UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Pixel42]

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.

Neither do I. But I also see no scientific (or indeed any other kind of) reason to conclude that alien spacecraft actually are the cause of any UFO sightings. This is where you part company with sceptics.

I have a lot more trouble in this regard with witchcraft than I do interstellar travel.

I also find the existence of alien spacecraft intrinsically more plausible than the existence of witches on broomsticks. But that is irrelevant to recognising that there is no good reason to believe either are responsible for any UFO sightings.

 

[23_Tauri]

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.

But according to you, that science that makes interstellar travel plausible and is the bedrock of your faith in aleeyns from outer space visiting Urf is (quote)"basically anecdotes from scientists" with "instruments ...... prone to faults and failures (that) move the observer one more level away from the firsthand experience of the objective reality".

So, which is it, fol? Can we rely on science-y stuff or not? Because if first hand witnesses are the more reliable than those scientists with their faulty machines, - as you assert - then I'm sorry pal but it's Witches 1, Aleeyns 0.

And that aside, I have an anti-gravity broomstick, which as ufologists keep tellling us, is scientifically plausible.

 

[ufology]

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!

Just keep thinking about that.

 

[Stray Cat]

Just keep thinking about that.

Try and refute it instead of hand waving and hoping it'll disappear (in a puff of smoke)... Sim-sala-bim!

 

[Krikkiter]

 

[ufology]

Neither do I. But I also see no scientific (or indeed any other kind of) reason to conclude that alien spacecraft actually are the cause of any UFO sightings. This is where you part company with sceptics.

I also find the existence of alien spacecraft intrinsically more plausible than the existence of witches on broomsticks. But that is irrelevant to recognising that there is no good reason to believe either are responsible for any UFO sightings.

Actually, I've not concluded with any certainty that the ETH is correct, only that alien craft exist and have been observed here on Earth. And I've only concluded that based on a combination of personal observation and the reports of many others who have reported similar objects. Had I never seen one myself I would still be of the opinion that some reports probably represent alien craft, but I wouldn't be entirely certain. Whether or not they are from another planet is something I have no firsthand experience with, so I am not certain about it. I'm a proponent of the ETH only because it seems to make more sense than other theories like transports from hell, time travellers, secret civilizations ... oh yes and witches.

 

[Pixel42]

Actually, I've not concluded with any certainty that the ETH is correct, only that alien craft exist and have been observed here on Earth.

I repeat: there is no good reason to conclude any such thing. There isn't even any good reason to suspect it.

And I've only concluded that based on a combination of personal observation and the reports of many others who have reported similar objects.

Neither your own nor anyone else's unevidenced and error prone perceptions and memories are sufficient to conclude anything at all, let alone something as unlikely as that alien craft exist but have somehow managed to avoid ever providing any objective evidence of that existence.

 

[Stray Cat]

Actually, I've not concluded with any certainty that the ETH is correct, only that alien craft exist and have been observed here on Earth.

Aaah, right, now I understand...
You haven't concluded with any certainty that the ETH is correct, only that everything contained within the hypothesis is correct... how is that "not concluding with any certainty"?

 

[Stray Cat]

Actually, I've not concluded with any certainty that the WCH is correct, only that Witches exist and have been observed here on Earth. And I've only concluded that based on a combination of personal observation and the reports of many others who have reported similar objects. Had I never seen one myself I would still be of the opinion that some reports probably represent Witches, but I wouldn't be entirely certain. Whether or not they are from hell is something I have no firsthand experience with, so I am not certain about it. I'm a proponent of the WCH only because it seems to make more sense than other theories like Little green men, Greys, Flying Saucers, time travellers, secret civilizations ... oh yes and Talking Rabbits.

 

[23_Tauri]

Actually, I've not concluded with any certainty that the ETH is correct, only that alien craft exist and have been observed here on Earth.

LOL!

Fol, I think I spot a glaring, logical inconsistency in your sentence, above.

If you've concluded that alien craft exist and have been observed here on Earth then you must also conclude that the ETH is correct!

And I've only concluded that based on a combination of personal observation and the reports of many others who have reported similar objects. Had I never seen one myself I would still be of the opinion that some reports probably represent alien craft, but I wouldn't be entirely certain. Whether or not they are from another planet is something I have no firsthand experience with, so I am not certain about it. I'm a proponent of the ETH only because it seems to make more sense than other theories like transports from hell, time travellers, secret civilizations ... oh yes and witches.

