UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Krikkiter]

But isn't the comparison better described as an alternative (and in many ways more plausible) explanation for UFO than OMG! Aliens!?

 

[23_Tauri]

You're both right. IIRC, I originally mentioned witches because of the reliance on witness testimony for identification purposes. But once it was out there it just took off, so to speak.

Arf.

 

[Krikkiter]

You're both right. IIRC, I originally mentioned witches because of the reliance on witness testimony for identification purposes. But once it was out there it just took off, so to speak.

Arf.

Very good

 

[Stray Cat]

But isn't the comparison better described as an alternative (and in many ways more plausible) explanation for UFO than OMG! Aliens!?

Not even necessarily an "alternative", there is no mutual exclusivity between 'witches' and 'Aliens in flying saucers'. One does not rule out the other so to speak.

The Witches theory works on many levels as possible explanation, analogy, parody, mockery (though Mr Foo doesn't see that even the mockery makes valid points as all good mockery should).

So not only do they have a basis in fact (proven by courts of law based upon eye witness testimony and evidence presented to credible people in positions of authority), but there is also no scientific basis on which to discount them as they are scientifically plausible (using the same standards as scientific plausibility Mr Foo claims for alien flying saucers).

 

[Krikkiter]

Not even necessarily an "alternative", there is no mutual exclusivity between 'witches' and 'Aliens in flying saucers'. One does not rule out the other so to speak.

The Witches theory works on many levels as possible explanation, analogy, parody, mockery (though Mr Foo doesn't see that even the mockery makes valid points as all good mockery should).

So not only do they have a basis in fact (proven by courts of law based upon eye witness testimony and evidence presented to credible people in positions of authority), but there is also no scientific basis on which to discount them as they are scientifically plausible (using the same standards as scientific plausibility Mr Foo claims for alien flying saucers).

Right. So in general, the witch "analogy" works on multiple levels. I guess it has come to that after a few years.

Can I still stick with comparison rather than analogy?

 

[Stray Cat]

I guess it has come to that after a few years.

I don't know how you'd even measure that... maybe an old crone-ograph.

Can I still stick with comparison rather than analogy?

Mmmm... dunno, we'd have to compare what you were comparing it with to see if it was analogous to something more pertinent... or not.

 

[23_Tauri]

I don't know how you'd even measure that... maybe an old crone-ograph.

Oi! Less of the old, thank you very much.

 

[ufology]

... 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.

Paul,

I haven't posted just "any difference" between the topics of UFOs and Witches. I've posted significant and fundamental differences in both context and content. The witch analogy pushers have only created a mocking way of saying that because there is no verifiable scientific evidence for witches and UFOs there is no rationale for believing in one or the other. While this is true on a superficial level, there are significant differences that make believeing in one or the other more reasonable than the other, and certainly provide more reasons to engage in the pursuit of verifiable scientific evidence.

 

[Stray Cat]

Oi! Less of the old, thank you very much.

If that particular (pointy) hat doesn't fit, it's not yours.

 

[Stray Cat]

I haven't posted just "any difference" between the topics of UFOs and Witches. I've posted significant and fundamental differences in both context and content. Also read the two articles in Wikipedia and you'll find very little in common between the two topics. What the skeptics here have done is arbitrarily reduced the number factors that differentiate the two by dismissing or ignoring relevant information so that at some point their tunnel vision contains only the factors they are looking for.

Not at all.
What we're doing is taking the same points you constantly make about the validity of UFOs being Aliens in flying saucers and applying them to UFOs being Witches.

 

[Krikkiter]

Not at all.
What we're doing is taking the same points you constantly make about the validity of UFOs being Aliens in flying saucers and applying them to UFOs being Witches.

And IMHO there's more evidence for witches.

 

[Pixel42]

I haven't posted just "any difference" between the topics of UFOs and Witches. I've posted significant and fundamental differences in both context and content.

Why?

What's being compared isn't UFOs and witches, it's alien spacecraft and witches. Specifically how reasonable it is to propose each of them as possible causes of UFO sightings.

 

[Krikkiter]

Paul,

I haven't posted just "any difference" between the topics of UFOs and Witches. I've posted significant and fundamental differences in both context and content. The witch analogy pushers have only created a mocking way of saying that because there is no verifiable scientific evidence for witches and UFOs there is no rationale for believing in one or the other. While this is true on a superficial level, there are significant differences that make believeing in one or the other more reasonable than the other, and certainly provide more reasons to engage in the pursuit of verifiable scientific evidence.

Please describe what you mean by "context and content".

 

[ufology]

Why?

What's being compared isn't UFOs and witches, it's alien spacecraft and witches. Specifically how reasonable it is to propose each of them as possible causes of UFO sightings.

