UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Pixel42]

Simply because something unfamiliar comes into the picture doesn't mean we automatically screw up every time

Obviously not, but the more novel the experience is to us and the less opportunity we have to verify our perceptions against objective evidence the more likely we are to draw the wrong conclusion. That's why someone who is unfamiliar with a magic act (such as the cold reading of a so called psychic) is more likely to be taken in by it than someone who has researched such things.

Or in the case of my own sighting because I watched the object land I knew it had to come up again, so I waited and watched for it in order to get a better look and it appeared as anticipated, more than once.

You have no good reason to assume that the object you saw the first time and the one you saw later were one and the same object. When you first told your story the most likely explanation seemed to me to be that your initial sighting was of a distant object (probably an [earth bound] vehicle of some kind) and the later ones a much smaller, nearer object such as a firefly.

our firsthand experiences are not always scientifically verifiable, but that doesn't mean they aren't real.

Of course it doesn't. But I repeat: the more novel the experience and the less opportunity we have to verify it the more likely we are to misinterpret it. Most conclusions based on firsthand experience are accurate because the experiences are not novel and there is ample objective evidence against which they have already been verified.

In other words, it's possible to remain skeptical of a report without automatically assuming the witness was fabricating the story.

In most cases the scepticsm is based on the possibility that the witness is misinterpreting rather than fabricating, as that's usually more likely.

 

[GeeMack]

[* Unsupported rationalizations, special pleading, arguments from ignorance, and words written simply to take up space on the page snipped. *]

And people really truly do believe they've had conversations with gods. And as ridiculous as it sounds, some believe they've had conversations with rabbits! But it doesn't matter how strongly they believe their experiences are real. It doesn't matter how desperate they are to incorporate the hallucinations and delusions into their reality. All the blathering they might do about their alleged experiences may be reasonably discarded, and will be discarded by rational people, when it's brought into a discussion about reality.

In other words, it's possible to remain skeptical of a report without automatically assuming the witness was fabricating the story.

Nobody is automatically assuming you're fabricating your hoax. Initially it appeared you were relating an experience you actually had, describing some misperception of any number of common mundane possibilities. But in the intervening months, you have provided very much, very compelling evidence to support the notion that you made up your alleged experience form scratch. It has all the trimmings of a hoax. There's barely a shred of credibility left to suggest it was any kind of real experience at all. The best explanation available for the J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax will be, as we go into the future, that it was simply fabricated in an effort to bring more attention to your web store, motivated by a desire to sell books to gullible rubes who buy into the "UFOs = alien craft" nonsense.

In most cases the scepticsm is based on the possibility that the witness is misinterpreting rather than fabricating, as that's usually more likely.

In most cases. Sometimes the evidence takes us the other way.

 

[Toke]

What the hell is "machine generated data"?

Radar tapes?

 

[Paul2]

If the firsthand experience is unique, extraordinary or unrepeatable then treating any conclusions based on it as suspect is the only reasonable thing to do.

This. This. This.

 

[23_Tauri]

Unaided perceptions aren't entirely the same as firsthand experiences.

Also, although we have a lot of objective evidence for many things, the vast majority of the time a scientific verification of those things isn't necessary for us to make valid decisions. We perform thousands of actions in fluid succession daily based on our firsthand experience without verifying everything first.

And these everyday actions we have done repeatedly, throughout our lives. That we have repeated them many times means we have a certainty about their outcome.

Simply because something unfamiliar comes into the picture doesn't mean we automatically screw up every time, especially if we are trained not to screw up and are expecting it to happen, as in the case of Air Force pilots who are scrambled after unidentified radar targets.

The crew of RB-47 were expecting to see a meteorite coming directly towards them?

Or in the case of my own sighting because I watched the object land I knew it had to come up again, so I waited and watched for it in order to get a better look and it appeared as anticipated, more than once.

Like Pixel42, my guess is that the object you saw earlier on in the night was car or truck coming down the mountainside. The object appeared to move up and down out of view ("bounce down the hillside") but was in fact moving along an undulating road, hence the headlights would sometimes be visible, sometimes not.

The object to saw doing a figure of eight and nought to 25kps in a jiffy sounds to me that it could have been a firefly.

On what grounds do you dimiss the possibility that what you saw on the two separate occasions, some hours apart, were different phenomena?

...snip.....

Now all that being said, I've experienced sensory illusions several times and experienced what seemed like valid intuitive responses to seemingly spooky situations that upon further investigation turned out to have perfectly logical explanations. So it is certainly important to consider as many alternative rational mundane explanations as possible that fit the situation.

