evidence for witches?
A. If you want to believe in witches go ahead. The issue here is UFOs and alien visitation, and there is no scientific reason that aliens and alien visitation isn't plausible. In fact the ETH evolved out of a scientific understanding that there are other planets and solar systems and that interstellar travel is scientifically plausible. It's not based on superstition or religion. On the other hand, supernatural claims like witchery are based on superstition or religion that often defies any logic or scientific plausibility. UFOs have also been seen by many non-superstitious witnesses during the course of duty ( pilots for example ) and have been measured by objective means such as radar. By contrast, what may have been interpreted as witches by witnesses in the past, prior to humanity realizing that air and space travel is possible, or that meteors are from space, is that witnesses who say they saw witches, may have seen some natural object or phenomenon and misinterpreted it in the context of their cultural background.

Q. Where have I misrepresented you?
A. You might be confusing yourself with a reply to another poster who claimed I was jumping to conclusions and fabricating evidence. Those are misrepresentations.

Q. You believe some UFOs are Alien Space Ships, right?
A. I believe the objects in some UFO reports represent alien craft. Whether they are piloted by EBEs or come from space are other questions for which I have no firm beliefs pro or con.

Q. As long as others accommodate your belief in UFOs being Alien Space Ships? Is that what you mean?
A. Like I said, if you want to discuss the topic in an fair and constructive manner, then you will find that I will be quite accommodating. This post is an example. As for the suggestion that I require others to accomodate my beliefs, the only belief I would like to see accommodated is that mockery, flaming, ridicule and other forms of cyber-bullying and personal attacks should be avoided. You may recall that I originally came here seeking skeptical input on case studies and current events. I still welcome that input.

 

[Akhenaten]

I don't see how he thinks the personal accounts on his website do anything for his credibility as any kind of researcher. Accounts of talking rabbits and a spaceship that he experienced as a seven-year-old. It seems very naive to me.

I only know of one other poster who displays such scant regard for his own credibility.

 

[23_Tauri]

Is it irresponsible to ignore the stories one hears about witches?

What have you heard?! Don't believe it! It wasn't me outside that nightclub at 3am, honest....

 

[Resume]

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.

I've already started using WTFAliens!

 

[23_Tauri]

Q. Why is your evidence for aliens any better than my evidence for witches?
A. If you want to believe in witches go ahead. The issue here is UFOs and alien visitation, and there is no scientific reason that aliens and alien visitation isn't plausible. In fact the ETH evolved out of a scientific understanding that there are other planets and solar systems and that interstellar travel is scientifically plausible.

No, to our knowledge there is no “scientifically plausible” method of interstellar space travel, not now and certainly not back in the 1950s when the first myths about flying saucers were promulgated through the popular media.

It’s only in the last 12 months that we’ve discovered other planets in near space that reside in a zone which would make them capable of harbouring life, so again you are wrong to conclude that there is evidence of alien life elsewhere in the universe. Possible, but not evidentially so.

It's not based on superstition or religion. On the other hand, supernatural claims like witchery are based on superstition or religion that often defies any logic or scientific plausibility.

It is as scientifically plausible that there is a secret society of females who have knowledge of technology advanced enough to create luminous flying machines, as it is that aliens with advanced technology have travelled across light years of interstellar space in order to visit planet Earth.
Unless one can demonstrate that such technology is possible, and exists, then in either case – witches or aliens – one is indulging in nothing more than idle speculation.

And, seeing as you imply that your belief in UFOs being alien space ships is based on “logic and scientific plausibility”, how do you know that witches don’t come from Earth?

UFOs have also been seen by many non-superstitious witnesses during the course of duty ( pilots for example ) and have been measured by objective means such as radar.

But as we all keep pointing out to you, UFOs havenb't been proven to be alien space ships.

By contrast, what may have been interpreted as witches by witnesses in the past, prior to humanity realizing that air and space travel is possible, or that meteors are from space, is that witnesses who say they saw witches, may have seen some natural object or phenomenon and misinterpreted it in the context of their cultural background.

Air and space travel as far as the moon is possible, Mr Foo. As far as we know, interstellar travel is about as possible as creating a broomstick that can fly whilst carrying a sorceress.

A. I believe the objects in some UFO reports represent alien craft. Whether they are piloted by EBEs or come from space are other questions for which I have no firm beliefs pro or con.

Noted. Thank you.

 

[Resume]

In ufology anecdotal evidence is used . . .

Incorrectly, it's used incorrectly. It's a claim that the claimant needs to support with actual evidence.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I've already started using WTFAliens!

The domain name seems unregistered too!

 

[ufology]

I only know of one other poster who displays such scant regard for his own credibility.

Yes Akhenaten you are correct. Posting my childhood experiences and the other unusual experiences I have had over the years does indeed affect my credibility in the eyes of those who automatically judge my character based on those incidents alone, especially if they are judged in the context of preconceived negative opinions about people who have experienced similar things.

