UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

No it wouldn't, it would be in the history section!

It's ufology books in the paranormal section of the library.

Oh sure. Next thing you'll be telling us that Star Wars isn't a documentary.

 

[Akhenaten]

So out of the last 10 or so posts there is only one actual book suggestion. The rest have been either irrelevant or nonsensical. That's an interesting factoid to include in my notes on the constructiveness of the skeptics ... at least the ones here.

It's almost as if you've trashed your own credibility to such an extent that people refuse to take you seriously.

 

[23_Tauri]

To be fair, Tarot card readers use cold reading a lot. It's possible that's the kind of cards he meant.

That's a fair point, Pixel, (if a little generous IMO). Yes, I can see now that there is a possibility that the use of Tarot cards is what folo was referring to and it wasn't a case of him rushing and misinterpreting your post.

However, I my suspicions are still raised for two reasons:

1. When most people think of mediums doing cold reading, they have a picture in their minds of the classic tv psychic in front of a studio audience. "Is there anyone in your life who is a G? No? A J maybe? A family pet?" etc.; and

2. If the use of Tarot cards as a prop is what folo was referring to then why didn't he say so when he was asked for clarification? Why did it take you to clarify this point to me and others on his behalf? It's not like uf didn't have the opportunity to say "oh, I was referring the use of Tarot cards as a prop in cold reading sessions". This would still be inaccurate because he would be going to the general example of all psychics who use cold reading, to a tiny sub-set of psychics, i.e. those who use Tarot cards. However, he didn't take up the opportunity to clarify that he meant people who use Tarot cards. Instead, he came up with the decidedly woolly:

About cold reading and card reading. I knew what you meant and assumed you would make the connection between card readers and cold readers and your point.

This being a 'non-answer' suggests to me he that folo was doing the

 

[Garrison]

That's a fair point, Pixel, (if a little generous IMO). Yes, I can see now that there is a possibility that the use of Tarot cards is what folo was referring to and it wasn't a case of him rushing and misinterpreting your post.

However, I my suspicions are still raised for two reasons:

1. When most people think of mediums doing cold reading, they have a picture in their minds of the classic tv psychic in front of a studio audience. "Is there anyone in your life who is a G? No? A J maybe? A family pet?" etc.; and

2. If the use of Tarot cards as a prop is what folo was referring to then why didn't he say so when he was asked for clarification? Why did it take you to clarify this point to me and others on his behalf? It's not like uf didn't have the opportunity to say "oh, I was referring the use of Tarot cards as a prop in cold reading sessions". This would still be inaccurate because he would be going to the general example of all psychics who use cold reading, to a tiny sub-set of psychics, i.e. those who use Tarot cards. However, he didn't take up the opportunity to clarify that he meant people who use Tarot cards.

I agree, I think this was another instance of a CT making a mistake and being unable to admit it even though it would have no direct effect on their stated beliefs.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I agree, I think this was another instance of a CT making a mistake and being unable to admit it even though it would have no direct effect on their stated beliefs.

Credibility points would have been given if he had just said, "Oops! You're right. I read that too quickly and saw 'card reader' where you had typed 'cold reader'. My mistake!" That would have been the honest and courageous thing to do. It would be refreshing to see those traits displayed by a ufologist for a change.

Credibility points are taken away for trying to whitewash it over and he's already operating at a deficit.

 

[23_Tauri]

Credibility points would have been given if he had just said, "Oops! You're right. I read that too quickly and saw 'card reader' where you had typed 'cold reader'. My mistake!" That would have been the honest and courageous thing to do. It would be refreshing to see those traits displayed by a ufologist for a change.

Credibility points are taken away for trying to whitewash it over and he's already operating at a deficit.

I agree, absolutely. If Mr Foo had held up his hands and said "oopsie! Silly me!" he would have gone right up in my estimations. As it is, his further dishonesty in not even being able to admit to a small mistake, further heightens my lack of trust in him as a source of reliable information on ufology. If such a thing was possible, it undermines still further his story about his sighting, too.

It's not like members here aren't understanding of slip-ups. On many occasion, posting late at night (I suffer from "I Can't Go To Bed As Someone Is Wrong On The Internet" syndrome ) I have written something inaccurate, or failed to read someone's post properly, only to find my mistake in the morning. In such circumstances, there is only one commendable action: to put up one's hands and say "doh!"

