UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Marduk]

You are referring to my sighting or something similar and I do believe what I saw was an alien craft. However no evidence from my observation tells me that it came from space. .

Ahhh I know this game, I played it with King of the Americas when he was doing what you do now, he was just better at it than you
your next steps should be to claim that
1) UFO's have been here since ancient times, which you can support with bible quotes and misunderstood renaissance icons
2) Aliens have interacted with many famous characters from history, which you can support with made up anecdotes about Alexander the great
3) Aliens are God, which you can support by claiming not to be religious yourself, but that you have a better understanding of the origins of religion than actual theologians and historians, the phrase "no I haven't really studied it, but its so obvious" will come in handy, also you need to pretend that Atlantis is still around but hidden underwater
4) suggest that Aliens could even be us from the future, time travelling back to study us and collect genetic samples to save the human race and that as an abductee you have contributed your genes to saving us all, which of course proves that as you already suspected, you are better than us
5) Having a nervous breakdown, accusing other forum members of stalking you, threatening to kill them and then blaming the government for attempting a cover up as "only you know the truth" when you get suspended
*extra credit for each hollywood film you use to support your position "because they're in on it"
let the games commence

 

[ufology]

Calculate the probability of the truth of your claim: Some UFOs are alien craft. Calculate that based on the total number of things allegedly seen flying which were initially not identified as some particular thing, but which were later identified as alien craft. That would be the starting point for considering the value of human experience as it relates to the claim that some UFOs are alien craft.

GeeMack,

Experts have done the calculations on the probabilities and those results showed that the probability that real objects, which in many cases looked and behaved like craft, but were of "unknown" origin, and therefore synonymous with alien, but not necessarily extraterrestrial, is a virtual certainty. Is this the same as proof? No. Is this the same as material scientific evidence? No. Is it a good enough reason to take the topic seriously? For most rational people it should be. But not everyone who thinks they are rational are. Some people, including some people who did the study didn't form their opinions based on their own results, deferring instead to their some bias or perhaps kowtowing to the decree of the establishment that wanted flying saucers downplayed. Some people go so far as to ignore the study altogether or simply dismiss it as irrelevant because it defies their paradigm.

As for those objects in UFO reports that later turn out upon investigation to be something natural or manmade, so what? Simply because most objects in UFO reports do not turn out to be alien craft doesn't mean all the objects reported are not UFOs ( alien craft ). I've talked with many people over the years and most of their stories could be explained by something natural or manmade. But a very few could not ... or at least it didn't seem likely based on the probability of spontaneous simultaneous hallucinations, or hoaxes or other non-material explanations.

So basically I've been doing what you suggest all along, that being that I always bear in mind that there are a lot of other possibilities to explain the objects in UFO reports besides that of alien craft, and I do what I can to elimante as many of those possibilities before arriving at an opinion regarding the probabilities one way or the other.

Personally, I am fairly strict so far as ufologists go. Because I don't have all the tools or authority at my disposal to do an in-depth study of each case, unless the person I'm talking to describes something that leaves very little doubt, I reserve an opinion based on insufficient information. For example an odd looking light in the distance that isn't identified, but is normal in every other way is not sufficient for me to class it as a UFO. If on the other hand it goes from a dead stop to streak across the sky in a second or two, I'd pay more attention, and if it also instantly changed direction as well. I'd pay even more attention, and if upon further investigation there were other independent witnesses who say they saw the same thing at the same time from another location, then I'd take it seriously enough to say there was a high probability that the object was some sort of alien craft. But even then would I declare with absolute certainty that it was? No. I've only done that with my own sighting, and that's only because of the various facets of the observations I made ... and of course I'm sure you would add, my belief that those observations were accurate enough to reach my conclusion at the time and have remained uncorrupted enough to believe the same thing today.

 

[Marduk]

For example an odd looking light in the distance that isn't identified, but is normal in every other way is not sufficient for me to class it as a UFO. If on the other hand it goes from a dead stop to streak across the sky in a second or two, I'd pay more attention, and if it also instantly changed direction as well. I'd pay even more attention, and if upon further investigation there were other independent witnesses who say they saw the same thing at the same time from another location, then I'd take it seriously enough to say there was a high probability that the object was some sort of alien craft.

this is a good description of a meteorite, before they enter the atmosphere they appear as stationary just like background stars but brighter, they change direction when they encounter the atmosphere, either by breaking up changing their centre of balance or by skipping off the troposphere making them appear to change direction in relation to the observer.
there's about a million videos of this on youtube, but your first stop is "Aliens"
you are a religious fundamentalist really eh

 