Too much Star Trek and not enough Bewitched, young folo.

 

[ufology]

I repeat: there is no good reason to conclude any such thing. There isn't even any good reason to suspect it.

Neither your own nor anyone else's unevidenced and error prone perceptions and memories are sufficient to conclude anything at all, let alone something as unlikely as that alien craft exist but have somehow managed to avoid ever providing any objective evidence of that existence.

You didn't see what I did or what other people have, so it's fair for you to remain undecided and skeptical. However maintaining that firsthand experience isn't a good reason to draw conclusions is faulty. We all draw accurate conclusions regularly based on firsthand experience. In the vast majority of instances, it is our best reason to draw conclusions. Or would you prefer to draw them on what other people say?

 

[Pixel42]

You didn't see what I did or what other people have, so it's fair for you to remain undecided and skeptical.

I've seen plenty of things which, had I believed that my unaided perceptions alone were sufficient to reach a conclusion, would have led me to believe something that wasn't true. That it's possible for someone to saw himself in half and put himself back together again, for example.

However maintaining that firsthand experience isn't a good reason to draw conclusions is faulty. We all draw accurate conclusions regularly based on firsthand experience.

Fortunately we usually have a plentiful supply of objective evidence to check our perceptions, and hence those conclusions, against. Where we don't is when we tend most often to be wrong, which we frequently are.

 

[Spektator]

(snip)
So not only do they <witches> 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).

If memory serves, many people have admitted to being witches as well, including some under solemn oath in courts of law: in the Salem Village case, at least Tituba, Deliverance Hobbs, and Mary Warren swore that they were witches, and here is a story datelined today about another self-admitted witch. Surely such people tell anecdotes of their own witchcraft, and, being first-hand accounts, such anecdotes should be accepted as acceptable and true evidence under ufo rules.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Paul,

I haven't posted just "any difference" between the topics of UFOs and Witches.

Yes, that's exactly what you did.

I've posted significant and fundamental differences in both context and content.

And it was shown how significantly UFOs ( witches ) is the more compelling explanation for UFO reports. Witches have been proven in courts of law by triers of fact. Witches were found guilty based on evidence that had to be presented by witnesses of probity. Alien Space Ships isn't an explanation. ASS's have never been shown to exist, unlike UFOs ( witches).

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.

No, there is no rationale for believing in Alien Space Ships and you don't need to believe in UFOs ( witches ). They are a proven fact.

UFOs ( witches ) have been observed performing witchy maneuvers in the sky and doing witchy things such as dancing on the Sabbath. Those are evidence of witchery and we know that UFOs ( witches ) exist so it is more likely that the explanation for some UFO reports is witches.

Unless you're saying that all of the witnesses could have been hallucinating? And the courts as triers of fact came to the wrong conclusions every time?

Or were all of the witnesses and courts misinterpreting what they saw?

 

[Sideroxylon]

You didn't see what I did or what other people have, so it's fair for you to remain undecided and skeptical. However maintaining that firsthand experience isn't a good reason to draw conclusions is faulty. We all draw accurate conclusions regularly based on firsthand experience. In the vast majority of instances, it is our best reason to draw conclusions. Or would you prefer to draw them on what other people say?

As John Albert pointed out in your truck driver case, you are not interested in resolving mystery but rather perpetuating it, it was true of the truck case and is evidently true of your personal experiences.

 

[23_Tauri]

Aaah, right, now I understand...
You haven't concluded with any certainty that the ETH is correct, only that everything contained within the hypothesis is correct... how is that "not concluding with any certainty"?

I think it's concluding with a certain degree of certainty that Mr Foo is in a bit of a muddle.

If that's not the case then I'll eat my pointy hat.

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually, I've not concluded with any certainty that the ETH is correct, only that alien craft exist and have been observed here on Earth.

Only?

Only???​

Well then, as long as you haven't jumped to any really outlandish conclusions.

And I've only concluded that based on a combination of personal observation and the reports of many others who have reported similar objects.

You seem to have left out terminal wishful thinking, rampant confirmation bias and stuff that a talking rabbit told you.

Had I never seen one myself I would still be of the opinion that some reports probably represent alien craft, but I wouldn't be entirely certain.

And here we are being big meanies and accusing you of being credulous.

