UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Toke]

"Scientific anecdotes" are repeatable.
Weather is known to exist.

 

[ufology]

So, just another unconfirmed anecdote then?

Yes "just another" among many.

 

[ufology]

"Scientific anecdotes" are repeatable.
Weather is known to exist.

Almost anything is "repeatable" or is it?. A meteorologist can hope for exactly the same rare weather pattern to appear in exactly the same spot at exactly the same time, but that doesn't mean it will happen within his or her lifetime, and even if it does is it really identical in every way? No. That is impossible. By the same token, UFOs are known to exist and be seen more than once in the same vicinity. Even the skeptics here admit that. Although the skeptics here have concluded that they are all mundane phenomena, the question still remains as to exactly what they are, how they work and where they come from. To explore this question studies have been done by scientists similar to the way meteorologists study rare weather phenomena, so these UFO related experiments are also as repeatable as other scientific experiments. The Project Hessdalen report was an example. I posted it previously, with a link directly to the published paper and asked for a skeptical opinion on issues with the scientific report ( not the media interviews ) but nobody here addressed the actual science because it was probably over their head. There were however some offhanded comments based on the media interviews and the usual proclmations of pseudoscience, but nothing substantial or constructive.

 

[GeeMack]

I don't have any argument with the concept of acquiring so-called objective information such as a scientific report, [...]

Then since there is no objective information demonstrating the existence of alien craft, any claim you make that some UFOs are alien craft is just "ufology" noise. Don't you agree?

[...] but I don't think scientific reports represent the absolute truth the skeptics here seem to think they do. Scientific reports are basically anecdotes from scientists, usually backed by some corroboration and machine generated data. Those scientists are people the same as firsthand witnesses and are susceptible to all the problems you have assigned to UFO witnesses. The instruments they use are also prone to faults and failures and move the observer one more level away from the firsthand experience of the objective reality.

On one hand you want anecdotes to count as evidence, and on the other you want to discard objective science. That's not even a reasonable attempt to justify the double standard of the pseudoscience of "ufology". That's just the bogus and failed rationalization that comes from having an unsupportable faith in an unevidenced claim.

So in actually, the closest anyone can get to objective evidence is to have an alien craft right in front of them to study, and in that respect firsthand witnesses have been the closest to that situation and a few have have also had scientific training, like Paul Hill, who was a proponent of the ETH.

So with all his scientific training, was Paul Hill able to objectively demonstrate the existence of alien craft? (That's another one of those simple yes/no questions you're so fond of ignoring because the answers rattle your faith in the unsupported claim that some UFOs are alien craft.)

Lastly the transient nature of UFOs doesn't make their study any less legitimate. For example weather has rare transient phenomena associated with it, but we don't consider the study of it to be pseudoscience and we don't equate it to witch hunting.

Weather research, meteorology, isn't pseudoscience. "Ufology" is. And the study of witches? Interestingly they exist, demonstrably and objectively, contrary to alien craft which, despite all the blathering and dishonest rationalization put forth by "ufologists", have not been demonstrated to exist.

 

[Krikkiter]

It's a classic case of sorcery. Witches love messing with people far away from home. Haven't you read your Malleus Maleficarum lately?

No but thanks

 

[Marduk]

Paul Hill, who was a proponent of the ETH. .

and also had so much objectivity that he claimed to be able to move a psi pinwheel with the power of his mind alone
thats convincing right there

Haven't you read your Malleus Maleficarum lately?

I'm an expert on the hammer, I have studied it in depth and to date have used it as a guide with a suspect witch on no less than 7 occaisons (three in the last 12 months)
didn't find any real witches, though all of them confessed eventually

 

[Paul2]

I don't have any argument with the concept of acquiring so-called objective information such as a scientific report, but I don't think scientific reports represent the absolute truth the skeptics here seem to think they do. Scientific reports are basically anecdotes from scientists, usually backed by some corroboration and machine generated data. Those scientists are people the same as firsthand witnesses and are susceptible to all the problems you have assigned to UFO witnesses. The instruments they use are also prone to faults and failures and move the observer one more level away from the firsthand experience of the objective reality.