As a proponent of the ETH, and a person interested in science and space travel, I see no scientific reason to dismiss alien spacecraft as possible causes. However as a non-believer in the supernatural and the occult, I see no reason to attribute them to witches. So for me it comes down to whether it's more reasonable to have faith in science than the occult, and on that count I submit that it is more reasonable to have faith in science than the occult, and further submit that if any occult beliefs represent real processes, there is also a scientific explanation for them. I have a lot more trouble in this regard with witchcraft than I do interstellar travel.

 

[Stray Cat]

As a proponent of the ETH, and a person interested in science and space travel, I see no scientific reason to dismiss alien spacecraft as possible causes.

Based upon the exact same assumptions, there is no scientific reason to dismiss Witches either.

However as a non-believer in the supernatural and the occult, I see no reason to attribute them to witches.

The "occult" significance of Witches is simply part of the legend and mythology. There is nothing to really suggest there is an occult explanation, when Witches are scientifically possible and proven in courts of law based upon eye witness testimony and the presentation of physical evidence.

So for me it comes down to whether it's more reasonable to have faith in science than the occult, and on that count I submit that it is more reasonable to have faith in science than the occult,

Right up to the point where science agrees with you. Anything beyond that you claim science doesn't know everything and it gets stuff wrong and use that to justify your blind belief in Aliens.

and further submit that if any occult beliefs represent real processes, there is also a scientific explanation for them. I have a lot more trouble in this regard with witchcraft than I do interstellar travel.

If there is a scientific explanation for them, they are not "occult beliefs" and indeed Witches are not beyond scientific plausibility (when the exact same standards you apply to aliens in flying saucers are applied).

 

[23_Tauri]

I haven't posted just "any difference" between the topics of UFOs and Witches. I've posted significant and fundamental differences in both context and content. Also read the two articles in Wikipedia and you'll find very little in common between the two topics.

Oh rly?

Ok, let me try:

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

The meaning of the word occult is “that which is hidden”. Both witches performing feats of witchcraft and craft powered by aliens (ETs) whizzing around in our skies are equally occult because they depend on belief in something that is hidden from the masses, making the believers / knowledgeable ones enlightened and the rest of us mere uneducated peasants.

Furthermore, as John pointed out earlier, and which is starkly obvious to the rest of us but not you, you are still confusing UFOs with alien spaceships. Please recognise your simple and fundamental error here, it will help a great deal with your comprehension of this thread if you do. In fact, until you can actually get this (I admit, it would be a total eureka moment) your assertion to have posted "significant and fundamental differences in both context and content", therefore negating the analogy, is simply absurd. Because you haven't even understood what is being compared with what.

Have you?

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.

See my point above. UFO reports are very real, yes. No one is saying otherwise. What is preventing you from seeing that – on the basis of the evidence - some of those UFOs could just as easily be witches as they could be alien spaceships?

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

Rather than repeat the points made by others, please explain to me who is taught Alien Spaceship Spotting 101 at school, college or even pilot training school?

If you are going to say that today we learn about science-y stuff in schools that would be very ironic, because a few posts ago that science-y stuff is just as fallible as witness testimony. Were you not?

 

[ufology]

Based upon the exact same assumptions, there is no scientific reason to dismiss Witches either.

There are no "exact same assumptions". The ETH is dependent upon the scientific plausibility of interstellar travel whereas belief in witchcraft is dependent upon a belief in supernatural powers. The two concepts are widely separated, yet for the sake of your argument you have chosen to proclaim them as identical.

 

[23_Tauri]

As a proponent of the ETH, and a person interested in science and space travel, I see no scientific reason to dismiss alien spacecraft as possible causes. However as a non-believer in the supernatural and the occult, I see no reason to attribute them to witches. So for me it comes down to whether it's more reasonable to have faith in science than the occult, and on that count I submit that it is more reasonable to have faith in science than the occult, and further submit that if any occult beliefs represent real processes, there is also a scientific explanation for them. I have a lot more trouble in this regard with witchcraft than I do interstellar travel.

That's a bit rich coming from someone who's only recently dismissed the whole of scientific endeavour with the following piffle in post #16298:

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.

 

[Stray Cat]

As a proponent of the WCH, and a person interested in spells and broomstick travel, I see no scientific reason to dismiss Witchcraft as possible causes. However as a non-believer in Aliens and flying saucers, I see no reason to attribute them to ET ASSes. So for me it comes down to whether it's more reasonable to have faith in science than UFOlogy, and on that count I submit that it is more reasonable to have faith in science than UFOlogy, and further submit that if any Alien Flying Saucer beliefs represent real processes, there is also a scientific explanation for them. I have a lot more trouble in this regard with Aliens in Flying Saucers than I do broomstick travel.

 

[Stray Cat]

There are no "exact same assumptions". The ETH is dependent upon the scientific plausibility of interstellar travel whereas belief in witchcraft is dependent upon a belief in supernatural powers. The two concepts are widely separated, yet for the sake of your argument you have chosen to proclaim them as identical.

How so?

If anti-gravity technology is scientifically plausible (as you claim it is), then I suggest that Witches know about it and use it to power their broomsticks... No supernatural powers required!