UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[tsig]

Are you aware of, or can you provide any objective evidence for claims that assert WTFAliens? Because if you aren't, if you can't, you are holding an empty sack.

Joe the farmer, an honest man, swears there's a pig in it and we have an infrared image of a pig in there, numerous people have seen pigs in sacks so why don't you believe I have a pig in this poke?

You pseudo skeptics probably don't even believe in bacon.

 

[Resume]

Joe the farmer, an honest man, swears there's a pig in it and we have an infrared image of a pig in there, numerous people have seen pigs in sacks so why don't you believe I have a pig in this poke?

You pseudo skeptics probably don't even believe in bacon.

Tell you what, produce that bacon and we'll talk. I have an experiment in mind that involves scrambled eggs with cheddar and chives.

 

[tsig]

I make a point of never making disparaging remarks about girls with wands in their hands lest I get newted.

You may get better but you never really get over it.

 

[AdMan]

Physical evidence may be required for one person to prove their case to some other people, but it is not required for the person who had the firsthand experience ... for the person who observed the "physical evidence" in action. But even if you insist that it does, then one's own memory still doesn't have to be perfect to know that what was observed was not a natural or manmade object or phenomenon.

Have you not read any one of the articles linked to in this thread on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony or the fallibility of memory? Different eyewitnesses describing the same event can have very different memories of what happened--and each of them may be thoroughly convinced that their own memory is correct.

Further, each recollection, each retelling of that memory, can reshape it, adding or subtracting details. Human memory is fallible and malleable, and cannot be relied upon to be an accurate representation of what (if anything) actually happened, especially as more time goes by.

You may actually have seen something, or you may have dreamt or imagined something 40 years ago. Today, without any additional evidence, there is no way to tell what part, if any, of that memory is true. If you understood how memory works, you would understand that even for the person who experienced the "evidence", the memory may be wildly inaccurate.

It is a grave mistake for even the person with "firsthand experience" to think that no further evidence is required.

 

[Bitsko]

When I was young, I saw bright flying objects every day and night, and oftentimes they were very loud and very fast moving. But then again, I'm an Air Force brat.

 

[ufology]

Have you not read any one of the articles linked to in this thread on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony or the fallibility of memory? Different eyewitnesses describing the same event can have very different memories of what happened--and each of them may be thoroughly convinced that their own memory is correct.

Further, each recollection, each retelling of that memory, can reshape it, adding or subtracting details. Human memory is fallible and malleable, and cannot be relied upon to be an accurate representation of what (if anything) actually happened, especially as more time goes by.

You may actually have seen something, or you may have dreamt or imagined something 40 years ago. Today, without any additional evidence, there is no way to tell what part, if any, of that memory is true. If you understood how memory works, you would understand that even for the person who experienced the "evidence", the memory may be wildly inaccurate.

It is a grave mistake for even the person with "firsthand experience" to think that no further evidence is required.

I don't claim that a single person with firsthand experience is enough evidence to convince anyone who has not shared the same or similar experience. If you review, you will see that I only claim that a single firsthand experience may be enough to convince the firsthand experiencer. Even then I admit that not all firsthand experiences contain enough information to form an accurate evaluation and therefore faulty conclusions from firsthand witnesses are both possible and probable.

However when an experience does provide enough information to exclude with very high probability, every other explanation, then the experiencer is left with all that remains. I believe that many people are in this unenviable situation. So the question is what can be done about it?

From a "research and evidence" point of view, is it not possible for skeptics to presume for the sake of investigation that the state of affairs described above could be true and help devise some way to bridge the gap? Surely given all the reason and science that the skeptics here purport to support, they could come up with something better than ignoring and/or dismissing the issues and the people associated with these experiences?

 

[ufology]

It's getting close to midnight here in Calgary, so I'm signing off for now and wish everyone on the forum an excellent and better new year and look forward to participating here again in 2012.

 

[ehcks]

From a "research and evidence" point of view, is it not possible for skeptics to presume for the sake of investigation that the state of affairs described above could be true and help devise some way to bridge the gap?

Well, no. It's quite a loaded question, though. Even pretending aliens do exist as claimed in the crazy stories, what can we gain?

What gap is there to bridge? Supposedly the aliens break the laws of physics to fly their ships. That's impossible by definition, and so it's completely useless.

And how can we learn anything from something we've never interacted with? That we're incapable of interacting with? That only "exists" because we pretend it does?

Breaking the laws of physics either requires magic, or requires technology so advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic. What can we gain by pretending magic exists?

 

[Stray Cat]

What can we gain by pretending magic exists?

Nothing particularly good... mostly just a big pile of burned Witches.

 

[23_Tauri]

The physics indicates it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate even a single massive particle to the speed of light, and that's why only massless particles can travel at that speed. So lightspeed travel is out of the question, according to the science.

Acceleration is the rate of increase in an object's velocity. That depends on its linear momentum (its mass multiplied by its velocity), the amount of force applied to increase that momentum, and the amount of time that the given amount of force would require to increase that momentum by a given amount.

