UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[23_Tauri]

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 read this page three times over tonight and I still can't believe you wrote this, foo. Even for you, this is an awe-inspiring level of self-delusion. Congratulations.

 

[Spektator]

The fact that no object in UFO reports has ever been proved to be an alien craft does show that no UFO has ever turned out unequivocally to be an alien craft, however.

 

[Resume]

Most ufologists also work cases

Most ufologist work cases . . . in their minds. Kinda like psychic detectives.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

The above poster is outright misrepresenting reality. Ufologists such as the above have started with their conclusion and then retrofit any data to equal Omgaliens. The recent discussion about witches did an excellent job of illustrating the point. The above poster has already begun with his conclusion that UFOs ( witches ) don't exist because he has begun with his conclusion that UFOs = Omgaliens.

 

[23_Tauri]

The fact that no object in UFO reports has ever been proved to be an alien craft does show that no UFO has ever turned out unequivocally to be an alien craft, however.

Well indeed. But folo will never been able to bring himself to write this. In folo's world, 'most' aren't, implying that a few most definitely are.

 

[Stray Cat]

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.

And exactly how many of the infinite number of things (thousands which they and you and I can not even think of) do they actually manage to eliminate before jumping to the conclusion of OMGAliens?

How many mundane things did the UFOlogists eliminate before deciding that the Campeche oil rigs were OMGAliens?

How many mundane things did Maccabee eliminate before deciding a photograph of an optical mouse was OMGAliens?

How many mundane things did Jenny Randles eliminate before deciding that a lighthouse was OMGAliens?

How many mundane things did Lynne D. Kitei eliminate before deciding that some flares and a squadron of planes were OMGAliens?

etc. etc. etc.

 

[ufology]

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

That all depends on what you mean by "turned out to be" ... Plenty of reports have been judged to have been accurate accounts of craft of unknown origin ... and since the word "alien" is a synonym for "unknown" and does not necessitate extraterrestrial, it's perfectly legitimate usage. So in this context, plenty of objects in UFO reports have "turned out to be" alien craft.

 

[RoboTimbo]

That all depends on what you mean by "turned out to be" ... Plenty of reports have been judged to have been accurate accounts of craft of unknown origin ... and since the word "alien" is a synonym for "unknown" and does not necessitate extraterrestrial, it's perfectly legitimate usage. So in this context, plenty of objects in UFO reports have "turned out to be" alien craft.

No, no UFOs ( witches ) have turned out to be alien craft. Why is what you say so disconnected from the truth?

 

[GeeMack]

More anti-ufology propoganda above.

No, really, the feigned persecution bit isn't working. It was worn out a long time ago. It isn't a constructive contribution. It's just pathetic.

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".

Personal opinion? Yes. Probability? Let's think that one through for a moment, critically, like a skeptic, not like a "ufologist". Of all the things that have been seen, which appeared to be flying, and which were at first not identified as a particular thing, but which were eventually identified, how many of them turned out to be alien craft? Perhaps "probability" is another one of those words "ufologists" play fast and loose with in their attempt to dishonestly redefine terms to suit their agenda. In any case, probability does not mean what you seem to think it means.

Most ufologists also work cases [...]

Working cases? Since when has a "ufologist" ever "worked a case"? All the "ufology" practitioners who have come and gone in this thread don't even do their own research. They expect skeptics to do it for them. That is glaringly evident by the frequent attempts to deflect the burden of proof and to shirk the responsibility of supporting their own claims.

[...] 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.

First, there is no evidence to suggest that is a realistic assessment of the "ufologists'" approach toward their pseudoscientific activities. Skeptics do the work. "Ufologists" reject critical thinking in favor of their faith. Second, no "ufologist" has ever been able to eliminate every conceivable mundane explanation for any alleged UFO sighting. And third, "ufologists" don't investigate or study. There is a very small and limited package of UFO anecdotes. They've all been done to death. None of them has ever lead rational objective people to the conclusion that it was an alien craft. "Ufologists" repeating those anecdotes does not constitute investigation or study. So your argument fails on every count. Again.

And your continued ignorance of my oft repeated simple question is noted.

 

[Paul2]

Paul,
A1. Insufficient evidence ( by whatever standard ) for one thing does not allow us to conclude there will also be insufficient evidence ( by the same standard ) for something else.

I didn't mean A1 at all, let's move on.

[/INDENT]A2. What it seems you are really trying to get at is that if "seeing is believing" for one thing, then it should also be good enough for something else, and on the surface I would tend to agree.

Actually, and tellingly, it's exactly the opposite. I'm saying that if we do *not* accept "seeing is believing" for witches, we shouldn't do so for UFOs/aliens.

Because seeing an object is not the same as seeing an invisible supernatural power.