However if someone takes the time to consider the incidents in an anthropological context, I'm far from being the only one to experience unusual things, and I offer my own accounts of these experiences for the purpose of those who find them useful in such studies.

To help put them in context, I also say, "The only conclusion I've drawn about these experiences is that some UFOs represent an advanced alien transportation technology. Anything else is pure speculation." I don't know how to explain them all, but that doesn't mean that they should be ignored or repressed either.

No doubt there are many people who have also had unusual experiences who do not come forward because of fear of ridicule or other poor treatment. I think that is a shame because such experiences may help those who study them learn new things about the nature of our consciousness or perhaps even other things that fall outside our present understanding.

 

[TjW]

Q. Why is your evidence for aliens any better than my evidence for witches?
A. If you want to believe in witches go ahead. The issue here is UFOs and alien visitation, and there is no scientific reason that aliens and alien visitation isn't plausible. In fact the ETH evolved out of a scientific understanding that there are other planets and solar systems and that interstellar travel is scientifically plausible. It's not based on superstition or religion. On the other hand, supernatural claims like witchery are based on superstition or religion that often defies any logic or scientific plausibility. UFOs have also been seen by many non-superstitious witnesses during the course of duty ( pilots for example ) and have been measured by objective means such as radar. By contrast, what may have been interpreted as witches by witnesses in the past, prior to humanity realizing that air and space travel is possible, or that meteors are from space, is that witnesses who say they saw witches, may have seen some natural object or phenomenon and misinterpreted it in the context of their cultural background.

The question is not about beliefs. It is about evidence.
What is the difference in the evidence? The evidence for witches is actually better, because not only were claims made, and investigated, but it was actually determined by relevant authority, that a particular person was a witch.

You have a tendency to conflate "remotely possible, in some theoretical sense of the word possible" with plausible.

If you want to argue that interstellar travel is plausible, because not everything about physics is known, then it's just as plausible that there are people with witch powers, such powers being described perfectly well by a portion of that physics which is not known.

 

[Akhenaten]

Q. Why is your evidence for aliens any better than my evidence for witches?

A. If you want to believe in witches go ahead.

I can't imagine what makes you think that answer goes with that question.

The issue here is UFOs and alien visitation, and there is no scientific reason that aliens and alien visitation isn't plausible.

No.

The issue is actually just UFOs. All the nonsense about alien visitation is just you trying to promote your hobby, or whatever it is.

As to the plausibility question, you're wasting your time even more than usual since nobody has really argued against it.

In fact the ETH evolved out of a scientific understanding that there are other planets and solar systems and that interstellar travel is scientifically plausible. It's not based on superstition or religion. On the other hand, supernatural claims like witchery are based on superstition or religion that often defies any logic or scientific plausibility. UFOs have also been seen by many non-superstitious witnesses during the course of duty ( pilots for example ) and have been measured by objective means such as radar. By contrast, what may have been interpreted as witches by witnesses in the past, prior to humanity realizing that air and space travel is possible, or that meteors are from space, is that witnesses who say they saw witches, may have seen some natural object or phenomenon and misinterpreted it in the context of their cultural background.

Just like witnesses who say they saw flying saucers.

It beggars belief that you refuse to see the analogy.

Q. Where have I misrepresented you?

A. You might be confusing yourself with a reply to another poster who claimed I was jumping to conclusions and fabricating evidence. Those are misrepresentations.

O rly?

His point is that you have as much evidence for UFOs being Alien Space Ships as I have for them being Little Miss Witchcraft, i.e. NONE.

If you weren't quite so disengenuous in your line of arguing, and answered other posters' questions instead of ducking and diving all the time, then perhaps other posters would be less inclined to resort to gentle mockery of your faith-based belief in aliens.

There is plenty of evidence, just none that is good enough for you. The rest of your accusations are nothing more than misrepresentations. I answer all the questions I can as fairly, openly and honestly as possible given the circumstances. I'm also not obligated to answer every question asked and I will often ignore posts containing flames or other pointless attacks or commentary. But if you want to discuss the topic in an fair and constructive manner, then you will find that I will be quite accommodating.

Someone's confused alright, but it doesn't seem to be the girl in the nice hat.

Q. You believe some UFOs are Alien Space Ships, right?

A. I believe the objects in some UFO reports represent alien craft. Whether they are piloted by EBEs or come from space are other questions for which I have no firm beliefs pro or con.

Some people believe that the witches in some witch reports have actual Witchy Powerz™.

You have no more evidence for your belief than they do.

Q. As long as others accommodate your belief in UFOs being Alien Space Ships? Is that what you mean?

A. Like I said, if you want to discuss the topic in an fair and constructive manner, then you will find that I will be quite accommodating.

<snip>

A simple 'Yes' would have sufficed.

 

[GeeMack]

[* Blathering snipped. *] 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.

