UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Thorax]

Hello. I am Ump Blotto, Vice Admiral, Interplanetary Investigate Division, Northeast Quadrant. My office is in the planetary "red" strain in what you call the Horsehead Nebula.

I am searching for a fugitive named Phleja who left with a very valuable type of memory deadener named shploe. He apparently ingested some, and now has forgotten where he is from---thinking himself to be of the Earth.

He often visits forums dealing with Alien Spacecraft and life forms, as his brain still holds faint memories of his former existence. Phleja, are you here visiting?
Our craft is waiting for you. Just go to the roof top and yell "Quixam!" as loud as you possibly can, and our highly advanced audio systems will zero in on your location. Thank you.

 

[ufology]

Interesting that you had a source but it is not unusual for witnesses to mistake lights as disappearing at great speed when they vanish. Klass quotes his wingman, who was there. Are you stating that he lied to Klass about what he stated happened?

I'm just going with what the various bits of information indicate for Patterson because he was the one pursuing the object and was focused on it. I've never read the account by his wingman so I don't have enough information to offer an explanation for his account. However it could have been a situation where the object departed so quickly that it seemed to vanish, for example when the wingman glanced down at his console or if it departed directly away from him.

These objects sound similar to the thing I saw, which instantly accelerated beyond my visible range in less than a second. Certainly, if I had looked away for the moment the object I saw departed, I too would have thought it had vanished rather than departed at "phenomenal speed".

 

[ufology]

Hello. I am Ump Blotto, Vice Admiral, Interplanetary Investigate Division, Northeast Quadrant. My office is in the planetary "red" strain in what you call the Horsehead Nebula.

I am searching for a fugitive named Phleja who left with a very valuable type of memory deadener named shploe. He apparently ingested some, and now has forgotten where he is from---thinking himself to be of the Earth.

He often visits forums dealing with Alien Spacecraft and life forms, as his brain still holds faint memories of his former existence. Phleja, are you here visiting?
Our craft is waiting for you. Just go to the roof top and yell "Quixam!" as loud as you possibly can, and our highly advanced audio systems will zero in on your location. Thank you.

Creative and imaginative and with attitude ... 3 gold stars!

 

[ufology]

No one asked you that. They asked: "Can all the witnesses to witches be wrong? Yes or no." So why are you dodging like you accuse others of doing?
I Am He

Like I said ... If you want to discuss witches go to the witch thread. This thread is a discussion about UFOs.

 

[TjW]

If you haven't identified the objects, how do you know the objects aren't witches?

 

[Sideroxylon]

And the UFOlogist said, "Let the skies be filled with an abundace of flying saucers" and so it happened. The UFOlogist looked at everything he had defined into existence, and found it very good.

 

[jerrydecaire]

the difference between belief and knowing

So many here post saying "I won't believe until I see the evidence". There are all kinds of evidence-empirical and demonstrable (You can touch it and see it), circumstantial (you can't touch it or see it but it leaves a tell-tale sign that implies the phenomenon in question is real like the big bang's red shift or an altered human life), or merely anecdotal (this is only a story that may or may not be real but ordinarily reflects another person's empirical or circumstantial experience). As for anecdotes, they tend to gather strength by numbers. For example, although we have absolutely no empirical proof that consciousness is real, we accept it as real as virtually 100% of this world's people agree they are conscious. As for the big bang, very few have actually looked into any real observation of the red shift or this expanding universe-we merely place our faith in what we are told. We have made gods of scientists and trust they know what they are talking about. But given enough time, and as science discovers new information, we discover they didn't really know what they were talking about though I'm still betting the big bang is real.