I don't know if you mean something different by "scientific report" than I do by "objective verification." But I suggest we stick with "objective verification," just so there's no chance of misunderstanding.

I'm fairly sure no skeptic around here thinks that science represents "absolute truth." In fact, one of the hallmarks of science is that it is NOT absolute - it can be changed at any time, with enough evidence. Perhaps you are mistaking our proper fervor for maintaining that science is the best way to get as close as we can to the truth, provisional as it must always be, with our thinking that science is absolute truth.

Lastly, the problem is exactly what you mention - corroboration. If someone comes to you with a fantastic report of some earth-shaking phenomenon, how much corroboration, and of what type, in general, would you require before you start to make a conclusion?

 

[John Albert]

Scientific reports are basically anecdotes from scientists, usually backed by some corroboration and machine generated data.

Those scientists are people the same as firsthand witnesses and are susceptible to all the problems you have assigned to UFO witnesses.

The statements above are just further proof of how stubbornly you have refused to learned anything meaningful from your involvement in discussions here on these forums.

The Project Hessdalen report was an example. I posted it previously, with a link directly to the published paper and asked for a skeptical opinion on issues with the scientific report ( not the media interviews ) but nobody here addressed the actual science because it was probably over their head. There were however some offhanded comments based on the media interviews and the usual proclmations of pseudoscience, but nothing substantial or constructive.

That Hessdalen report was nonsense. Total pseudoscience gobbledygook.

The "phenomenon" was aircraft landing lights diffused through the low cloud cover common to the area.

 

[Paul2]

Ufology, what I predict is that if you outline a few general principles about what evidence and/or testimony would be sufficient to form a conclusion about something revolutionary, and we started to apply those general principles to things other than UFOs (which would be entirely proper, if they are general principles then they should be applied without fear or favor), anyone rational would see them fall apart. Which was the point of the whole witches thing.

 

[GeeMack]

Ufology, what I predict is that if you outline a few general principles about what evidence and/or testimony would be sufficient to form a conclusion about something revolutionary, and we started to apply those general principles to things other than UFOs (which would be entirely proper, if they are general principles then they should be applied without fear or favor), anyone rational would see them fall apart. Which was the point of the whole witches thing.

A valid point, and one which I predict will be willfully ignored by the "UFOs = alien craft" proponents to avoid being honest even with themselves. As much as it would be productive to have a set of principles which are objectively acceptable to "ufology", and which "ufologists" would agree are acceptable as general purpose standards of evidence, it's not going to happen. Even after so many requests and suggestions to do just that, the refusal demonstrates unequivocally that "ufology" is pseudoscience with standards firmly rooted in the dishonest fallacy of special pleading.

 

[Krikkiter]

Ufology, I requested evidence that your personal anecdote re: an unidentified flying object was corroborated by two people.

Just in case you missed it I once again request evidence.

Thanks.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I never take stories at face value and I don't have any definitive explanation for this case. However what you call crap, I find very interesting. We interviewed him 3 times and had him see one of our psychotherapists. He seemed sincere enough and the interviews didn't reveal any sort of deception, but like other people who have experienced missing time, he had no proof. We asked if he would help us follow up on the log records but he was nervous about it because it involved his livelihood and didn't really want to make things any worse for himself. So we concluded that there wasn't anything else to be done unless his gaps in time started recurring and we could investigate them right away.

So, nothing that would stand up in a court of law?

 

[ufology]

Ufology, what I predict is that if you outline a few general principles about what evidence and/or testimony would be sufficient to form a conclusion about something revolutionary, and we started to apply those general principles to things other than UFOs (which would be entirely proper, if they are general principles then they should be applied without fear or favor), anyone rational would see them fall apart. Which was the point of the whole witches thing.