[ufology]

this is a good description of a meteorite, before they enter the atmosphere they appear as stationary just like background stars but brighter, they change direction when they encounter the atmosphere, either by breaking up changing their centre of balance or by skipping off the troposphere making them appear to change direction in relation to the observer.
there's about a million videos of this on youtube, but your first stop is "Aliens"
you are a religious fundamentalist really eh

Hey Marduk,

Sure the rare meteor can do what you describe, but that isn't the same thing when you consider the finer details. I've seen small and very large meteors, the latter during the day. Like I said above, if the light suddenly went from a dead stop to streak across the sky in a couple of seconds, I'd be more interested. Then I'd ask questions like, "how long did you observe it stationary before it moved? When it moved did it remain as a single light or did it seem to split apart? Was the angle it departed at ascending or descending? etc." and if you review above again, even if all the answers eliminated a bolide, and there were corroborating witnesses and it made other maneuvers as well, I still wouldn't conclude with absolute certainty that an alien craft had been observed. So please don't fabricate properties regarding my character or my ability to dicern.

 

[carlitos]

The last post is pretty much the definition of being overly credulous to push an agenda. Stories are not evidence. They are stories.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

As for those objects in UFO reports that later turn out upon investigation to be something natural or manmade, so what? Simply because most objects in UFO reports do not turn out to be alien craft doesn't mean all the objects reported are not UFOs ( alien craft ).

<snip>

No object in any UFO report ever turned out to be an alien craft.

This is the situation you have to face up to, folo, not the pretend one alluded to by the highlighted text above.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Streaks of light across the sky? Pretty boring compared to being cut off by a vanishing Cadillac full of MiB. Now thats what I call a real UFO story. Right Mr Ufology?

 

[RoboTimbo]

As for those objects in UFO reports that later turn out upon investigation to be something natural or manmade, so what? Simply because most objects in UFO reports do not turn out to be alien craft witches doesn't mean all the objects reported are not UFOs ( alien craft witches ).

FTFY. Does the sentence still work for you, folog? If not, why not?

 

[R.A.F.]

No object in any UFO report ever turned out to be an alien craft.

Well, ology?? Are you personally responsible enough to admit this?...or will you ignore it?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Well, ology?? Are you personally responsible enough to admit this?...or will you ignore it?

But UFO=flying saucers.[/Nigel Tufnel]

 

[GeeMack]

Experts have done the calculations on the probabilities and those results showed that the probability that real objects, which in many cases looked and behaved like craft, but were of "unknown" origin, and therefore synonymous with alien, but not necessarily extraterrestrial, is a virtual certainty.

The persistent and dishonest attempt to redefine terms to make "UFOs = alien craft" is noted. Here is a constructive contribution which "ufologists" would do well to heed: Dishonesty of that sort is tantamount to lying, and although clearly acceptable within the pseudoscience of "ufology", it is generally not an acceptable method of relating to other humans in this society, in the real world, on this side of the reality/fantasy border. Here's another constructive contribution: No "ufologist" has yet once advanced the discussion one iota with their attempts to dishonestly redefine terms.

Is this the same as proof? No. Is this the same as material scientific evidence? No. Is it a good enough reason to take the topic seriously? For most rational people it should be. But not everyone who thinks they are rational are. Some people, including some people who did the study didn't form their opinions based on their own results, deferring instead to their some bias or perhaps kowtowing to the decree of the establishment that wanted flying saucers downplayed. Some people go so far as to ignore the study altogether or simply dismiss it as irrelevant because it defies their paradigm.

Speaking of paradigm, in this study to which you refer, or in any other study ever undertaken by man, in all of that human experience that you wish to use as a reference, which of them concluded that any particular sighting was indeed an alien craft or for that matter, that alien craft exist?

Oh, and here is another constructive contribution: Appealing to paranoia of the establishment and fantasized conspiracies to downplay alleged knowledge of alien craft only adds a layer of desperation on top of an already ridiculous -- and failed -- attempt to make "UFOs = alien craft".

As for those objects in UFO reports that later turn out upon investigation to be something natural or manmade, so what? Simply because most objects in UFO reports do not turn out to be alien craft doesn't mean all the objects reported are not UFOs ( alien craft ).

Thanks for demonstrating once again that you're not willing to answer a direct question, as easy as the answer is. The question wasn't of all the things apparently seen and initially unidentified as some particular thing, how many turned out to be natural or man made objects? That was not the question, your dishonest attempt to reconstruct the question in order to avoid honestly answering the actual question notwithstanding. The question that seems to strike fear into the hearts of "ufologists" is this: Of all the things apparently seen, and at first not identified but eventually identified as a particular thing, how many of those turned out to be alien craft? That is the question that apparently no "ufologist" has the courage or honesty to answer.

I've talked with many people over the years and most of their stories could be explained by something natural or manmade. But a very few could not ... or at least it didn't seem likely based on the probability of spontaneous simultaneous hallucinations, or hoaxes or other non-material explanations.