So, getting back to our friends who say they won't believe until they see the evidence. What you really mean to say is that you won't "know” until you see the evidence because the only evidence that will satisfy you is of the empirical kind. You have plenty of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence to support the existence of UFO's and upon that you have what you need to either believe or not believe. Please make that distinction between evidence and proof and belief and knowing. I had always believed that UFO's (specifically flying saucers demonstrating anti-gravity effects and hyper speeds beyond our current technologies-as far as we, in the general public, know)were real until I have actually seen one. From that day forward, I no longer believe, I KNOW. Prior to knowing, I had noted that even pilots, governors, presidents, policemen, and other respectable figures have reported anecdotal accounts of UFO’s. When it comes to Big Foot, all we get is some Charlie squatting in the bush high on moonshine and the numbers of these reports pale in comparison to the number of even reputable reports concerning UFO’s. As for the argument that they wouldn’t be able to get here from another sector of our galaxy due to the limitation of light speed, check out neutrinos. It turns out they are FASTER than the speed of light. Does this explain their mode of transportation? NO! But it should at least suggest to us and our arrogance that we still have a lot to learn. And the argument that they wouldn’t look like us in humanoid form doesn’t wash either. Biologists keep telling us that much of our technological savvy comes from our deft hands and opposable thumbs. Who then is to say that bipedal organisms with phalanges are not a prerequisite to the development of an advanced civilization? Just look at the life here on Earth. There are substantial differences but also remarkable similarities. There are characteristics shared by many organisms that seem to be necessary for motility and functionality. Why should it surprise us that similarly on other planets, upright bipedal humanoids with enlarged brains were destined to master their own planet as we have ours? There are advantages to the humanoid form that would necessitate its emergence given enough time on any world. So given the innumerous reports and a little common sense that says we are not alone in this vast universe and these beings would know much more than us if their civilization was much older, I had ENOUGH to BELIEVE and so I did. Then that day arrived when I actually saw one for myself and have the strength that comes from knowing. I KNOW for a fact that the naysayers and debunkers of UFO’s are all wet. Let me repeat, I KNOW that UFOs are real. I don’t need to believe. As to why they don’t appear on the tonight show with Jay Leno or park on the White House lawn, your guess is as good as mine. Given what I KNOW, Its funny to sit back and watch some ridicule the believers and knowers as they roll their eyes, scoff, jeer, and snidely post their pseudo-intellectual comments in regards to the UFO phenomenon. I know another thing as well-they don’t KNOW, but rather, they have chosen to disbelieve. And that is their choice and that’s okay. But at least stop putting UFO’s in the same camp as Big Foot and the Lochness monster and tea leaves-there is no connection there. I promise. And if you have anything derogative to say about my experience, I warn you: I have always believed that first hand experience trumps cynical conjecture any day of the week.
“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.” -Vilenkin

 

[Toke]

Welcome here.

As far as I can read your paragraph free post there you believe that enough anecdotes sums up to evidence, and you really really believe in UFOs being aliens.

I have no problem with the idea of life elsewhere, even intelligent life.

The problems with aliens coming here are not just the practical ones but the lack of any evidence for it.

As have been said above there is more evidence for the existence of witches than for aliens.
Perhaps you would like to go through the respective evidence with us?

 

[Akhenaten]

Cool parody, bro.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So many here post saying "I won't believe until I see the evidence". There are all kinds of evidence-empirical and demonstrable (You can touch it and see it), circumstantial (you can't touch it or see it but it leaves a tell-tale sign that implies the phenomenon in question is real like the big bang's red shift or an altered human life), or merely anecdotal (this is only a story that may or may not be real but ordinarily reflects another person's empirical or circumstantial experience).

Nope, you are wrong right off the bat:

Anectdotes are NOT evidence, they are CLAIMS. They do not reflect on a persons emperical or circumstantial experience, they reflect on what a person CLAIMS was their SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of what they THOUGHT was their experience.
Circumstantial evidence, is evidence of cirmstance. It also has to be emperical in nature. That "tell tale sign" is either a measurable effect, or it too is not valid.

So, getting back to our friends who say they won't believe until they see the evidence. What you really mean to say is that you won't "know” until you see the evidence because the only evidence that will satisfy you is of the empirical kind.

No. I mean I both will not know, nor believe that UFOs=Alien Craft until suitable evidence is presented.

You have plenty of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence to support the existence of UFO's and upon that you have what you need to either believe or not believe. Please make that distinction between evidence and proof and belief and knowing. I had always believed that UFO's (specifically flying saucers demonstrating anti-gravity effects and hyper speeds beyond our current technologies-as far as we, in the general public, know)were real until I have actually seen one.

Please distinguish between objects in the sky that have not been identified, and alien craft.

We have no circumstantial evidence for flying saucers that demonstrate anti-gravity effects or otherwise, because we have no flying saucers to hand, to confirm what effects they would have. Clearly you can not take a measurable effect and state "That is caused by a flying saucer using anti-gravity!" Unless of course you supply a flying saucer, and anti gravity devices for us to study and observe what effects and traces it does indeed leave.