Considering the passage of time since your UFO sighting, and what you have learnt on this thread about how memories become distorted over time, is it not possible that you are the one who is refusing to consider alternative, rational, mundane explanations? You yourself have admitted that you refuse to consider alternative, mundane explanations, as you've written right here you know what you saw and nothing anyone can say can change your mind about that.

Where I find the skeptics going overboard is when they start changing the elements of the story to fit their mundane explanations, or go further to accuse witnesses of doing the reverse, which although can and probably does happen, isn't justified without some further rationale gained by investigation and study. In other words, it's possible to remain skeptical of a report without automatically assuming the witness was fabricating the story.

I don't think you're fabricating your story, I just don't think you're willing to accept the fallibility of your memory of the events of that night, and how your initial perception was biased due to your already held beliefs about UFOs and aliens.

 

[Belgian thought]

it's all very good about flying Aliens and Witches and all that, but what about the Fairies? - I mean we have real photographic evidence, as well as anecdotes, plus the fact that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, no less, vowed that they existed.

Please can we discuss Fairies too - (not Leprechauns because that is just nonsense as every one knows) ?



I had some money under my pillow once, for no reason - this is to add to the substantial anecdotal evidence that I am sure many have experienced and should sum up as being true i.e You know who put it there!


Not sure about that bearded bloke who was around the last few weeks. Socks do not equate proof!

 

[Correa Neto]

Do not forget about pterosaurs. We have their bones and also pictures! UFOs may be evolved pterosaurs!

 

[23_Tauri]

You are verifying here that the UFO ( witch ) experiencers felt the witches and just knew they were real. Courts ( triers of fact ) would have to have taken that into consideration to conclude that someone was a UFO ( witch ).

I've refrained from posting any tracts from my current bedtime reading so far, but I think the point that you have made here, Robotimbo, is illustrated by the following passage. In it you will see we have first hand experience from several eye witnesses (the shepherds), followed by the examination of the facts by the townsfolk who looked at other possible, mundane explanations but concluded to the point where "their suspicions became almost a certainty" that the events were the result of the witches' actions. Here it is:

http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/?p=35

Here is an instance of a visible transportation in the day-time. In the town of Waldshut on the Rhine, in the diocese of Constance, there was a certain witch who was so detested by the townsfolk that she was not invited to the celebration of a wedding which, however, nearly all the other townsfolk were present. Being indignant because of this, and wishing to be revenged, she summoned a devil and, telling him the cause of her vexation, asked him to raise a hailstorm and drive all the wedding guests from their dancing; and the devil agreed, and raising her up, carried her through the air to a hill near the town, in the sight of some shepherds. And since, as she afterwards confessed, she had no water to pour into the trench (for this, as we shall show, is the method they use to raise hailstorms), she made a small trench and filled it with her urine instead of water, and stirred it with her finger, after their custom, with the devil standing by. Then the devil suddenly raised that liquid up and sent a violent storm of hailstones which fell only on the dancers and townsfolk. And when they had dispersed and were discussing among themselves the cause of that storm, the witch shortly afterwards entered the town; and this greatly aroused their suspicions. But when the shepherds had told what they had seen, their suspicions became almost a certainty. So she was arrested, and confessed that she had done this thing because she had not been invited to the wedding: and for this, and for many other witchcrafts which she had perpetrated, she was burned.

Apologies if that was a bit of de-rail, please continue.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've refrained from posting any tracts from my current bedtime reading so far, but I think the point that you have made here, Robotimbo, is illustrated by the following passage. In it you will see we have first hand experience from several eye witnesses (the shepherds), followed by the examination of the facts by the townsfolk who looked at other possible, mundane explanations but concluded to the point where "their suspicions became almost a certainty" that the events were the result of the witches' actions. Here it is:

http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/?p=35


Apologies if that was a bit of de-rail, please continue.

Confirming evidence of UFOs ( witches ) is never a derail. Evidence of witchcraft would be something like filling a trench with water causing a hailstorm on those the witch is angry with and we see that she did exactly that. We also see confirming evidence of UFOs ( witches ) flying through the air based on the firsthand experiences of the most credible of witnesses, those hardy and true shepherds who were very close to being one with nature and knew more about UFOs ( witches ) and witchcraft than modern scholars can ever pretend to. The final nail was the confirming firsthand experiences of the rest of the independent witnesses, the townsfolk, who had no reason to be hallucinating or making the story up. I suppose the final, final nail was the confluence of all of the testimonies along with the physical evidence presented in court (the trier of fact), where she was found to be a witch beyond any shadow of doubt whatsoever.

fo, can you see anything wrong with the logic that you and I both use?