Whether or not they are from another planet is something I have no firsthand experience with, so I am not certain about it.

Is this because you've been unable to rule out Witches?

I'm a proponent of the ETH only because it seems to make more sense than other theories like transports from hell, time travellers, secret civilizations ... oh yes and witches.

Believing in stuff because it's not quite the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard is no way to go through life, son.

 

[John Albert]

Actually, I've not concluded with any certainty that the ETH is correct, only that alien craft exist and have been observed here on Earth. And I've only concluded that based on a combination of personal observation and the reports of many others who have reported similar objects.

No matter what you saw, you have no realistic basis to conclude any such thing.

One day when I was a young child, I was walking down the garden path at my grandfather's house and I saw something in the grass along the path that I could not identify. It was some sort of invertebrate animal, kind of like a slug or snail, only much larger. The strangest thing about it was that it was covered with ants and some kind of slimy froth, and was writhing around very fast, like nothing I've ever seen before or since. At the time it freaked me out so badly that I ran into the house in fear, and didn't tell anyone else about it. That sight gave me nightmares for weeks. To this very day, I have no idea what that poor, dying animal was, but I'm certainly not about to use an argument from ignorance to declare that it was something from out of this world. It was obviously just a thing which I had (and still have) no knowledge of. Being that it happened well over 30 years ago now, my memory is probably so faulty that I will probably never know for certain exactly what it was. Such is life. I'm not about to build an entire lifestyle around it and go arguing on Internet message boards that I saw something paranormal.

Had I never seen one myself I would still be of the opinion that some reports probably represent alien craft, but I wouldn't be entirely certain.

Seen "one" what? What did you see, exactly, that indicates it was something alien to Earth? A glowing light that silently danced around in regular patterns? How do you get from that experience to "OMG aliens!!!"?

You have no information on which to conclude it was an alien craft. No alien craft has ever been identified, caught or examined. All you have to go on is your own imagination, and the body of popular American folklore of the mid-late 20th Century.

Whether or not they are from another planet is something I have no firsthand experience with, so I am not certain about it. I'm a proponent of the ETH only because it seems to make more sense than other theories like transports from hell, time travellers, secret civilizations ... oh yes and witches.

You're a proponent of the ETH because that idea appeals to you, and you want to believe. You appear to have built your entire self-identity around the belief, so of course you're reluctant to dismiss it as totally unfounded.

The thing you must realize though, is that your belief is every bit as faith-based as those of the Raëlians. You have no more evidence to back up your claim to have seen an extraterrestrial craft than the nutty Frenchman has to back up his frothy ravings about his own extraterrestrial origins among the Elohim. From any non-creduloid point of view, there's essentially no difference in credibility between your story and Raël's.

"Raël" just happens to have a ballsier and more compelling story than yours. You claim to have witnessed an alien space ship doing maneuvers from several kilometers away, but he claims to actually be an alien from another planet. You went out and bought vanity plates for your car, but he actually had his name legally changed to his "alien" pseudonym. You're the sole proprietor of your own cheezy little online bookstore that masquerades as an international UFO club, but he's the head of an actual religion with membership in the tens of thousands, and recognized in many countries around the world. He has more pussy than he can shake his dick at, and well-founded plans to construct a UFO-themed amusement park in Las Vegas, and you're here wasting your time trying to defend your wimpy little story on a skeptics forum.

I guess my point is: as long as you're making stuff up, you might as well "go big" with it, and damn the nonbelievers. Either way, you're not being skeptical, scientific, rational or reasonable, and the only people you're going to convince are those who want to believe anyway. So why not just go for broke?

 

[Paul2]

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.

You're missing my point about the analogy. The point of the analogy isn't that belief in aliens is more or less called for than belief in witches. The point of the analogy (at least how I'm using it) is this:

If evidence for witches is insufficient based on some standard, then applying the same standard to aliens will also show insufficient evidence.

We claim that you don't accept eyewitness testimony as significant for witches, but you do so for aliens.

 

[John Albert]

We claim that you don't accept eyewitness testimony as significant for witches, but you do so for aliens.

Actually, we don't have to claim it, he's already proven that he doesn't accept eyewitness testimony for witches, like he does for aliens.

The question he needs to ask himself is: why doesn't he?

Why are aliens so special that he's willing to lower the bar enough to accept claims at face value for them, but not for other things with a similar lack of actual evidence?