If you didn't purposefully, insistently, and continuously try to equate UFOs with alien craft the above comment might carry some weight. But since that's not the case, the above comment is simply a repeated lie. Apparently honesty isn't worthy of consideration when it comes to the pseudoscience of "ufology".

 

[Akhenaten]

What have you heard?! Don't believe it! It wasn't me outside that nightclub at 3am, honest....

What I heard was this:

Yes, don't turn your back on me, baby
Don't mess around with your tricks
Don't turn your back on me, baby
'cause you might just wake up my magic sticks.​

But it might have just been the radio,

 

[Akhenaten]

I only know of one other poster who displays such scant regard for his own credibility.

Yes Akhenaten you are correct.

<waffle>

Well, yeah. It's a simple statement of my aquaintance with another member's posting history. How the hell could I get it wrong?

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

To help put them in context, I also say, "The only conclusion I've drawn about these experiences is that some UFOs represent an advanced alien transportation technology. Anything else is pure speculation."

<snip>

Anything else???

Geeze Louise.

 

[23_Tauri]

What I heard was this:

Yes, don't turn your back on me, baby
Don't mess around with your tricks
Don't turn your back on me, baby
'cause you might just wake up my magic sticks.​

But it might have just been the radio,

*puts away newt spell and gets out the 'turn into a devil' spell*

 

[GeeMack]

[* More blathering snipped. *] Like I said, if you want to discuss the topic in an fair and constructive manner, then you will find that I will be quite accommodating. This post is an example. As for the suggestion that I require others to accomodate my beliefs, the only belief I would like to see accommodated is that mockery, flaming, ridicule and other forms of cyber-bullying and personal attacks should be avoided. You may recall that I originally came here seeking skeptical input on case studies and current events. I still welcome that input.

Oh, get over it. You came here and right out of the chute you were blaming the skeptics for the dismal failure of "ufologists" to be honest and objective about their claims. You were busted for that dishonesty within the very first few of your posts. Yet you have continued to build dishonest argument on top of dishonest argument. Not once have your arguments involved honest and objective consideration of your belief that UFOs are aliens. Not once. The pretense is transparent. So knock off the persecution nonsense already. It hasn't ever worked, not for you any better than for any seven year old child who can't catch a ball but who insists on blaming the pitcher.

Here are two unequivocal facts you might try to wrap your head around: (1) You are not being persecuted. (2) Your preconceived and religiously fervent belief that UFOs equal aliens is nonsense, and the failure of your arguments to support it belongs to you and you alone. It is nobody else's fault that those arguments have failed. The failure is yours. You created it. You own it. The continued whining about it and dishonestly trying to blame other people is childish. Knock it off.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Yes Akhenaten you are correct. Posting my childhood experiences and the other unusual experiences I have had over the years does indeed affect my credibility in the eyes of those who automatically judge my character based on those incidents alone, especially if they are judged in the context of preconceived negative opinions about people who have experienced similar things.

However if someone takes the time to consider the incidents in an anthropological context, I'm far from being the only one to experience unusual things, and I offer my own accounts of these experiences for the purpose of those who find them useful in such studies.

To help put them in context, I also say, "The only conclusion I've drawn about these experiences is that some UFOs represent an advanced alien transportation technology. Anything else is pure speculation." I don't know how to explain them all, but that doesn't mean that they should be ignored or repressed either.

No doubt there are many people who have also had unusual experiences who do not come forward because of fear of ridicule or other poor treatment. I think that is a shame because such experiences may help those who study them learn new things about the nature of our consciousness or perhaps even other things that fall outside our present understanding.

We have just been again pointing out the problems with the highlighted line of thinking, haven't we.

One thing going about your profile on the website is a certain degree of honesty. There is still a lot of the boy and his UFO investigation club, isn't there.

A big problem I see with those stories is that you don't make any attempt at all to critically examine them. For example, do you think they could be dreams, misrememberings of childhood fantasy? Could the levitation be hypnagogic hallucinations?

 

[ufology]

The question is not about beliefs. It is about evidence.
What is the difference in the evidence? The evidence for witches is actually better, because not only were claims made, and investigated, but it was actually determined by relevant authority, that a particular person was a witch.

You have a tendency to conflate "remotely possible, in some theoretical sense of the word possible" with plausible.

If you want to argue that interstellar travel is plausible, because not everything about physics is known, then it's just as plausible that there are people with witch powers, such powers being described perfectly well by a portion of that physics which is not known.

In ufology the ETH is based on the scientific plausibility of interstellar travel ... travel that is plausible given known physics ... even known and partially proven technology. For example one of our own space probes is already in ( or about to enter, depending on your point of reference ) interstellar space. That was accomplished with science. If we can do it so could someone else on another planet, and if they are centuries ahead of us it is reasonable to suggest they could do it even better than us and have probably already have done it. No superstition or leap of faith is required and it is easy to see the obvious difference between this line of thinking and a belief in witchcraft. Trying to claim they are the same is faulty logic.

 

[Sideroxylon]

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - Douglas Adams