Without getting into the specific math, Newtonian physics also proves that the faster an object is already traveling, the more force and/or time it requires to accelerate it even faster; as it accelerates, a constant amount of force will have diminishing returns toward accelerating it faster over time, and constant acceleration requires an increase in force over time. Then you've got to factor in relativistic physics, which indicates that the object's mass actually increases as it approaches c (at which point it would theoretically have infinite mass). I haven't actually crunched the numbers, but suffice to say that accelerating a macro-scale object like a spacecraft up to near the speed of light ends up being a balance somewhere in the middle between astronomical energy levels and cosmic time frames.

Then you've got to factor in the g forces of acceleration and those effects on the structure of the craft and its passengers.

And don't forget, once you've accelerated to that near-light speed, then you've got to be able to decelerate as you approach your destination, which in a vacuum would require just as much energy as it did to accelerate in the first place.

Thank you very much for this post, John A, a dose of real science was definitely in order.

So floggy, returning to your post #15772, if we ignore your incorrect assertion that "interstellar travel is scientifically plausible", what you got left? From where I'm standing, belief in faster-than-light travelling aliens is beginning to look a little superstitious:

su·per·sti·tion (spr-stshn)
n.
1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2. a. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.b. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
c. Idolatry.

A slam dunk for Team Witch?

 

[23_Tauri]

Nothing particularly good... mostly just a big pile of burned Witches.

 

[Jocce]

a single firsthand experience may be enough to convince the firsthand experiencer.

There is a reason why repeatability is one of the cornerstones of science.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Unfortunately people are well known to misinterpret their first hand experiences. Or to revise their recollections. Like the height of the "orb"changing, the size changing, and the apparent ability to discern something is a craft from looking at a point of light.

 

[Akhenaten]

Physical evidence may be required for one person to prove provide evidence for their case to some other people, but it is not required for the person who had the firsthand experience ... for the person who observed the "physical evidence" in action.

Back to living in your own private Idaho, are you?

There's no such thing as individual realities, Mr Fology. There's just the one objective reality that we all share and it operates according to a single set of physical evidence.

You may not "require" that your personal reality be accepted as part of the community one, but as long as you keep insisting on its validity you're going to have to get used to being something of a target, especially if you're going to persist with your new hobby of parading your fantasy around here at Slings and Arrows 'R' Us.

But even if you insist that it does, then one's own memory still doesn't have to be perfect to know that what was observed was not a natural or manmade object or phenomenon.

One doesn't need a memory at all. One could just as easily make one's story up on the spot.

Without evidence, Mr Fology, it's just a story and whether you made it up five seconds or forty years ago it has exactly the same value.

Sheer accelleration, distance covered and repeated precise maneuvers are more than sufficient.

Stories about sheer acceleration (please note the spelling), distance covered and repeated precise maneuvers are a whole different kettle of space fishies. They suffice only to cast their narrator in a strange light.

Exact dates, times, positions of the moon, what music was playing, or precise measurements are not relevant.

Not if one is spinning a fairytale - Little Blue Riding Hood works as well as anything and who cares whether the witch in Hansel and Gretel lived in a butterscotch house or a barley sugar one?

But when one is claiming to present evidence that will require us all to reassess our position in the Universe then the devil is most definitely in the details.

ECREE, Mr Ufology.

For example whether an object has accellerated from zero to 10,000 or 20,000, or 25,000 Kmh in in about 1 second makes no difference to the basic question ... how is such a thing possible ... for anything, let alone anything manmade?

What matters is whether the object even existed in the first place.

No matter how many times you attempts to gloss over barge straight through this point, it's not going to go away.

And if it is possible, do those circumstances fit the circumstances observed? Those who want to simply reject accounts that don't have explanations that fit what we know are certainly entitled to do that, but I'm more interested in hearing from people who have seen similar things and can offer explanations that fit the situation ...

You're only interested in hearing from people who have seen similar things and exclaimed "OMG . . . aliens!"

You are, quite simply, in the wrong forum.

... not explanations that require changing several aspects of the story ( e.g. fireflies ).

Are you at last beginning to see the problem with trying to use anecdotes (which is to say, claims) as evidence?

 

[Garrison]

What can we gain by pretending magic exists?

Willow Rosenberg and the Haliwell sisters.

 

[Akhenaten]

I don't claim that a single person with firsthand experience is enough evidence to convince anyone who has not shared the same or similar experience.

Then what do you hope to achieve by relating such firsthand experiences fairytales, either here or at your flying saucer club?

What it looks like is that you hope to overturn the axiom that the plural of anecdotes isn't evidence. You won't.

If you review, you will see that I only claim that a single firsthand experience may be enough to convince the firsthand experiencer.

If that glaringly obvious point was your only claim it would have been a fairly short discussion, now wouldn't it?

Trouble is that what you really want to claim that these little individual realities add up to one great big reality that has alien flying saucers zipping about in it.

Even then I admit that not all firsthand experiences contain enough information to form an accurate evaluation and therefore faulty conclusions from firsthand witnesses are both possible and probable.

They're not firsthand experiences, Mr Fology. They're stories.