Paul,

The "whole point of the witches thing" obviously includes a healthy does of mockery, or didn't you notice the colorful graphics and gibes. The other issue is that the "general principles" I pointed out that show a distinct separation between the two topics in question are:

1. Secular vs Occult: Belief in superstition and the supernatural ( witches ) as opposed to a scientific and/or secular curiosity and plausibility ( UFOs ).
2. Reality vs Myth: The objects in some UFO reports have been determined to be materially real by instrumented corroboration including radar/visual confirmation. It is only how they work and where they come from that remains a mystery. By contrast witches may be materially real but are defined by their belief in the supernatural.
3. Witness Reliability: Modern secular educations and training as opposed to outdated religious educations, if any at all.

 

[ufology]

So, nothing that would stand up in a court of law?

Obviously not. Neither does it have to. I posted the story purely for interest's sake as part of a response to Pixels comment about alien abductions.

 

[ufology]

Ufology, I requested evidence that your personal anecdote re: an unidentified flying object was corroborated by two people.

Just in case you missed it I once again request evidence.

Thanks.

Yes I missed your comment, but there is no way I would sick this room of wolves on unsuspecting old friends, and you wouldn't be any more likely to believe them than me anyway. There is however a report on a very similar sighting by someone other than me in the same vicinity in the Canadian UFO Report. You can view parts of it online here.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Paul,

The "whole point of the witches thing" obviously includes a healthy does of mockery, or didn't you notice the colorful graphics and gibes.

You really don't get it, do you? Or you deliberately don't want to.

The other issue is that the "general principles" I pointed out that show a distinct separation between the two topics in question are:

Secular vs Occult: Belief in superstition and the supernatural ( witches ) as opposed to a scientific and/or secular curiosity and plausibility ( UFOs ).

UFOs ( witches ) have been proven in courts of law, by triers of fact. Witches are a fact. You don't need to believe in them. Alien Space Ships ( myth ) are a religion practiced by big kids who never really matured and don't understand critical thinking. Or the null hypothesis or what a strawman argument is.

Reality vs Myth: The objects in some UFO reports have been determined to be materially real by instrumented corroboration including radar/visual confirmation. It is only how they work and where they come from that remains a mystery. By contrast witches may be materially real but are defined by their belief in the supernatural.

The reality is that witches have been proven in courts of law by triers of fact. How many UFOs have turned out to be Alien Space Ships ( myth )?

Witness Reliability: Modern secular educations and training as opposed to outdated religious educations, if any at all.

Judges were trained in law and the clergy are trained to recognize witches. Contrast that with the drunk hicks from Kelly, Kentucky who thought they saw aliens!

Could all of those witnesses have been incorrect? Could triers of fact have come to the wrong judgment every time? Could they all have misinterpreted the data?

Do you dodge the difficult questions because they upset your religious beliefs?

 

[GeeMack]

Ufology, I requested evidence that your personal anecdote re: an unidentified flying object was corroborated by two people.

Just in case you missed it I once again request evidence.

Thanks.

I think what he meant was that when he made up the story, it included two other people seeing the alien craft. Given the preponderance of evidence indicating the J. Randall Murphy UFO tale is a poorly perpetrated, not terribly imaginative hoax, the alleged witnesses are probably just as real as Hansel and Gretel. And the alien craft is as real as Rosine.

ETA: More evidence that the J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax is just that, a hoax...

Yes I missed your comment, but there is no way I would sick this room of wolves on unsuspecting old friends, and you wouldn't be any more likely to believe them than me anyway.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Obviously not. Neither does it have to. I posted the story purely for interest's sake as part of a response to Pixels comment about alien abductions.

Not at all like UFOs ( witches ) then, which have been proven in courts of law by triers of fact. Do you have anything besides stories?

 

[Krikkiter]

Yes I missed your comment, but there is no way I would sick this room of wolves on unsuspecting old friends, and you wouldn't be any more likely to believe them than me anyway. There is however a report on a very similar sighting by someone other than me in the same vicinity in the Canadian UFO Report. You can view parts of it online here.

In which case, why would you write this:

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.

None of the above means anything at all. It's really only fallacious filler isn't it? I think you should be more careful when trying to convince others of the veracity of your anecdotes.

 

[GeeMack]

None of the above means anything at all. It's really only fallacious filler isn't it? I think you should be more careful when trying to convince others of the veracity of your anecdotes.

It may be a mistake to assume that he is trying to convince other people.