 

[John Albert]

What the hell is "machine generated data"?

That's what UFOlogists call it when the objective data gathered by mechanical equipment does not support the conclusion of "OMG aliens!!!" In that case, the "data" is just noise generated by an unnatural, mechanical "filter" that gets in the way of our own totally objective extraordinary human senses and biggest intellect on the planet, which gives us the ability to realize we're seeing an alien craft when we look at something unidentified in the sky.

On the other hand, machines can also provide infallible, objective evidence whenever they're used to support an anecdote about UFOs being alien craft. In those cases, they're an important part of the scientific data relied on by UFOlogists, that add indisputable objectivity to the UFO reports.

As all UFOlogists know, everything is dependent on "context."

 

[EHocking]

Radar tapes?

Detection ≠ Generation

 

[Toke]

Detection ≠ Generation

???
A radar tape show a recording of whatever were showed on the screen.
That would be machine generated data.

It have nothing to do with whether a specific odd acting dot is a rain cloud or a coven out for a joyride.

 

[Akhenaten]

Unaided perceptions aren't entirely the same as firsthand experiences.

<recycled waffle>

Yes they are. The nonsense I snipped was talking about anecdotes, which is to say, stories about unaided perceptions/firsthand experiences.

Whole 'nother thing.

Or in the case of my own sighting because I watched the object land I knew it had to come up again, so I waited and watched for it in order to get a better look and it appeared as anticipated, more than once.

Gosh! Despite never having seen this phenomenon before you knew it was an object and knew that it had to take off again and lo and behold, you saw exactly what you were expecting to see.

​

The other issue is that of "unaided perception". Unaided perception gives us direct sensory exposure to the objective reality while a machine filters the stimulus through a mechanism that is capable of error.

Except where a ufailogist needs radar tracking to serve as evidence of flying saucers, in which case it always operates flawlessly and produces completely unambiguous results.

<more waffle, with delicious special pleading sauce>

In other words, it's possible to remain skeptical of a report without automatically assuming the witness was fabricating the story.

Well you should get in touch with the straw folk who are doing this and tell them to jolly well cut it out.

 

[Akhenaten]

Do not forget about pterosaurs. We have their bones and also pictures! UFOs may be evolved pterosaurs!

With witches riding on their backs.

 

[EHocking]

???
A radar tape show a recording of whatever were showed on the screen.
That would be machine generated data.

It have nothing to do with whether a specific odd acting dot is a rain cloud or a coven out for a joyride.

But, again, that is machine recorded data - not machine generated data.

I'd like Ufology to tell me what he thinks machine generated data is.

 

[Akhenaten]

What the hell is "machine generated data"?

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

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.

Ufology, please read the above and give it some serious consideration. This is as concise a summary of UFOs as I've seen.

 

[ufology]

What the hell is "machine generated data"?

You're kidding right? Machine generated data is data from scientific instruments such as computers, spectroscopes, CCD telescopes, magnetometers, seismometers, video cameras ... any machine ( device or instrument created to accomplish a specific task ). Other examples that use the word "machine" in this context are "machine language" ( base computer instructions ) and "machine errors" ( hardware errors, one of the most common types being error in reading or accessing memory or media. )

 

[Akhenaten]

You're kidding right? Machine generated data is data from scientific instruments such as computers, spectroscopes, CCD telescopes, magnetometers, seismometers, video cameras ... any machine ( device or instrument created to accomplish a specific task ).

<snip>

But, again, that is machine recorded data - not machine generated data.

I'd like Ufology to tell me what he thinks machine generated data is.

Reading to end of thread before wading in, boots and all = A Good Thing™.

 

[EHocking]

You're kidding right? Machine generated data is data from scientific instruments such as computers, spectroscopes, CCD telescopes, magnetometers, seismometers, video cameras ... any machine ( device or instrument created to accomplish a specific task ). Other examples that use the word "machine" in this context are "machine language" ( base computer instructions ) and "machine errors" ( hardware errors, one of the most common types being error in reading or accessing memory or media. )

... and this has a bearing on evidence for UFOs=Alien Craft, how?

ETA : And FLIR, everyone always forgets FLIR^(TM)