Yeah, well, your arguments from incredulity and ignorance haven't gained you any ground yet. You certainly can't rationally believe trying another round of them will help. Interesting that only the skeptics here are providing constructive contributions. The "ufologists" are repeating the same old useless anecdotes and trying the same old failed strategy of hoping a lie or logical fallacy might slip past the watchful eye of the ever vigilant skeptics.

So basically I've been doing what you suggest all along, that being that I always bear in mind that there are a lot of other possibilities to explain the objects in UFO reports besides that of alien craft, and I do what I can to elimante as many of those possibilities before arriving at an opinion regarding the probabilities one way or the other.

That is, of course, another dishonest attempt to re-frame your position to make it appear skeptical. Shall I post the links... again... to all the quotes where you've tried to dishonestly equate "UFOs" and "alien craft"?

Personally, I am fairly strict so far as ufologists go.

So you're strict as far as pseudoscience goes? Pardon me while I have a good chuckle...

​

Okay, back.

Because I don't have all the tools or authority at my disposal to do an in-depth study of each case, [...]

We haven't really seen any "ufologist" do an in depth study of any case. The only ones ever to make a constructive contribution to this thread are the skeptics. "Ufologists" start with a foregone conclusion that some UFOs are alien craft, then they apply whatever strategies they think might work to convince themselves that they are correct. (Notice how well those strategies of arguments from incredulity and ignorance, dishonestly redefining terms, avoiding questions, avoiding research, avoiding critical thinking, and building straw men have worked to convince anyone who wasn't already a believer in the faith-based position that "UFOs = alien craft"?)

[...] unless the person I'm talking to describes something that leaves very little doubt, I reserve an opinion based on insufficient information. For example an odd looking light in the distance that isn't identified, but is normal in every other way is not sufficient for me to class it as a UFO. If on the other hand it goes from a dead stop to streak across the sky in a second or two, I'd pay more attention, and if it also instantly changed direction as well. I'd pay even more attention, and if upon further investigation there were other independent witnesses who say they saw the same thing at the same time from another location, then I'd take it seriously enough to say there was a high probability that the object was some sort of alien craft.

Yet after having been asked literally dozens of times, you refuse to elaborate on how you know everything about every conceivable thing that might cause someone to perceive such a thing or to say they've seen it if in fact they didn't. You have yet to answer the simple question of how you've gone about eliminating the possibility of the other infinite number of things that are not known to exist, and irrationally and un-skeptically landed on that singular conclusion that it must be an alien craft. Didn't you learn anything in the thread where everyone tried so hard to help you understand critical thinking, what it is and how to apply it, and how your neglecting it is the root of your failure?

But even then would I declare with absolute certainty that it was? No.

I think we can safely, and without any beating around the bush, place that comment directly into the "lie" bin.

I've only done that with my own sighting, and that's only because of the various facets of the observations I made ... and of course I'm sure you would add, my belief that those observations were accurate enough to reach my conclusion at the time and have remained uncorrupted enough to believe the same thing today.

Constructive contribution: You overestimate your ability to effectively remember details. You have provided much evidence to support the notion that your very own fairy tale UFO sighting is a work of pure (and not very imaginative) fiction, a hoax. You have no basis of reference in all of human experience to suggest that anything you claim to have seen could possibly be something which is not known to exist.

And in case you've forgotten: Of everything that has been apparently seen and initially unidentified, but which was later identified as some particular thing, how many of those things turned out to be alien craft? Come on, looking for an honest answer to a simple question here. Can you do it? Can any self proclaimed "ufologist" do it?

 

[Akhenaten]

Experts have done the calculations on the probabilities and those results showed that the probability that real objects, which in many cases looked and behaved like craft, but were of "unknown" origin, and therefore synonymous with alien, but not necessarily extraterrestrial, is a virtual certainty.

Piffle.

'Experts' have done no such thing, mainly because most of the above run-on sentence is mish-mash of your own personal definitions for things and as such has never even been heard of by anyone outside of this woebegone thread.

Is this the same as proof? No.

It's not even the same as evidence. It's gobbledygook.

Is this the same as material scientific evidence?

It's not even anecdotal. It's word salad.

No. Is it a good enough reason to take the topic seriously?

It's not even good enough to be called a topic.

 

[Garrison]

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.

So what you are saying is some people who see strange things in the sky and claim they are alien craft, Like yourself for example, are just wrong? So who is going to be the arbiter of what is an unknown physics busting alien craft and what is just a badly observed firefly?

Ufology doesn't "require" a belief in E.T.

In theory perhaps not, in practice the evidence says otherwise.

and allowing for the possibility of an exotic explanation is not the same as believing in the supernatural.