I'm confused, what are you saying is an invisible supernatural power, witches or aliens? I think you mean witches. On that basis,

1. you're still jumping the gun when you talk about seeing an "object." Seeing a light move around is not necessarily the same as seeing an object. Further data besides the perception of moving brightness is necessary to establish that the light emanates from an object (as opposed to reflections, multiple objects, etc.).

2. Where did the attribute of "invisibility" come from? Where were we talking about that? Why is a supernatural power invisible necessarily (by the way, strictly speaking, we're talking about the *results* of using a supernatural power, not the power itself.

3. All of this is vastly premature to establishing the general principle of whether seeing is believing. See immediately below.

To sum up. The idea that observation alone ( by anyone at any time ) is a standard that can be applied equally to any situation in order to formulate a reasonable position is faulty because the context of the observation, the quality of the observers, and the resulting information can all vary greatly from example to example.

This is better, but I have questions:

1. Without regard to specific cases, what are the general principles by which the context of an observation changes whether we accept an observation by a single person as reported or not? Understanding the difference between mere reportage or perception ("I saw a bright light.") and a conclusion ("I saw a bright object.") is crucial.

2. Without regard to specific cases, what are the general principles by which the nature of the observer changes whether we accept an observation by a single person as reported or not?

3. Not sure how "the resulting information" applies here in a parallel fashion as context and the nature of the observer.

 

[ufology]

And exactly how many of the infinite number of things (thousands which they and you and I can not even think of) do they actually manage to eliminate before jumping to the conclusion of OMGAliens?

How many mundane things did the UFOlogists eliminate before deciding that the Campeche oil rigs were OMGAliens?

How many mundane things did Maccabee eliminate before deciding a photograph of an optical mouse was OMGAliens?

How many mundane things did Jenny Randles eliminate before deciding that a lighthouse was OMGAliens?

How many mundane things did Lynne D. Kitei eliminate before deciding that some flares and a squadron of planes were OMGAliens?

etc. etc. etc.

Q. How many mundane things did the UFOlogists eliminate before deciding that the Campeche oil rigs were OMGAliens?
A. I saw that one developing and my opinion was reserved pending further information, so count me out.

Q. How many mundane things did Maccabee eliminate before deciding a photograph of an optical mouse was OMGAliens?
A. Even if that were true, photos don't prove anything anyway. So again count me out.

Q. How many mundane things did Jenny Randles eliminate before deciding that a lighthouse was OMGAliens?
A. If this is about the Rendlesham Forest enounter. There have been recreations and studies of the event that cast doubt on the lighthouse theory. So I don't think we can conclusively say the lighthouse was the cause of all the observations made during that incident. We also don't have definitive proof of alien craft either. So again count me out.

Q. How many mundane things did Lynne D. Kitei eliminate before deciding that some flares and a squadron of planes were OMGAliens?
A. If this one is about the Phoenix Lights case, then there are some lights that appear to be flares and probably are flares, but there are also other reports not based on the film of what look like flares going down behind a mountain. Accounts of a large object going nearly overhead and blocking out the stars. Is this proof enough to conclude this case involved alien visitation? No. Again count me out.

As for thousands of other sightings, the great majority have been classed as misidentification of known objects or phenomena by ufologists, and every ufologist I've ever seen has echoed that sentiment. So even if some do make mistakes, the idea that ufologists typically jumpt to the conclusion that every report represents an alien craft is pure propoganda.

 

[GeeMack]

As for thousands of other sightings, the great majority have been classed as misidentification of known objects or phenomena by ufologists, and every ufologist I've ever seen has echoed that sentiment. So even if some do make mistakes, the idea that ufologists typically jumpt to the conclusion that every report represents an alien craft is pure propoganda.

Uh, no. There may be flecks of skepticism and objectivity in some "ufologists" in that they acknowledge when things are eventually identified as some particular mundane thing. But some "ufologists" continue to bring up situations where it was long ago determined they didn't require exotic explanations. So some "ufologists" display honesty and integrity, but when it comes to UFOs which have not been identified as something in particular, at least as far as those "ufologists" participating in this thread, indeed they do jump to the unevidenced conclusion that they are best explained as alien craft. There are many, many examples of that dishonest insistence. Here are but a few...

[...] 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 ) [...]

The argument that something exists based on sheer repetitive insistence is a failed argument.

 

[Turgor]

Deleted

 

[Akhenaten]

Stories that are fiction are not evidence for non-fictional events.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

One wonders, however, given that you are aware of this restriction, why you insist that the Tale of the Windermere Lake Volksblimp is evidence for something that you wish to be regarded as a non-fictional event.

Stories that are a recounting of a firsthand experience are evidence ... just not material evidence ... again ( Note the highlighted section )

The Rime of the Ancient Mariner is a recounting of a firsthand experience.

For what does it serve as evidence, folo, apart from Samuel Taylor Coleridge's imagination?

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.

The key word in this definition is helps, folo. You're presenting your UFO ( "OMG . . . aliens!" ) stories as the totality of the evidence and that's why the only conclusion you can expect people to arrive at is "Cool story, bro."

