• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
ufology said:
The only time I've gotten "mad" is when I've been the target of cyber-bullying and harassment.
Click to expand...


... or when someone actually asks you simple questions that cut to the heart of the issue but your honest answers would rattle your faith based notion that some UFOs are alien craft...

ufology said:
GeeMack said:
A pile of rather smelly gibberish there, none of which addressed any of the questions I asked in any way. Ignorance of germane concerns seems as much a mainstay of the pseudoscience of "ufology" as dishonesty is.


I predicted there would be no honest answers to the questions I asked, questions directly addressing your post. And exactly as I predicted, there were no honest answers. There was ignorance and avoidance. There was a bunch of gibberish, the pretense of a relevant reply, but there was no relevant reply. Not a single question I asked was addressed, not even indirectly.

This year I will be exactly as quick to point out the lies, the waffling, the nonsense, the logical fallacies, the avoidance, and the ignorance that is common to the pseudoscience of "ufology". I will be just as quick to point out the feigned persecution, the whining, the dishonest redefinition of terms. And I will continue remind you and everyone else that you've made some pretty ridiculous claims that you're wholly unable to support. I will also remember, and remind you of the null hypothesis you created:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin."​

Now if there's a shred of honesty to be found within the pseudoscience, how about you go back to my post, which directly addressed several issues you brought up, and give us some honest answers to the few questions I asked... honest... for a change.

Or I suppose you could demonstrate that my prediction was exactly correct and that those questions, easy as they would be to answer, are too uncomfortable to be answered honestly by "UFOs = aliens" believers.
Click to expand...


OK GeeMack ... have it your way, don't be reasonable, and don't expect any responses from me for another hundred posts.
Click to expand...

So how about an honest answer for a change, no waffling, no feigned persecution, no dishonest deflecting the burden of proof. Just answer the question so we can all work from the same objective quantitative frame of reference...

Of all the things that were once unidentified apparently flying things, and which were eventually identified as a particular thing, how many of those things were identified as alien craft, either extraterrestrial or piloted by Earthly but heretofore undiscovered beings? How many, in numbers or percentages?
 
ufology said:
You get my point exactly. So either go debate homeopathy or accept that in this discussion it doesn't do any good to keep reminding us that we don't have the kind of evidence you want. We already know that. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider whatever clues we have, including reports from witnesses. A positive skeptical contribution can be made by pointing out logical inconsistencies, credibility issues like faked credentials, evidence for hoaxes, possible mundane explanations, and so on. These would be useful comments.
Click to expand...

Its not just the sceptics on this forum that are unsatisfied with the evidence. No government agency is, nor any accademic facility. Were there sufficient evidence to even suggest alien visitation was likely to be occuring it would be one of the most important issues in human discourse. Yet there is no serious interest. Even SETI is disparaged by many accademics.
 
It doesn't do any good to remind ufology he doesn't have evidence?
Or that words have meaning?
Or how probability works?
Or plausibility?

How do any of these complaints fit with the idea that wishful thinking is at the heart of the theory? A theory based on the "can't prove me wrong" principle?
 
Sideroxylon said:
Its not just the sceptics on this forum that are unsatisfied with the evidence. No government agency is, nor any accademic facility. Were there sufficient evidence to even suggest alien visitation was likely to be occuring it would be one of the most important issues in human discourse. Yet there is no serious interest. Even SETI is disparaged by many accademics.
Click to expand...


Sideroxylon;

And your point is what?
 
ufology said:
Sideroxylon;

And your point is what?
Click to expand...

That there is no good reason to believe that we are being visited by flying saucers? Why is it that such ideas are relegated to the fringes of human discourse, along with Big Foot and a whole lot of other stuff that you are skeptical of?
 
What makes you so sure that the craft are from this planet. I use the word "craft" because the USAF determined that some UFO reports represent craft ... metallic looking ... and so on. So you are 100% sure how? Do share.
Click to expand...

Yes, the aircraft mistaken for something else.
 
ufology said:
You get my point exactly. So either go debate homeopathy or accept that in this discussion it doesn't do any good to keep reminding us that we don't have the kind of evidence you want. We already know that. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider whatever clues we have, including reports from witnesses. A positive skeptical contribution can be made by pointing out logical inconsistencies, credibility issues like faked credentials, evidence for hoaxes, possible mundane explanations, and so on. These would be useful comments.
Click to expand...
Now now, calm down, dear. It's not me who mentioned probabilities and got all hung up on statistics, it was you. I'm perfectly happy with the really simple concept (which you still don't seem to grasp) that evidence of one UFO being an Alien Space Ship will falsify the null hypothesis.

And yes if you want to split hairs then that alien can come from some sooper seerkit Earth bound alien civilisation if you like.

