UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

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.

From a post full of absolute nonsense, I chose this point (there were many more I could have chosen but time is finite even at lightspeed)

Perhaps you could show where this has been proven?
I mean apart from neutrinos not having any mass and if the stories of flying saucery are to be believed (and they show up on radar), Then by necessity, flying saucers must have mass.

 

[Paul2]

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.

Hold on there, big fella. A few points:

1. Assuming that you mean by "consciousness" an internal, subjective experience, then we certainly do not know that consciousness in others is real in the same way that we know, for instance, that the tree in my back yard is real. We assume others have an internal subjective experience for practical reasons, and it works well enough. If you define consciousness in more operational, objective terms, then we certainly do have empirical evidence. In neither case are anecdotes sufficient to conclude consciousness.

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.

We have not made gods of scientists. You are equivocating with the word "gods." Many in our society certainly respect scientists and hold science up as a model of how to gain knowledge about the universe, but you make that sound like it's a bad thing.

The trust we place in scientific conclusions is not blind faith like you often see in religions. We trust science because we know it works, which is absolutely rational. It's not like we arbitrarily decide to trust scientists, for no good reason.

Lastly, it would be foolish to trust science absolutely, because science is always ready to change its mind, given proper evidence. It's mostly religions, political ideologies, and pseudo-scientific beliefs that refuse to change their minds, regardless of the evidence.

 

[MG1962]

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.

Right here you throw any credibility you might have garnered down the toilet

 

[Jocce]

So many here post saying "I won't believe until I see the evidence".

Yes, it's a very logical position to take when someone makes an extraordinary claim.

There are all kinds of evidence-empirical and demonstrable (You can touch it and see it)

None has been presented in this thread over the last two years. Are you going to change that?

, 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

The red shift can be observed so it's not really circumstantial.

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.

yes, we got a lot of anecdotes. They don't gather strenght by numbers.

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.

Lots of fairytales doesn't make witches real.

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.

AH.You're a KNOWER. Not a BELIEVER.

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.

Do you actually have a point with this or is it just wishful thinking?

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.

That's ok. Many people are gullible and ready to belive funny things without evidence.

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.

But aliens are as real as witches, loch ness monster and fortunetelling.

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.

Yes, many believers say that about homeopathy, bigfoot and alien visits.

 

[23_Tauri]

Jerrydecaire, welcome to the thread. Although I baulked at your Wall of Text^TM, I am elated to discover that you too understand that witches exist and are the cause of UFO sightings:

As for anecdotes, they tend to gather strength by numbers.

They do indeed. And hundreds of thousands of people have reported both seeing witches, and being the victims of their Witchery Powerz over the centuries, all around the world, right up the present day. So much anecodotal evidence that it must be true.

Now, if you would be so accommodating to a girl in a nice hat, I just need to make a few adjustments to the rest of your WoT^TM, because I think you made a few typos:

For example, although we have absolutely no empirical proof that consciousness witchcraft is real, we accept it as real as virtually 100% hundreds of thousands of this world's people agree they are conscious that either they or someone they know has been the victim of a witch.
.......
You have plenty of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence to support the existence of UFO's Witchery Powerz 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) witches demonstrating superhuman powers of flight and newting 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, priests, popes, clergymen, lawyers, judges, scholars, kings and other respectable figures have reported anecdotal accounts of UFO’s witches using Witchery Powerz.. 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 witches with Witchery Powerz.

Sorry, got bored before I reached the end of the WOT^TM, but I think everyone has got the drift.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Right here you throw any credibility you might have garnered down the toilet

Its a pretty common accusation made by people who hold ideas that contradict our best understandings of the world.

 

[Daylightstar]

... "Quixam!" ...

Is that the name of a giant talking rabbit?

 

[Thorax]

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

Phleja--is that you? What do you mean creative and imginative? Did you go to the rooftop and yell "Quixa!" as we asked? We cannot yet find your coordinates. Please make another attempt this evening. We need to leave at 21:54.34 this evening as the wormhole position is perfect for the return trip and should take no longer than 3 reods using the warp modulator.

Please Phleja please try to remember---you are not a poster on a forum, but from our planet. Go to the rooftop tonight and yell as loudly as possible---dont worry about the neighbors.

sincerely, Ump Blotto

 

[TjW]

Yeah, well I'm not going to fall for that one again. The last time I had to be bailed out of the Tijuana jail. Was my earth wife amused? She was not. Did she believe my story? She did not.

 

[MG1962]

Its a pretty common accusation made by people who hold ideas that contradict our best understandings of the world.

Sadly you a right - I challenge anybody to show me a cosmologist who thinks the whole red shift Hubble constant question is solved with any surety. It has been causing heart burn since Einstein ignored it in his equation, and not much has changed

 

[ufology]

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.

Where the analogy breaks down is that although there may be more evidence for the existence of witches than there are of alien craft, alien craft are not witches, so even if witches were proven to exist or not to exist, so what? There is no correlation between the two. I could just as easily say there is more evidence for popsickles than alien craft, again it's not relevant. So again I suggest that if the skeptics here want to discuss witches, then they should start up a witch thread.

