• 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.
GeeMack said:
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...
Click to expand...


So, "I swear there were two other people with me ..." is equal to corroboration in Ufology Land? :D This thread can be really entertaining sometimes.
 
ufology said:
The Modern Era in ufology began during 1947 and is generally held to coincide with the UFO flap of that year, the most famous sightings of which were the Kenneth Arnold sighting of June 24th and the Roswell Incident in early July. The Early Modern Era refers to the first 25 years during which time the words UFO and ufology were coined, jet aviation matured, the space race culminated with the Moon landings, and the first significant investigations into the UFO phenomenon were undertaken by both private and governmental agencies.
Click to expand...

You expect everyone here to be familiar with your special ufological jargon?!
 
RoboTimbo said:
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?
Click to expand...


Don't you like stories? Even if they can't be proven, they still add an element of interest to an otherwise dry conversation.
 
mike3 said:
You expect everyone here to be familiar with your special ufological jargon?!
Click to expand...


I expect it from most of the skeptics here because I've seen them claim that they ( collectively ) have studied ufology to the point of being well informed on it, therefore they should know something as basic as when the Modern Era in ufology began ... and well enough to extrapolate from that about when the Early Modern Era was. However if someone doesn't know, then I'm not going to pounce all over them. Instead I simply posted the info for the benefit of those who who don't know. I'm not really the crazed ufomaniac tyrant that they might have you believe.
 
RoboTimbo said:
I love stories. As long as we know the difference between stories and reality.
Click to expand...


That's cool. But you can't always know the difference between fictional stories and ones based on reality with absolute certainty. Furthermore some stories are partly true and partly fictional, especially docudramas. I think the important thing is to remain constructively skeptical and open minded to the various ways of looking at the possibilities and the probabilities ... and of course the evidence, whatever that may be.
 
ufology said:
I expect it from most of the skeptics here because I've seen them claim that they ( collectively ) have studied ufology to the point of being well informed on it, therefore they should know something as basic as when the Modern Era in ufology began ... and well enough to extrapolate from that about when the Early Modern Era was. However if someone doesn't know, then I'm not going to pounce all over them. Instead I simply posted the info for the benefit of those who who don't know. I'm not really the crazed ufomaniac tyrant that they might have you believe.
Click to expand...

Says the person who at the very least needs to have an understanding of interstellar space but does not seem to understand what red shift actually is, or what our understanding of it could be
 
ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...
Mockery is not mutually exclusive with my view of the witches analogy. My view above, and mockery, can happen at the same time.

ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, your points are not mutually exclusive with mine. All the differences you point out are irrelevant to my point about the witches. Refer to my post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7918508#post7918508 for my point about the witches.

You're not addressing my point at all, even though you're using many of the same words that I used in making my point.

It's not like you can just come up with a list of any difference between witches and UFOs and then claim that any analogy between witches and UFOs is flawed because of those differences. Here's proof: *any* analogy must have differences and similarities between the two things being analogized.
 
Paul2 said:
You're not addressing my point at all, even though you're using many of the same words that I used in making my point.

It's not like you can just come up with a list of any difference between witches and UFOs and then claim that any analogy between witches and UFOs is flawed because of those differences. Here's proof: *any* analogy must have differences and similarities between the two things being analogized.
Click to expand...


So the list of generally simple concepts which are not understood within the field of "ufology" includes, but is certainly not limited to, evidence, the null hypothesis, the straw man argument, and the analogy.
 
ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...


You seem to be completely missing the point. The witches analogy does not posit witches as an alternative to UFOs, but as an alternative to "alien craft" as an explanation for what UFOs allegedly are.

Of course, any rational person would know that "unidentified" means "unidentified," and not "alien craft."

Any rational person would realize there is no single explanation for UFOs.

Any rational person would be able to extrapolate from existing evidence that UFOs are not in reality any one thing, but any number of different things that humans might happen to perceive in the sky and be unable to identify.

Any rational person would therefore understand that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, "things which have been already proven to exist" (unlike alien craft) is the only class of objects at all likely to have ever been perceived as UFOs.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Um no ... but you might be interested in this if you are after entertainment.
Click to expand...


Before you mock too freely, you should realize that at least those people are honest enough to admit UFOlogy is their religion, and not some kind of legit field of science or serious inquiry.
 
ufology said:
That's cool. But you can't always know the difference between fictional stories and ones based on reality with absolute certainty. Furthermore some stories are partly true and partly fictional, especially docudramas. I think the important thing is to remain constructively skeptical and open minded to the various ways of looking at the possibilities and the probabilities ... and of course the evidence, whatever that may be.
Click to expand...

Yes we can tell the difference; with evidence. Starting with overcoming the null.

In the case of docudramas or even documentary you don't use them in an investigation, you go to the sources of evidence.

Are you suggesting that the field of ufology considers the discovery channel to be research?

So where is the evidence that alien craft are a possibility? Where are the experiments to prove plausibility of a craft defying laws of physics? Or there even being an object that requires explanation?
 
ufology said:
I have not "insisted" on any such thing. I've constantly advocated subjecting what available evidence there is to the process of critical thinking. The issue is that the skeptics here don't consider reports from witnesses to be evidence while I do.
Click to expand...
Written records show that the magistrates and judges of old took great pains to look closely at the anecdotal evidence for witches, including the reliability of witnesses, which was based on witnesses' position in society and level of education, and such like. No doubt they considered this to be 'critical thinking' also.
 
ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes he did, he just refused to show it to you because it would have been proof he was being deceptive.

ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...
I call utter blx!
So what did he tell you he told his employer when they questioned the anomalies on his tachograph records?
"Missing time" is a serious offence to any employer let alone someone in charge of a lethal weapon on the roads.

ufology said:
So we concluded that there wasn't anything else to be done.
Click to expand...
Except to keep repeating the story anyway. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Marduk said:
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
:p
Click to expand...
Well you're just the chap we need around here. Since we took up the witch analogy here I have dipped into it a few times. I find it a very disturbing read, to be honest. Maybe if reading and discussing The Hammer was on the national curriculum in schools, they'd be less people going around with a misunderstanding of the meaning of evidence and critical thinking.

ETA: and subsequently believing in any old bull.
 
Last edited:
23_Tauri said:
Well you're just the chap we need around here. Since we took up the witch analogy here I have dipped into it a few times. I find it a very disturbing read, to be honest. Maybe if reading and discussing The Hammer was on the national curriculum in schools, they'd be less people going around with a misunderstanding of the meaning of evidence and critical thinking.

ETA: and subsequently believing in any old bull.
Click to expand...


I agree with the sentiment behind the UFO = OMG Aliens! - UFO = OMG Witches! comparison, and I'm grateful to those that have inserted it into the conversation (for the reasons you brought up in the above, 23_Tauri). However, I hesitated to link Ufology to the wiki entry on "Analogy" because I'm not sure it's as much of an analogy as it is a flat out alternative explanation... if you get what I mean. Is this a fair interpretation?
 
The witches were brought in to illustrate the "merit" of witness testimony and less that stringent approach to evidence.
Pointing out that there are more evidence for witches than for flying saucers is not the same as suggesting them as an explanation for UFOs. A point that is apparently lost on ufology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom