UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[TjW]

That reply doesn't answer my question. What evidence do you have that witches are not using sufficiently advanced technology to fly on their brooms? What evidence do you have that Air Force jets were not vectored by radar toward witches instead of alien craft? Your answer should be in the form of objectively verifiable evidence. Otherwise, it will be assumed you don't have any.

 

[ufology]

Only the deluded know it's real. Rational, critically thinking, aware people understand that the complete lack of evidence for the existence of alien craft makes it unreasonable to claim any such knowledge.

GeeMack,

Only prejudicial willfully ignorant people would deny that UFOs exist or that one of the synonyms for "unknown" is "alien" ... as was demonstrated in an earlier post by independent dictionary quotation. Therefore your constant accusations of dishonesty are merely projections of your own incapacity to admit your are wrong.

 

[23_Tauri]

With respect to the issue of sufficiently advanced technology, the quote is, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." and what Clark is saying is that from the perspective of a comparatively primitive couture who believes in the supernatural, the powers of advanced technology are indistinguishable ( to them ) from magic.

Odd use of the word 'couture'. I mean, I know witches are very fashionably dressed but am I missing something here?

The big difference is that today, scientific thinking is such that when we conclude that a phenomenon exists, we can safely assume that there is a scientific explanation, even if the phenomenon isn't yet within our capacity to duplicate or fully explain. Ufology falls squarely into this category. It is not a belief in the supernatural. BTW: Arthur C. Clarke also believed in the scientific plausibility of interstellar travel.

I think the problem you have here is that 'scientific thinking' (your words) doesn't conclude that alien spacecraft that violate the laws of physics are visiting Earth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the phenomenon that you're referring to here?

 

[Rincewind]

Odd use of the word 'couture'. I mean, I know witches are very fashionably dressed but am I missing something here?

Ah - you and your witchy culcha....

 

[Akhenaten]

What evidence do you have that witches aren't simply using what Arthur C. Clarke described as "sufficiently advanced technology"?

With respect to the issue of sufficiently advanced technology,

<waffle>

Yes, we know what it means. Now, do you have any evidence that UFOs aren't witches using it?

The big difference is that today, scientific thinking is such that when we conclude that a phenomenon exists, we can safely assume that there is a scientific explanation, even if the phenomenon isn't yet within our capacity to duplicate or fully explain.

You seem to be skipping over the step where the phenomena you are prone to believing in - such as objects making right-angle turns whilst travelling at Mach 78 - have been demonstrated to actually occur.

Or are you talking about phenomena such as radar anomalies, optical illusions and mistaken recollections - things which 'scientific thinking' does indeed take into consideration?

Ufology falls squarely into this category. It is not a belief in the supernatural.

According to an earlier statement of yours it's not even a belief in UFOs.

Nevertheless, whatever it is that you're doing here it seems that you want to call it ufology, and it very much involves a belief in things that are beyond, as you put it, "scientific explanation", which is to say, the supernatural

Arthur C. Clarke also believed in the scientific plausibility of interstellar travel.

And?

 

[Akhenaten]

GeeMack,

Only prejudicial willfully ignorant people would deny that UFOs exist . . .

Why don't you post a list of all the people in this thread who have denied the existence of UFOs?

. . . or that one of the synonyms for "unknown" is "alien" ... as was demonstrated in an earlier post by independent dictionary quotation.

Your ability to remove words from their context, cherry pick definitions for them and then replace those definitions into the original context demonstrates nothing more than your own intellectual dishonesty.

Therefore your constant accusations of dishonesty are merely projections of your own incapacity to admit your are wrong.

Drivel. Why pick on poor GeeMack when his is but one voice amongst many pointing out the mendacity inherent in your every argument?

 

[Akhenaten]

Odd use of the word 'couture'. I mean, I know witches are very fashionably dressed but am I missing something here?

Fascinating witches with scintillating stitches? Room for a song there.

 

[ufology]

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

No it doesn't. Simply becuase you interpret some aspects of UFO sightings to be in violation of the laws of physics doesn't mean they are, or that those particular sightings represent sightings of actual craft.

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.

Ufology doesn't "require" a belief in E.T. and allowing for the possibility of an exotic explanation is not the same as believing in the supernatural.

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.

You are of course kidding right? Do you really think an Air Force Commander would launch a fighter intercept in response to a call from someone who said they saw witches flying over D.C. ... get real.

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.

UFOs don't demonstrate "supernatural abilities". They do however demonstrate a capacity for engineering that we cannot yet duplicate.

 

[GeeMack]

GeeMack,

Only prejudicial willfully ignorant people would deny that UFOs exist or that one of the synonyms for "unknown" is "alien" ... as was demonstrated in an earlier post by independent dictionary quotation. Therefore your constant accusations of dishonesty are merely projections of your own incapacity to admit your are wrong.

Let's see, I said, "Rational, critically thinking, aware people understand that the complete lack of evidence for the existence of alien craft makes it unreasonable to claim any such knowledge." And someone turned that into something like, "Only prejudicial willfully ignorant people would deny that UFOs exist." Until your arguments remotely resemble something honest, or even rational arguments for that matter, daring to accuse other people of projecting is laughably ridiculous. Oh, and ironically, it's transparently dishonest.

I do note your continued ignorance of this question: Of all the things perceived to be flying objects, things which were at first unidentified but later identified as a particular thing, how many of them turned out to be alien craft? Do you have any ideas why "ufologists" are so reluctant to deal with simple questions like that? Don't you think it would be a good idea if the "ufologists" would make some constructive contributions to this discussion? So far only the skeptics have been able to do that.

 

[23_Tauri]

Fascinating witches with scintillating stitches? Room for a song there.

It's all about the hats. No self-respecting witch would be seen dead out at night getting the ufologists all excited without the right hat to finish off the ensemble.

 

[ufology]

Let's see, I said, "Rational, critically thinking, aware people understand that the complete lack of evidence for the existence of alien craft makes it unreasonable to claim any such knowledge."

GeeMack

Wrong ... there isn't a "complete lack of evidence". Critical thinkers recognize the value of human experience and take it into consideration when making evaluations.

From Wikipedia:

"It has been described in more detail as "the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action."

So although scientific evaluation can be an important factor in critical thinking, it's not the only factor, and in the absence of material evidence that can be studied scientifically, critical thinking can aid in developing probabilities pro or con.

 

[SOdhner]

Wrong ... there isn't a "complete lack of evidence". Critical thinkers recognize the value of human experience and take it into consideration when making evaluations.

Exactly, like all those people who saw witches!

Oh... wait...

 

[Akhenaten]

You are of course kidding right? Do you really think an Air Force Commander would launch a fighter intercept in response to a call from someone who said they saw witches flying over D.C. ... get real.

No, you get real, ufology.

No air force commander (the caps are redundant unless you're talking about a specific person, BTW) would launch a fighter intercept in response to a call from someone who said they saw Mork from Ork in a flying egg flying over Washington either.

The jets were scrambled in response to something unidentified and neither you nor anyone else knows that it wasn't witches.

 

[De_Bunk]

Ok...

Why ain't any UFO ever been right above someones head (who's got a camera)..as in, directly above...Maybe at 1,000ft?..as in 'not in space'...

Why are ALL UFO pics/vids taken from a distance...?

What about the people directly underneath...?

Why aint any of those got a camera..???

In all the history of camera technology, no one has been directly underneath an alien spaceship...

Strange that fact...After all these 'sightings' over this hundred years of cameras..

(Not that i discount that there are other lifeforms in the cosmos)

DB

 

[Akhenaten]

It's all about the hats. No self-respecting witch would be seen dead out at night getting the ufologists all excited without the right hat to finish off the ensemble.

Ever notice how the white object on the USI badge thingy looks like a witch's hat with some little legs sticking out from under it?

 

[TjW]

It's all about the hats. No self-respecting witch would be seen dead out at night getting the ufologists all excited without the right hat to finish off the ensemble.

I see your pointy.

 

[TjW]

Ever notice how the white object on the USI badge thingy looks like a witch's hat with some little legs sticking out from under it?

Yes. It looks like the witch has completely eviscerated the flying saucer.

 

[GeeMack]

No it doesn't. Simply becuase you interpret some aspects of UFO sightings to be in violation of the laws of physics doesn't mean they are, or that those particular sightings represent sightings of actual craft.

Correct. Wow.

Ufology doesn't "require" a belief in E.T. and allowing for the possibility of an exotic explanation is not the same as believing in the supernatural.

Well the participants in the USI alien believers club, although apparently not required to believe in extraterrestrials, certainly aren't shy about proclaiming their belief in alien beings. Look at the kind of nonsense they say on their web site...

Most importantly, USI stands with all the eye-witnesses who know from the evidence of their own conscious and unimpaired senses and logical reasoning, that Earth is being visited by objects of alien origin.

(Go ahead now and do the alien believers' shuffle, the one where "aliens" doesn't necessarily mean they come from outer space, therefore as ridiculous as that sounds, it's just as reasonable to believe some kind of Earthbound alien civilization exists, one which routinely pilots some kind of craft around in our atmosphere. Because yeah, that's so much more rational.)

You are of course kidding right? Do you really think an Air Force Commander would launch a fighter intercept in response to a call from someone who said they saw witches flying over D.C. ... get real.

If someone knew it was a witch, maybe that would be a valid argument. But if someone didn't know what they saw flying, it's hard to say what sort of response we might get from the Air Force. And of course what really matters, and this is the part that is habitually ignored by "ufologists", after the fact, when the reports were submitted and the event analyzed as well as possible given the technology available at the time, did the Air Force determine they had launched a fighter jet to intercept an alien craft?

UFOs don't demonstrate "supernatural abilities". They do however demonstrate a capacity for engineering that we cannot yet duplicate.

That sounds suspiciously like the beginnings of an argument from ignorance. But getting back to a constructive contribution... Of those unidentified flying objects which appeared to some people to demonstrate a capacity for engineering which some people seemed to think we cannot yet duplicate, how many eventually turned out to be identified as alien craft? And adding to the constructive contribution, simply because someone interprets some aspects of UFO sightings to be contrary to current engineering capabilities doesn't mean they are, or that those particular sightings represent sightings of actual craft.

 

[Akhenaten]

GeeMack

Wrong ... there isn't a "complete lack of evidence". Critical thinkers recognize the value of human experience and take it into consideration when making evaluations.

For values of 'take into consideration' which include 'treat as claims rather than evidence'.

From Wikipedia:

"It has been described in more detail as "the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action."

Yet another attempt to shoehorn an irrelevant definition into your pseudoscientific fantasy.

So although scientific evaluation can be an important factor in critical thinking, it's not the only factor, and in the absence of material evidence that can be studied scientifically, critical thinking can aid in developing probabilities pro or con.

Anecdotes ≠ evidence, no matter how much you waffle on about it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No it doesn't. Simply becuase you interpret some aspects of UFO sightings to be in violation of the laws of physics doesn't mean they are, or that those particular sightings represent sightings of actual craft.

Yes, the same goes for UFOs ( witches ).

Ufology doesn't "require" a belief in E.T. and allowing for the possibility of an exotic explanation is not the same as believing in the supernatural.

You don't need a belief in witches, they are a proven fact.

You are of course kidding right? Do you really think an Air Force Commander would launch a fighter intercept in response to a call from someone who said they saw witches flying over D.C. ... get real.

Can you show where the Air Force ever chased an Alien Space Ship?

UFOs don't demonstrate "supernatural abilities". They do however demonstrate a capacity for engineering that we cannot yet duplicate.

Exactly the same for witchcraft. Actually, it's exactly the same for misperceptions, misidentifications, and hoaxes. Are you saying that all of those credible witnesses were hallucinating? All of the courts ( triers of fact ) interpreted their own senses incorrectly? Is that what you're saying, uf?

log, if you believe the UFO ( witch ) discussion is off topic, report the posts and let's see if they get moved.