 

[Garrison]

Credibility points would have been given if he had just said, "Oops! You're right. I read that too quickly and saw 'card reader' where you had typed 'cold reader'. My mistake!" That would have been the honest and courageous thing to do. It would be refreshing to see those traits displayed by a ufologist for a change.

Credibility points are taken away for trying to whitewash it over and he's already operating at a deficit.

As I say I think it's a CT problem in general but it occurs to me that in this case admitting Ufology that they saw 'cold reader' as 'card reader' would be admitting they are capable of perceptual errors, and that's impossible isn't it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

As I say I think it's a CT problem in general but it occurs to me that in this case admitting Ufology that they saw 'cold reader' as 'card reader' would be admitting they are capable of perceptual errors, and that's impossible isn't it?

Exactly! Only witnesses to UFOs ( witches ) are capable of perceptual errors.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So the guy who argued that UFO means alien craft is now concerned that is the context we take his use of the word?

Whodathunkit.

 

[GeeMack]

Again your comment on what is considered alien is misrepresented, specifically by adding the the word "spacecraft" to it and ignoring the context of usage cited.

It would be a lie to suggest that you've meant anything other than some sort of craft, either space craft or some kind of craft piloted by unknown, undiscovered, but existing in our current time Earthbound beings. Here are a few reminders...

[...] UFOs ( alien craft exist ) [...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...] UFO ( alien craft ) [...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft )[...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...]

[...] UFO ( alien craft )[...]

[...] UFOs ( alien craft ) [...]

[...] UFO ( alien craft ) [...]

... in case you've forgotten who is dishonestly insisting on defining UFOs as alien craft.

 

[John Albert]

Notice how he avoids any questions that actually challenge him to think, opting instead to reply only to those he feels he can spin off into some semantic gobbledygook. It's obvious he just comes here for the attention.

 

[Paul2]

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.

Ufo, I'm disappointed that you haven't responded to my last post about the analogy issue.

The problem is that one reasonable interpretation of not responding is an unwillingness to honestly deal with the content of the issue. It's true that responding to every issue takes a lot of time, there's several of us and one of you, but it is still required intellectually.

When I've been too busy to respond, I usually fire off a quick "Busy now, but I'll get back to this when I can."

When one respond to any - every single - argument or objection that an opponent can throw, then you're doing your job. Just ignoring your opponent's latest point just smacks too much of being in denial.

 

[carlitos]

Remember, he originally arrived at jref looking for some skeptics to debunk raelians, to provide free content for his website. I think that the recent questioning of motives is quite reasonable.

 

[Rincewind]

OK folks,

at the risk of a derail - are we coming up to the point where we finally see some research and evidence for discussion?

 

[Akhenaten]

Notice how he avoids any questions that actually challenge him to think, opting instead to reply only to those he feels he can spin off into some semantic gobbledygook.

That reminds me . . .

And by the way, are you ever going to answer these questions?

Snad refers to anecdotal evidence, lots of it. And film. And photographs. So do you. But you say that there’s as much evidence for Snardert’s skyfishes as there are for Pegasus and unicorns, unlike your metallic, saucer-shaped craft, for which there is apparently plenty of reliable evidence.

So, my question to J Randall Murphy remains: Why the double standard, ufology?

Are high quality cases the ones where we actually have an alien raygun to study? Alien bodies to disect?

As the above clearly indicates it is yet another claim that something happened. It's not a signed statement from the pilots, it's not a transcript of an interview or debriefing with the person(s) directly involved. It is once again someone who is recapitulating, without detail, what someone else claims to have experienced. This time it appears to be from an official source but still, it's not evidence. It's a claim that evidence exists. See the difference?

How then do you tell the difference between the ones that are [UFOs by your chosen definition] and the ones which are misperceptions, hoaxes, misidentification, etc?

What evidence do you have that the UFOs at Washington were glowing spheres?

Then just replace the word "pseudoaliens" with the paranormal intelligence of your choice, and answer the question, please:

In other words, it's just your opinion. You make no claims to being able to justify your beliefs in <non-human intelligent beings> beyond taking for granted some stuff you saw written in a book. Correct?