A further note. The skeptics here often call this switching of the subject matter a "straw man argument". For those who don't know what that is, see this link for an explanation.

"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
​

 

[TjW]

Where the analogy breaks down is that although there may be more evidence for the existence of witches than there are of alien craft, alien craft are not witches, so even if witches were proven to exist or not to exist, so what?

Since they are unidentified, how do you know they aren't witches?
I realize you don't think that they are, but in what way can witches be ruled out, if we assume witches exist? Particularly flying witches, with magical powers.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I have always been of the opinion they could be dragons. No particular reason other than I find Dragons interesting and want them to exist.

 

[GeeMack]

Where the analogy breaks down is that although there may be more evidence for the existence of witches than there are of alien craft, alien craft are not witches, so even if witches were proven to exist or not to exist, so what? There is no correlation between the two. I could just as easily say there is more evidence for popsickles than alien craft, again it's not relevant. So again I suggest that if the skeptics here want to discuss witches, then they should start up a witch thread.

So when someone sees something apparently flying but not identified, it could just as easily be a Popsicle as a witch? Nope. This thread is about unidentified flying objects, the research, and the evidence. Popsicles don't fly. Witches do. And aliens? Well, there is no evidence to suggest aliens even exist, in contrast to Popsicles and witches. Very credible people, outstanding members of their communities have testified officially in courts of law that witches exist. Can the same be said for alien craft?

A further note. The skeptics here often call this switching of the subject matter a "straw man argument".

No. Your understanding of a straw man argument is equal to your understanding of the null hypothesis. Non-existent. Same as your alien craft.

So out of all the things ever seen apparently flying, which were initially unidentified but later identified as some particular thing, how many of them turned out to be alien craft? Is there something really scary about confronting the honest truth that causes you to continue to ignore that simple question?

 

[ufology]

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.

Paul,

A firsthand experience is based on direct stimulus response from the objective reality whereas anecdotal evidence ( the information the firsthand witness passes to someone else ) is not. There is far too much information contained in an entire experience to accurately translate it all into anything resembling the original experience other than perhaps some kind of 3D CG video made at the same time from the same stimulus response.

To be clear about "objective reality", nothing we experience is truly an objective reality. Everything we perceive is filtered through our senses. One might try to argue that a readout from a device of somekind would represent an objective reality, however that is actually less objective than a firsthand experience because the stimulus has been intercepted and replaced by a machine interpretation or facsimile and then passed along to us, at which time we still view the machine's data through our sensory input.

So at best the readout is merely anecdotal evidence from a machine. To a third party this may seem more reliable, not because it is necessarily any more accurate, but because they think it is more impartial. Yet that is just another misconception. They are still interpreting the machine's readout with their own preconceptions and biases and do not have the benefit of knowing from firsthand experience what the readout means.

 

[ufology]

Since they are unidentified, how do you know they aren't witches?
I realize you don't think that they are, but in what way can witches be ruled out, if we assume witches exist? Particularly flying witches, with magical powers.

Just keep stuffing more straw into that witch scarecrow.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Where the analogy breaks down is that although there may be more evidence for the existence of witches than there are of alien craft, alien craft are not witches, so even if witches were proven to exist or not to exist, so what?

No, not if witches are proven to exist. They've been proven over and over for hundreds of years. Because witches are known to fly and have other magical powers, it is nearly certain that most UFOs ( witches ) are, in fact, witches. No Alien Space Ships have ever been known to exist and have never been proven in a court of law, unlike witches.

There is no correlation between the two. I could just as easily say there is more evidence for popsickles than alien craft, again it's not relevant. So again I suggest that if the skeptics here want to discuss witches, then they should start up a witch thread.

Now you're getting it! We should only posit things which we know to definitely exist as explanations for UFOs. Things like popsicles and witches. Not Alien Space Ships. This is the Evidence for UFOs ( witches ) thread, so we'd be interested in hearing about any recent developments in UFO ( witch ) research.

A further note. The skeptics here often call this switching of the subject matter a "straw man argument". For those who don't know what that is, see this link for an explanation.

LOL. No, nobody has said that. Add strawman argument to the list of things you don't understand.

So, are you saying that all of those credible witnesses to witches ( UFOs ) could be wrong? Even after witches have been proven so many hundreds of times in courts of law?

Answer the question, ol. You hate your cowardly dodging when you don't answer questions. So answer the question you've been cowardly dodging.

 

[GeeMack]

[* Gibberish "ufological" rationalization to avoid reality in favor of clinging to a fantasy snipped. *]

Are you ready to be honest yet? Here's a simple question if you are... Of all the things that were ever seen flying but were at first unidentified, but which were later identified as some particular thing, how many of those things turned out to be alien craft? And it is understandable why it would be more comfortable to remain ignorant of that. It could, after all, totally wreck the fantasy.

 

[GeeMack]

Just keep stuffing more straw into that witch scarecrow.

Add strawman argument to the list of things you don't understand.

Noted.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Just keep stuffing more straw into that witch scarecrow.

Are you a witch scarecrow perceiver? That's only one of the witch breeds theorized to exist.