I am so glad you belived they were real UNTIL you saw one (and presumably no longer do so), and you are welcome to what ever belief you want, but I find it terribly arrogant of you to try and dictate at what point other people should join your belief. I don't believe, and I wont, until you supply me evidence. I wont know, either, until you supply the evidence. I believe what I can prove, and simply telling me there is a distinction to be made between believeing and knowing will not change what I am willing to believe with out evidence.

If you doubt I mean that, then you are not in a possition to tell me what I meant when I said it.

 

[Pixel42]

You have plenty of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence to support the existence of UFO's

Indeed, and you will find no-one here who doesn't accept the existence of UFOs. People see objects in the sky which they can't identify all the time. Everyone knows that.

What is currently being debated on this thread is whether any of those UFOs can be positively identified as either alien spacecraft or witches on broomsticks. So far the same amount of evidence has been provided for both possibilities, i.e. none whatever.

 

[Stray Cat]

What is currently being debated on this thread is whether any of those UFOs can be positively identified as either alien spacecraft or witches on broomsticks. So far the same amount of evidence has been provided for both possibilities, i.e. none whatever.

That's not strictly true. Evidence has been presented that Witches have been proven in a court of law and actually put to death for being witches.
The evidence given in these courts was compelling enough to convict without reasonable doubt. Given under oath in the way of eye witness accounts by upstanding members of society (some of whom were wearing uniforms and therefore would have no reason to lie or be mistaken).

To date, as far as I know, the only time that anyone has taken a case to court in connection with flying saucers, the judge ruled against them and threw the case out. This was the Cash-Landrum 'encounter'

 

[23_Tauri]

Like I said ... If you want to discuss witches go to the witch thread. This thread is a discussion about UFOs.

This is the witch thread!

How do you know UFOs aren't witches?

 

[Stray Cat]

Further investigation of the above reveals that the F-94 pilot in question was Lieutenant William Patterson, a veteran of the Koren War and that in an inteview given to the press he described his encounter in greater detail,

I can find no reference to this press interview?
Where and when was it given?

And more significantly, why was information given in a press interview not included in the official report to the USAF?

 

[Pixel42]

That's not strictly true. Evidence has been presented that Witches have been proven in a court of law and actually put to death for being witches.

It's true that more evidence of witches actually existing has been presented than of alien spacecraft actually existing (i.e. some versus none), but so far no evidence has been produced that any specific UFO sighting can be positively identified as witches on broomsticks. Though obviously the fact that there is evidence of their existence makes witches a more likely explanation for any UFO sighting than alien spacecraft.

 

[tsig]

Sure radar can pick up false targets, and pilots can misperceive. But that doesn't mean they always do, even when the situation is extraordinary. In the 1952 DC sightings you had a combination of radar, ground visual and air visual, where an F-94 pilot was vectored to a radar target, saw an object, closed on it, only to watch it suddenly depart at "phenomenal speed" far beyond the capability of his aircraft to intercept. During this sighting his aircraft was also surrounded and paced by other objects described as glowing balls of light. I've found no reason to believe that the event did not happen, and given the corroborative factors, I don't believe mere misperception explains it. I also don't see how any laws of physics are broken by this incident ... or for that matter how the existence of UFOs in general defy the laws of physics. Just because we haven't figured out how to replicate them or what they can do doesn't mean it can't be done within a scientifically valid framework. No supernatural leap of faith is required.

Lastly, our laws of physics don't explain everything and scientific instruments are also fallible. Science itself isn't perfect and there have been plenty of scientific errors and frauds to contend with. So it isn't wise to place science on so high a pedestal that it is deemed to be perfect. It's not. We still have a lot to learn, but I believe that someday, given the time, persistence and resources, we will figure out how to create technology that can match the performance of UFOs.

So radar can be wrong and pilots misperceive unless we're talking UFO's?

Science can be wrong but you never are?

You're placing your faith in future technology yet tell us that science is wrong, how does that work?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Like I said ... If you want to discuss witches go to the witch thread. This thread is a discussion about UFOs.

Like I said ... this is the evidence of UFOs thread. Because those Unidentified Flying Objects are more likely to be witches than Alien Space Ships, we'll discuss witches here too.

Remember that you said that you don't like your own cowardly dodging.

Answer the question, fo. Can all those witnesses to witches be wrong? Yes or no.

 

[RoboTimbo]

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.” -Vilenkin

Congratulations on your witch sighting!