However when an experience does provide enough information to exclude with very high probability, every other explanation, then the experiencer is left with all that remains.

What utter drivel.

Since you've already been told why about a million times I think I'll leave it at that.

I believe that many people are in this unenviable situation. So the question is what can be done about it?

David Icke.com

Would you like a link?

From a "research and evidence" point of view, is it not possible for skeptics to presume for the sake of investigation that the state of affairs described above could be true and help devise some way to bridge the gap?

Bridging the gap between reality and the fantasy world of aliens and flying saucers is what Hollywood is for. Skeptics aren't interested and ufailogists suck at it, so why not leave it with the professionals?

Surely given all the reason and science that the skeptics here purport to support, they could come up with something better than ignoring and/or dismissing the issues and the people associated with these experiences?

The reason and science that the skeptics here really do support are what helps them to know that ignoring the wittering of those who can't tell fact from fiction is the right thing to do.

 

[23_Tauri]

I don't claim that a single person with firsthand experience is enough evidence to convince anyone who has not shared the same or similar experience. If you review, you will see that I only claim that a single firsthand experience may be enough to convince the firsthand experiencer. Even then I admit that not all firsthand experiences contain enough information to form an accurate evaluation and therefore faulty conclusions from firsthand witnesses are both possible and probable.

However when an experience does provide enough information to exclude with very high probability, every other explanation, then the experiencer is left with all that remains. I believe that many people are in this unenviable situation. So the question is what can be done about it?

I'll tell you what can be done about the problems of memory and memory recall: by giving witness testimony without corroborating evidence very little weight indeed. And can we refer to these people as "eye witnesses" rather than the flowery and somewhat emotive "experiencers" please?

How many times have you been told this on this thread? Another poster (sorry, can't remember who you were) posted this papar, called The Problem with Eye Witness Testimony. Please read it, Foll.

Your recollection of the events of the night in the mountains in 1974 aren't worth diddly-squat, mate. You might think you "know what you saw" and that your memory of the event hasn't been sullied by bias and re-telling over the years, but you don't and it has.

How about giving you an example of someone else who is convinced that "he knows what he saw"? Akhenaten mentioned David Icke, and it reminded me of reading Icke's account of the day he was interviewing Ted Heath (former Britsh Prime Minister) and Mr Heath started to shape-shift into a lizard in front of David's very eyes. Now, Icke believes this actually happened. Nothing can persuade David that he didn't actually see Ted Heath turn into a reptilian alien. Why is this? Is it because:

a) Memory is fallible and believing powerful people are members of an alien race is part of Icke's belief system; or
b) David Icke is insane; or
c) Ted Heath really did turn into a reptilian over-lord.

Which one do you think is most likely, ufol?

From a "research and evidence" point of view, is it not possible for skeptics to presume for the sake of investigation that the state of affairs described above could be true and help devise some way to bridge the gap? Surely given all the reason and science that the skeptics here purport to support, they could come up with something better than ignoring and/or dismissing the issues and the people associated with these experiences?

No. If we start trying to conflate fantasy and science we'll start believing in science fiction, and you wouldn't want that now, would you folo?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Have you not read any one of the articles linked to in this thread on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony or the fallibility of memory?

I don't claim that a single person with firsthand experience is enough evidence to convince anyone who has not shared the same or similar experience. If you review, you will see that I only claim that a single firsthand experience may be enough to convince the firsthand experiencer. Even then I admit that not all firsthand experiences contain enough information to form an accurate evaluation and therefore faulty conclusions from firsthand witnesses are both possible and probable.

However when an experience does provide enough information to exclude with very high probability, every other explanation, then the experiencer is left with all that remains. I believe that many people are in this unenviable situation. So the question is what can be done about it?

From a "research and evidence" point of view, is it not possible for skeptics to presume for the sake of investigation that the state of affairs described above could be true and help devise some way to bridge the gap? Surely given all the reason and science that the skeptics here purport to support, they could come up with something better than ignoring and/or dismissing the issues and the people associated with these experiences?

It would have been faster and more honest for you just to type No. It is dishonest of you to ignore the question asked and answer one that wasn't asked.

Maybe your New Year's resolution can be to reply honestly.

 

[23_Tauri]

It would have been faster and more honest of Mr Foo to have simply read the articles.

 

[EHocking]

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.

More dissembling.

We were discussing YOUR redefinition of UFO=Aliens and your attempts at dissembling by the exact argument in the quote above.

<snip more dissembling>

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.

More dissembling.

You, I and every other reader of this thread knows exactly which of your attempts at redefining the acronym UFO we were discussing.

And that it is your a priori stance that UFO=Alien.

1.A craft of alien origin.
​

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.

Yet more dissembling.
From your website:

EBE
Acronym for Extraterrestrial Biological Entity.. EBEs are generally thought to be the occupants of UFOs. Most are humanoid. There are several types, the most familiar being the so-called Grays.
​

The above clearly demonstrates your firm belief that EBEs are occupants of UFOs and that UFOs=Aliens.

That you persist in in misrepresenting your true beliefs on this thread is disingenuous.