And it's not the kind of evidence that I want, it's any kind of evidence that is sufficienctly incontrovertible that when studied closely, by people who don't have an emotional investment in the outcome being OMFGAliens!, demonstrates an Alien Space Ship. Take RB-47 for example. Ufologists like to bandy that around as their 'best case' for Alien Space Ships visiting Earth. But all it takes is one dedicated reseacher to look at all the evidence in detail to demonstrate that the event is far from providing incontrovertible, positive evidence of aliens. In't that right, foo?
 
Sledge said:
What.
Click to expand...
Flog has read a wiki page on statistics and experimental design, and somehow thinks that that lets him off the hook with regard to providing evidence for UFOs being alien craft.

You're sorry you asked now, aren't you, Sledge?
 
Sideroxylon said:
That there is no good reason to believe that we are being visited by flying saucers? Why is it that such ideas are relegated to the fringes of human discourse, along with Big Foot and a whole lot of other stuff that you are skeptical of?
Click to expand...


By the above, I presume you mean that the only good reason to believe alien craft have visited Earth would be scientifically verfiable material evidence; in which case we disagree. While scientifically verfiable material evidence is the best we can do in the absence of firsthand experience, firshand experience combined with an analysis of the experience is also a very good reason for the witness themself. Where it falls short is when the witness tries to relay his or her experience to someone else without any scientifically verfiable material evidence to back it up. In this situation the firsthand witness cannot simply expect to be believed.
 
ufology said:
The study was performed by independent analysists who used official USAF records and although the conclusions don't use the words "alien space ships" neither do I,
Click to expand...
You're right, The conclusions don't use the words alien space ships.
They also don't support your PoV at all.

Again I'll remind you what the conclusion of Blue Book Special Report No.14 actually said:

"highly improbable that any of the reports of unidentified aerial objects... represent observations of technological developments outside the range of present-day knowledge."

Hardly "alien" at all, either in the common definition of the word or your own twisted one.

And it hardly describes "space ship" either as in 1955, space ships were still beyond our present day knowledge as it wouldn't be for another 2 years until Sputnik was launched.
 
ufology said:
Where it falls short is when the witness tries to relay his or her experience to someone else without any scientifically verfiable material evidence to back it up. In this situation the firsthand witness cannot simply expect to be believed.
Click to expand...

And the reason for that is that we know our perception of reality is fallable.
 
ufology said:
By the above, I presume you mean that the only good reason to believe alien craft have visited Earth would be scientifically verfiable material evidence; in which case we disagree. While scientifically verfiable material evidence is the best we can do in the absence of firsthand experience, firshand experience combined with an analysis of the experience is also a very good reason for the witness themself. Where it falls short is when the witness tries to relay his or her experience to someone else without any scientifically verfiable material evidence to back it up. In this situation the firsthand witness cannot simply expect to be believed.
Click to expand...


No I am arguing for something less stringent. The fact is we don't even have a sniff that flying saucers exist and hence the total lack of interest by academics or government agencies. There have been studies in the past into various sightings of unidentified aerial phenomena, but they have come up wanting and been discontinued. The only people that seem to be involved in "research" are people who often hold a whole host of other ludicrous ideas.

The attribution of sightings of unknown objects in the sky to flying saucers is unjustified. The honest answer for an observer is that I do not know what I saw and I cannot rule out mundane objects. Further, my perceptions could be wrong about the size, distance and speed of the phenomena. That is all that you can say about your own sighting.
 
I kind of wonder why our resident flyingsaucerologist have not tried responding to this.

All UFOs are of mundane origin.

With something like.

All swans are white.

Is the problem something about then having to accept the concept of a null hypothesis?
 
Toke said:
I kind of wonder why our resident flyingsaucerologist have not tried responding to this.

All UFOs are of mundane origin.

With something like.

All swans are white.

Is the problem something about then having to accept the concept of a null hypothesis?
Click to expand...
Even more basic than that, Toke: they'd have to understand it.

Mr Foo, try this one:
(a) Witches can turn people into newts - experimental hypothesis
(b) Witches cannot turn people into newts - null hypothesis.

Any normal, reasonable and sane person would assume (b) to be true, right? However, just one incidence of a witch turning a person into a newt (that's (a), above) would demonstrate that (b) is false, in other words, it would falsify the null hypothesis.

Oh, I'm wasting my time, aren't I? :(
 
Toke said:
I have a serious problem with believing the "not understanding" part.
Click to expand...
Really? I don't.

When someone has emotionally invested in an unsupportable belief to such an extent that it's become part of their core identity their ability to grasp concepts, evidence and arguments that blow that belief out of the water is usually fatally compromised. You'll find plenty of other examples of the phenomenon on this forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom