UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

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

... 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 ...

jerrydecaire,

Can you please share your experience with us here? What specifically makes you know that what you saw was an alien craft?

 

[Krikkiter]

This thread got interesting again didn't it? Well... comparatively...

 

[ufology]

This thread got interesting again didn't it? Well... comparatively...

Let's hope so ...

 

[GeeMack]

This thread got interesting again didn't it? Well... comparatively...

Maybe, but jerrydecaire's UFO experience could turn out to be just be another dishonest "ufology" hoax like the J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax.

 

[GeeMack]

Let's hope so ...

You work up the nerve to honestly confront reality yet and tangle with this one? Of all the things seen flying, initially unidentified, but eventually identified as a particular thing, how many of them ended up identified as alien craft?

 

[Krikkiter]

Maybe, but jerrydecaire's UFO experience could turn out to be just be another dishonest "ufology" hoax like the J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax.

I won't be holding my breath for any kind of evidence but it should be amusing all the same.

 

[I Am He]

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

Huh? What kind of answer was that? Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? Were you or were not asked: "Can all the witnesses to witches be wrong? Yes or no." In case it's to hard for you it's a Yes or No question, it has nothing to do with going to another thread.

Oh? I thought you said you don't like people who evade questions? You did say that, didn't you?






I Am He

 

[GeeMack]

Huh? What kind of answer was that? Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? Were you or were not asked: "Can all the witnesses to witches be wrong? Yes or no." In case it's to hard for you it's a Yes or No question, it has nothing to do with going to another thread.

Oh? I thought you said you don't like people who evade questions? You did say that, didn't you?

We have seen many examples where the pseudoscience of "ufology" apparently holds itself to a different standard of honesty and reality than the helpful cooperative skeptics. Special pleading, redefinition of terms, deflecting the burden of proof, arguments from incredulity and ignorance, it all seems to be acceptable practice for "ufologists". Good thing reality doesn't work that way or we'd never improve our understanding of the universe or make any scientific progress.

 

[ufology]

Huh? What kind of answer was that? Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? Were you or were not asked: "Can all the witnesses to witches be wrong? Yes or no." In case it's to hard for you it's a Yes or No question, it has nothing to do with going to another thread.

Oh? I thought you said you don't like people who evade questions? You did say that, didn't you?

I Am He

Here's that link again for you: Straw Man

 

[Sideroxylon]

Here's that link again for you: Straw Man

Have you read it yourself? Nobody is claiming you believe in witches. That would be a straw man. They are pointing out the very real flaw in your unjustified attributing unidentified flying objects to your favourite myth. How things could have been diferent if your imagination was more captivated by "Bewitched" than "Star Trek".

 

[Tomtomkent]

jerrydecaire,

Can you please share your experience with us here? What specifically makes you know that what you saw was an alien craft?

What makes you think you know what you claim to have seen...

 

[ufology]

Have you read it yourself? Nobody is claiming you believe in witches. That would be a straw man. They are pointing out the very real flaw in your unjustified attributing unidentified flying objects to your favourite myth. How things could have been diferent if your imagination was more captivated by "Bewitched" than "Star Trek".

Here I'll explain it to you as simply as possible:

"... to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition ("the witch"), and refuting it, ( or in this case infering UFOs are as preposterous as witches ) without ever having actually refuted ( or in this case having addressed the factors in ) the original position."

 

[Akhenaten]

Here I'll explain it to you as simply as possible:

"... to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition ("the witch"), and refuting it, ( or in this case infering UFOs are as preposterous as witches ) without ever having actually refuted ( or in this case having addressed the factors in ) the original position."

Nobody is implying that witches are as preposterous as UFOs (which aren't at all preposterous). What's being said is that witches are no more or less preposterous than "OMG . . . aliens!" as an explanation for UFOs.


To summarise your recent misunderstandings:

• the Straw Man Fallacy,
  
  
• the Null Hypothesis, and
  
  
• the difference between "imply" and "infer"

0/10 Fail​

Please resubmit.

 

[ufology]

What makes you think you know what you claim to have seen...

The main reason is firsthand experience. A firsthand experience is a result of direct exposure to the objective reality. It is not an anecdote nor is it any more subjective than any other perception, including the observation of scientific experiments. The only difference between the two is that I can't replicate it under controlled conditions. However that does not invalidate my own experience. It only means other people can't verify it. And since your question was what makes me think I know ... this answer is perfectly legitimate.

Other resons are that I was with two other people who corroborated parts of the event which took place over the course of an evening. Plus there was more than one observation of the object. Plus it was seen at night and in the morning light. Plus the details of the observation confirm sizes, distances and speeds within a margin of error wide enough to rule out any known manmade or natural phenomena.