But you don't allow for the possibility, you insist one must exist regardless of the way many such sightings defy the laws of physics. Until you provide hard evidence to the contrary, which is probably going to involve you getting a physics degree and working for CERN, you are arguing for the supernatural.

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.

The launch an intercept on an unknown sighting. Some of these sightings remain unknowns, and given the characteristics often claimed by witnesses they could as easily be witches, ghosts, faeries or your magical alien craft.

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

Patently untrue, various reports, including some by those air force pilots you believe are such credible witnesses include actions which would violate known physical laws, making them no different from witches or any other supernatural explanation.

 

[GeeMack]

Sure the rare meteor can do what you describe, but that isn't the same thing when you consider the finer details. I've seen small and very large meteors, the latter during the day. Like I said above, if the light suddenly went from a dead stop to streak across the sky in a couple of seconds, I'd be more interested. Then I'd ask questions like, "how long did you observe it stationary before it moved? When it moved did it remain as a single light or did it seem to split apart? Was the angle it departed at ascending or descending? etc." and if you review above again, even if all the answers eliminated a bolide, and there were corroborating witnesses and it made other maneuvers as well, I still wouldn't conclude with absolute certainty that an alien craft had been observed.

Word salad does not constitute a constructive contribution. You might consider re-phrasing it thus: "There is no rational objective reason to conclude that anything anyone ever observed was an alien craft." That would be constructive, honest, and speaks directly to the topic of this thread.

So please don't fabricate properties regarding my character or my ability to dicern.

I don't think anyone here, at least among the skeptics, has any doubt about the state of either of those issues.

 

[Jocce]

Experts have done the calculations on the probabilities and those results showed that the probability that real objects, which in many cases looked and behaved like craft, but were of "unknown" origin, and therefore synonymous with alien, but not necessarily extraterrestrial, is a virtual certainty.

Orly? Care to show that research? Oh wait...you can't be talking about that again? Do I have any hopes of you adressing my comments on that now or areyou just going to ignore it again and pretend that the above is true?

As for those objects in UFO reports that later turn out upon investigation to be something natural or manmade, so what?

No, you get it backwards. We need an example of an initially unidentified object that later turned out to be an alien craft. Got any?

Simply because most objects in UFO reports do not turn out to be alien craft doesn't mean all the objects reported are not UFOs ( alien craft ).

I wholeheartedly agree. I'd like to emphasize that no object in a UFO report has ever turned out to be an alien craft

I've talked with many people over the years and most of their stories could be explained by something natural or manmade. But a very few could not ... or at least it didn't seem likely based on the probability of spontaneous simultaneous hallucinations, or hoaxes or other non-material explanations.

Doesn't seem likely =/= alien

 

[ufology]

The last post is pretty much the definition of being overly credulous to push an agenda. Stories are not evidence. They are stories.

Stories that are fiction are not evidence for non-fictional events. Stories that are a recounting of a firsthand experience are evidence ... just not material evidence ... again ( Note the highlighted section )

ev·i·dence [évvid’ns] noun

1. sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion.

2. proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime

3. statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

Encarta® World English Dictionary

 

[Aepervius]

I tried to design a version of DOC vs Ufology snakes and ladders, with the snakes representing logical fallacies and the ladders representing sound arguments, but as you can imagine I ended up with a board that looked like the Well of Souls in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

"logical fallacies and the temple of doom"


Except I see no happy ending here, indy.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Stories that are fiction are not evidence for non-fictional events. Stories that are a recounting of a firsthand experience are evidence ... just not material evidence ... again ( Note the highlighted section )

ev·i·dence [évvid’ns] noun

1. sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion.

2. proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime

3. statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

Encarta® World English Dictionary

Then you do realize that all of the stories about UFOs ( witches ) are true and accurate accounts.

 

[GeeMack]

Stories that are fiction are not evidence for non-fictional events. Stories that are a recounting of a firsthand experience are evidence ... just not material evidence ... again ( Note the highlighted section )

And again, stories are anecdotes which are not evidence. They are claims. But furthermore, stories which cannot be objectively differentiated from fiction may be dismissed as fiction, like the J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax, for example.

 

[ufology]

We haven't really seen any "ufologist" do an in depth study of any case. The only ones ever to make a constructive contribution to this thread are the skeptics. "Ufologists" start with a foregone conclusion that some UFOs are alien craft, then they apply whatever strategies they think might work to convince themselves that they are correct.

More anti-ufology propoganda above. Most ufologists are undecided about the true nature of UFOs and many ( not all ) favor the ETH based on personal opinion and probability, not simply a "foregone conclusion". Most ufologists also work cases by starting with the position that the object in question is probably something natural or manmade, and then eliminating as many of those things as is possible based on information gained from investigation or study.