If you don't know what it is, then how does that prove it was made by a non-human civilization?

Air Force pilots have already been trained and tested and the invetigators have already interrogated them and evaluated the facts. Just because skeptics don't accept that doesn't mean there is no value to it. The probability that the USAF jet pilot who chased a UFO for several minutes during the day in plain view and closed with 500 yards, close enough to determine it to be a disk shaped craft travelling at the speed of sound ... was actually hallucinating the entire event or mistook it as a canopy reflection or some other mundane thing is almost zero. The margin of error is small enough for the report to be considered reliable and true.

Which bit of all that guff are you claiming as the testable evidence?

Ufology please tell me how the Air Force trains it's pilots to identify ufos.

My question remains, what is the difference between this 'evidence' for intelligent/intelligently controlled craft/entities/UFOs, which is the sort of thing that Snad was alluding to, and your intelligently controlled UFOs, ufology?

Snad has anecdotal and photographic "evidence" just like you do. What makes his "evidence" any less verifiable than yours?

So you're really claiming that the saucer-shaped object in your logo isn't meant to represent this object in the image that's right next to it on your website?

How is memory self-correcting? Are you saying that memory, all by itself, when it makes a mistake, somehow is able to correct that mistake? Can you give some details here?

And yet you have failed to demonstrate the logic that differentiates your belief that *some* UFOs are alien craft from the logic that:

assumes Gods

or

assumes intra-spacial fish and insects.

I can't see the difference. Others here can't see the difference. Why not help us out and just take us through it logically?

The falsifiable null hypothesis is:
"All UFO sightings are mundane in origin"
What do you have to falsify it?

What we're really after here is evidence. Do you possess any?

The unanswered questions are piling up. You must not be doing a very good job of "studying" UFOs, if you can't even answer a few straightforward questions.

I'm beginning to see why you pseudoscientists tend to cultivate mysteries instead of solving them.

It's obvious he just comes here for the attention.

Gosh! That also reminds me . . .

Interestingly, this has been suggested as a reason why some woos come here in the first place. We point out all the obvious flaws and inconsistencies, and they try to patch over them. Obviously no-one here is going to be fooled, since we've already seen all the wildly varying and inconsistent claims. But when they now take these stories somewhere else, all the people there see is the new, much more consistent story.

I'm sure it's the case. Anita Ikonen just about made a career out of it and there seems little doubt that Rramjet the Rrecently Rreclusive was also aiming for an As Seen On JREF sticker to put on whatever it is he's peddling.

What I don't understand is why they persist well beyond the point where any potential advantage that might accrue from the association is far outweighed by the disadvantage of having a permanent record of their failure writ large here for anyone with half a Google-fu.

 

[carlitos]

half a Google-fu.

Top 3 google results for "J Randall Murphy UFO" are below. Almost unbelievably, the first result is more damning than the third, as it's the page with the talking rabbit and the Men in Black driving a 1959 Cadillac special edition Pininfarina-redesigned Eldorado Brougham, a model of which only 99 were produced. (well, they produced another 101 of them in 1960, but never mind that)

Topics In Ufology - J.Randall Murphy
www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Murphy-02a.htm
Topics In Ufology - J. Randall Murphy. This page briefly outlines some of J. Randall Murphy's experiences in ufology and the paranormal.

USI - Ufology Society International
www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/USI-01a.htm
USI was founded in 1989 by J. Randall Murphy in Calgary Canada for the purpose of providing easy access to UFO related information, and over the long term, ...

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence - Page 348 - JREF Forum
forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156375&page=348
Oct 1, 2011 – This one is known as the J. Randall Murphy VolksUFO ( firefly ) hoax. ... Here J. Randall Murphy, often thought by many to be hoaxing a UFO ...

 

[ufology]

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.

Again: What I claim is that this isn't the place to discuss witches or witchcraft. And for the record, I haven't made any statement about accepting or rejecting evidence for one topic or the other, only pointed out that the two topics differ in nature, witchcraft requiring a belief in the supernatural, while ufology has no such requisite. In fact, ufology doesn't even require a belief that UFOs exist or are extraterrestrial. As for attempting to apply "some standard" to both topics, I did ask for equivalent examples, "Show me an example of Air Force jets being vectored by radar to intercept witches". Nobody has done that because they know it is absurd and it exposes the strawman for what it is.