The only skeptical explanations I've been given that are even remotely plausible given these factors is soime kind of hallucination that affected all three of us and lasted the whole night and only manifested itself in the form of this one object. I don't believe that explanation is reasonable. The only other skeptical opinions that plausibly explains are is a hoax or a combination of horribly poor memory and some kind of unconscious fabrication of the event, which is what the skeptics here have deemed it to be. I do not find that to be reasonable either. Skeptics will however provide evidence that while under pressure here to recount details, I posted a minor error not relevant to the sighting of the object, and it was pointed out that I had written a wrong direction in my online account. I conceed these factors are true, but also irellevant. The other so-called errors were actually errors on the part of the skeptics who posted non-scale graphics and made bad calculations regarding angles and distances. They may cite other factors, but examination using Google Earth showed that my initial estimates and descriptions were within the tolerances required to conclude that the object could not have been any known natural or manmade object or phenomenon.

If you have something new and constructive to add by way of questions or comments, please do so.

 

[Pixel42]

ufology appears to not understand the difference between an analogy and a straw man.

Comparing the evidence for the existence of witches to the evidence for the existence of alien spacecraft, and their consequent reasonableness as a possible explanation for UFO sightings, is an analogy. It is an attempt to help him to see just how unjustifiable it is to assume that UFO sightings which remain unidentified are alien spacecraft, by pointing out that in the light of the available evidence assuming they are witches on broomsticks is actually slightly more justifiable.

Anyone who has seen the Harry Potter film which features the aerial battle between the Order of the Pheonix and the Death Eaters will know how many reports of UFOs that must have generated.

 

[Krikkiter]

<snip>Other resons are that I was with two other people who corroborated parts of the event which took place over the course of an evening. <snip>

I don't remember this. Can you show us where these people corroborated your anecdote?

 

[Akhenaten]

What makes you think you know what you claim to have seen...

The main reason is firsthand experience.

All you're really saying here is that you believe in your claim because it's your claim.

Thank you, Miss Elk.

A firsthand experience is a result of direct exposure to the objective reality.

So far so good.

It is not an anecdote nor is it any more subjective than any other perception, including the observation of scientific experiments.

Oops! Off the rails again!

It's an anecdote as soon as it becomes a story told to someone else, and takes on whatever amount of subjectivity your imperfect perception, recollection and imagination dictate.

This is completely different to scientific observations/experiments where repeatability is key.

The only difference between the two is that I can't replicate it under controlled conditions.

You can't replicate it under any conditions.

It might just as well have been a dream. Or a spell cast by a passing Witch.

However that does not invalidate my own experience. It only means other people can't verify it.

Your experience is neither here nor there.

All that's invalidated is any attempt to use anecdotes as evidence.

Other resons are that I was with two other people who corroborated parts of the event which took place over the course of an evening.

So you say.

From our objective standpoint this is just one more aspect of your campfire story.

Plus there was more than one observation of the object.

So you say.

From our objective standpoint this is just one more aspect of your campfire story.

Plus it was seen at night and in the morning light.

So you say.

From our objective standpoint this is just one more aspect of your campfire story.

Plus the details of the observation confirm sizes, distances and speeds within a margin of error wide enough to rule out any known manmade or natural phenomena.

How did you rule out Witches?

The only skeptical explanations I've been given that are even remotely plausible given these factors is soime kind of hallucination that affected all three of us and lasted the whole night and only manifested itself in the form of this one object.

This is patently untrue.

I don't believe that explanation is reasonable.

Of course you don't. But since you are the story teller your vote is worthless.

<>

It's not the meanie skeptics that are against you, Folo. It's cold, hard reality.

If you have something new and constructive to add by way of questions or comments, please do so.

Who died and left you in charge?

 

[ufology]

Nobody is implying that witches are as preposterous as UFOs (which aren't at all preposterous). What's being said is that witches are no more or less preposterous than "OMG . . . aliens!" as an explanation for UFOs.

And the above is using witches ( the straw man ) as a basis for maintaining UFOs ( alien craft ) are preposterous. The two circumstances are not equivalent in either context nor content ... except perhaps in the sense that the actions of the skeptics here bears a remarkable resemblance to the judges who condemned people as witches. Perhaps they would like to lock me up in a tower for heresy!

However let's give them the benefit of the doubt first. Hypothetically speaking, what exactly is "preposterous" in considering UFOs ( alien craft ) as an explanation for objects that appear to be some sort of craft unlike anything manmade in either appearance or performance? And try to answer the question without resorting to the witch straw man.

 

[Akhenaten]

And the above is using witches ( the straw man as an analogy ) as a basis for maintaining UFOs ( alien craft ) are preposterous by pointing out that they are no more or less preposterous than "OMG . . . aliens!" as an explanation for UFOs.

FTFY

Since the rest of your post was based on the obvious errors above I've cast a disappearing spell on it.

 

[Stray Cat]

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.

Well then you may like this:

I was having the old Malstrom argument on an other forum and posited that the whole event could be explained as alien witches riding dragons.
The Alien believers thought that was a silly idea.