 

[carlitos]

From that day forward, I no longer believe, I KNOW.

You may enjoy this conversation, the opening post of which sounds remarkably like yours.

Skeptics vs. Knowers / Believers

Would you care to share details of your sighting? If so, be forewarned, some people here will suggest mundane explanations. So, if you're not open-minded about those, you might not want to share.

 

[Paul2]

Ufo, I'm confused about where you are regarding firsthand experience versus physical evidence. Below is the whole exchange, but I can't make heads nor tails out of it.

Perhaps I can cut to the chase: A person who experiences a phenomenon (the "witness") has no privileged standpoint to draw conclusions compared to a person who did not experience a phenomenon but who now has the data from the witness.

I go back to your first post in this sub-thread, see highlight immediately below. If it's a good reason to believe a conclusion for person A, it must, must, must be a good reason to believe the conclusion for anyone else, as long as we're talking about objective reality.

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.

It's a fallacy to imagine that a witness could properly have one set of standards for evidence that would lead the witness to a different conclusion than someone else who is working on a different set of standards.

Because there is only one reality. The conclusion is either correct or not. For the witness and everyone else.

Paul,

I agree completely with what you said above. But it is also a departure from the issue, which was: What constitutes a good reason to believe? It was put forward that there are no good reasons to believe, however I pointed out that firsthand experience is a good reason to believe. For example if you had a UFO experience yourself. That could, depending on the details of the experience, be a good reason for you to believe. But it would not necessarily be a good enough reason for whomever you should tell your story to. Where your comment fits in is that we both acknowledge that there is only "one reality", the issue is proving to someone who has never exeperienced some part of it that there is more to it than they think. The "one reality" become a situation where part of the population is aware of some aspect of that reality that the rest aren't.

Does a good reason to believe depend upon who is doing the believing (that is, whether it's a first-hand experience or a second-hand report of the first-hand experience)? My answer is no. See below.



If the experience is valid enough to properly convince the first-hand experiencer, the second-hand hearer of the report should also accept it, otherwise we have a real problem: two different people, with evidence that is valid for them both, come to a different conclusion.

This type of conclusion about reality can NOT depend on the person doing the concluding. That's nearly the definition of reality - what remains when you take away individual influence, bias, perspective, etc. - what is common to everyone, regardless of the individual.

Paul,

All firsthand experiences are "valid" and they result in "proper" conclusions for a vast number of everyday experiences. We tend to take those experiences for granted and don't expect that we'll have to prove them to anyone else, but when an extraordinary event happens, then people expect more. In such cases, even though the experience itself is still as valid as any other, the interpretation of the experience can vary depending on the details, and this is where we get into what people think is "proper". But the skeptics here wouldn't even get that far because without material scientific evidence, they simply dismiss the experience as valid in the first place.

Not sure exactly what you mean here, but go back to my post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7906821#post7906821
and see that I meant "valid" in the sense of properly convincing. Surely all firsthand experiences are not valid (hallucinations, optical illusions, etc.).

Unless you're saying that the raw experience of an optical illusion, say, is valid in the sense that the (mis)perception is what the experiencer perceived, in which case I agree, but the point is made trivial and irrelevant for the larger point I was making and which you ignored:

what the experiencer concludes can only be proper if a second-hand party would legitimately conclude the same thing.

The rest of your post also ignores this aspect.

Not sure what you mean by "dismissing an experience as valid." Do you mean dismissing an experience as NOT valid?

Paul,

In the context of your clarification, what you say makes sense ( "what the experiencer concludes can only be proper if a second-hand party would legitimately conclude the same thing" ). However simply making sense isn't enough because it assumes that if the second-hand party were exposed to the same stimulus, they would have the same experience. However, we all experience things differently, and in some cases widely differently based on cultural, religious, and other backgrounds, and that can lead us to draw equally wide conclusions.

One example I run into in ufology is the "Transports from Hell" belief, where some religious types believe UFOs are some kind of supernatural transportation platform piloted by demons from Hell. So in the event that one of these people were standing next to an atheist when they both see a UFO, each will have two completely different "experiences". To minimize this problem I look at the objective information like location, configuration, size, distance, movement ... etc. and if after considering those factors, and assuming there is good reason to believe something was actually seen as described, if what was seen doesn't correspond to any known natural or manmade object or phenomenon, and furthermore cannot be explained even hypothetically using current technology, then I class that object or phenomenon as alien.