 

[23_Tauri]

Oh goody I'm first.

Again: What I claim is that this isn't the place to discuss witches or witchcraft.

It is, if evidence can be put forward that some UFOs might be witches.

And for the record, I haven't made any statement about accepting or rejecting evidence for one topic or the other, only pointed out that the two topics differ in nature, witchcraft requiring a belief in the supernatural, while ufology has no such requisite.

And others have pointed out that this is not the case. And you're comparing apples with oranges. Ufology is the study of unidentified aerial phenomana, right? So what's to stop you from concluding that it is equally likely that some of those UAPs are witches, as it is that some of them are alien spacecraft?

In fact, ufology doesn't even require a belief that UFOs exist

The study of UFOs doesn't require a belief in the existence of UFOs? Wow man, that's deep.

or are extraterrestrial.

No, but you do.

As for attempting to apply "some standard" to both topics, I did ask for equivalent examples, "Show me an example of Air Force jets being vectored by radar to intercept witches". Nobody has done that because they know it is absurd and it exposes the strawman for what it is.

Ah, you're conflating UFO with alien spacecraft again. Oh dear fol, haven't you taken anything on board here?

Show me an example of Air Force jets being vectored by radar to intercept alien spacecraft, Mr U, and then I'll show you mine.

 

[Garrison]

Again: What I claim is that this isn't the place to discuss witches or witchcraft. And for the record, I haven't made any statement about accepting or rejecting evidence for one topic or the other, only pointed out that the two topics differ in nature, witchcraft requiring a belief in the supernatural, while ufology has no such requisite.

Actually given the claimed characteristics of the supposed craft in many sightings appear to violate the laws of physics it most assuredly does.

In fact, ufology doesn't even require a belief that UFOs exist or are extraterrestrial.

Except that in practice it is the preserve of those like yourself who do indeed believe that UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) require aliens or some other exotic explanation.

As for attempting to apply "some standard" to both topics, I did ask for equivalent examples, "Show me an example of Air Force jets being vectored by radar to intercept witches".

Again you miss the point, there are many instances of aircraft being scrambled in response to unidentified sightings and given the lack of evidence witches are about as valid an explanation as alien craft.

Nobody has done that because they know it is absurd and it exposes the strawman for what it is.

No one has done that because you have painfully missed the point. Unless you can demonstrate why alien craft demonstrating supernatural abilities is a superior explanation for any specific unidentified sighting to witches with supernatural abilities then you have no basis to choose one over the other except for your own personal beliefs.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Again: What I claim is that this isn't the place to discuss witches or witchcraft.

Your claim is incorrect unless you also want to say that this isn't the place to discuss Alien Space Ships. This thread is about UFOs, not Alien Space Ships.

And for the record, I haven't made any statement about accepting or rejecting evidence for one topic or the other, only pointed out that the two topics differ in nature, witchcraft requiring a belief in the supernatural, while ufology has no such requisite.

And you are incorrect again. You need no belief in the supernatural to believe in UFOs ( witches ). UFOs ( witches ) have been proven in courts of law ( triers of fact ). Witches are a fact.

In fact, ufology doesn't even require a belief that UFOs exist or are extraterrestrial.

Except that's exactly what you believe. You don't feel any cognitive dissonance in saying that sentence at all? UFOlogy doesn't require belief in UFOs?

As for attempting to apply "some standard" to both topics, I did ask for equivalent examples, "Show me an example of Air Force jets being vectored by radar to intercept witches". Nobody has done that because they know it is absurd and it exposes the strawman for what it is.

You were asked for equivalent examples, "Show me where an Alien Space Ship has been convicted in a court of law ( trier of fact )." If you prefer, "Show me where Air Force jets were vectored to intercept an Alien Space Ship." You haven't done that because you know it is absurd and exposes your irrational belief in one paranormal unevidenced explanation over one that has been proven.

Add special pleading to the list of things that logy doesn't comprehend, despite the vast amount of it he engages in.