Your own already-jumped-to conclusion is entirely irrelevant.

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

Guilt? Crime?

Are you unaware that before any kind of evidence is submitted for judgement it needs to be first demonstrated that a crime has actually been committed.

Until you can demonstrate that alien flying saucers have committed the 'crime' of existing then you have no case in support of which your 'evidence' can be presented.

In other words, they're just stories.

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

Get back to us with this definition when you've got Zerblix of Floogorius III on the stand charged with doing Warp 9 in a school zone and we'll talk about it then.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Grow up.

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".

Isis wept.

In the very same sentence that you deny the existence of foregone conclusions in ufailogy you restate your own foregone conclusion that UFOs = "OMG . . . aliens!"

If you don't think that prattling nonsense about the origins of the critters for whom you've already concluded existence isn't relying on a foregone conclusion then what the hell do you think the phrase means?

Most ufologists also work cases by starting with the position that the object in question is probably something natural or manmade . . .

Since most ufailogists aren't posting here it's a bit hard to judge their position, but you are posting here and your starting point is eminently clear.

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 ).

Stating that most objects in UFO reports do not turn out to be alien craft is exactly the same as saying that some of them do, and that is a foregone (and completely unsupportable) conclusion on your part.

. . . and then eliminating as many of those things as is possible based on information gained from investigation or study.

Explain the process by which witches are eliminated from consideration.

 

[ufology]

1. Without regard to specific cases, what are the general principles by which the context of an observation changes whether we accept an observation by a single person as reported or not? Understanding the difference between mere reportage or perception ("I saw a bright light.") and a conclusion ("I saw a bright object.") is crucial.

2. Without regard to specific cases, what are the general principles by which the nature of the observer changes whether we accept an observation by a single person as reported or not?

3. Not sure how "the resulting information" applies here in a parallel fashion as context and the nature of the observer.

Paul:

NOTE: The following answers do not mean that I think there are any circumstances in which we should simply "accept an observation" as entirely accurate or at face value. The answers are more to clarify the issues of context and nature, and their application to a UFO report.

Q. Without regard to specific cases, what are the general principles by which the context of an observation changes whether we accept an observation by a single person as reported or not? Understanding the difference between mere reportage or perception ("I saw a bright light.") and a conclusion ("I saw a bright object.") is crucial.

A. We can think of the context of an observation as the circumstances or events that form the environment within which the observation takes place. So was it observed on YouTube, or through a video camera display, or outside during the day, or during a time period in history removed from recent times. It can also be applied to the underlying causes and/or subjective interpretations, such as while under the influence of LSD, or while praying to God.

Q. Without regard to specific cases, what are the general principles by which the nature of the observer changes whether we accept an observation by a single person as reported or not?

A. The nature of the observer is different than the quality of the observer, however some factors might be somewhat relevant to both depending on how you look at them, such as quality of eyesight, quality of education, reputation for trustworthiness and objectivity.

Q. Not sure how "the resulting information" applies here in a parallel fashion as context and the nature of the observer.

A. That depends on how you interpret the word "parallel" as it applies to specific examples e.g. A well educated observer from the 1300s isn't isn't a parallel for a well educated observer from the mid 1940s or the present day. An observer notorious for perpetrating hoaxes is not a parallel for an Air Force pilot who can face serious consequences for submitting a false report. An observer who believes UFOs are transports from Hell is not parallel for an observer who thinks there must be scientific explanation.

 

[Akhenaten]

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 read this page three times over tonight and I still can't believe you wrote this, foo. Even for you, this is an awe-inspiring level of self-delusion. Congratulations.

It's an absolute stand-out, isn't it?

The similarity between those seeking the god of the gaps and those looking for the alien flying saucers of the gaps is quite striking.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

That all depends on what you mean by "turned out to be"

It means sitting in the Smithsonian with a little card in front of it saying "Alien Craft".

Now that it's been explained to you, how many of them are there?

... Plenty of reports have been judged to have been accurate accounts of craft of unknown origin

Even if this was true, craft of unknown origin ≠ alien flying saucer.

... and since the word "alien" is a synonym for "unknown" and does not necessitate extraterrestrial, it's perfectly legitimate usage.

Only in Floogistan.

So in this context, plenty of objects in UFO reports have "turned out to be" alien craft.

 

[RoboTimbo]

A. We can think of the context of an observation as the circumstances or events that form the environment within which the observation takes place. So was it observed on YouTube, or through a video camera display, or outside during the day, or during a time period in history removed from recent times. It can also be applied to the underlying causes and/or subjective interpretations, such as while under the influence of LSD, or while praying to God.

Why are you randomly discounting "time periods in history removed from recent times?" Was everyone subject to mass hallucination prior to the Kenneth Arnold UFO ( witch ) sighting? Nothing that anyone saw or experienced was ever true before the 1300's? Where did that idiotic idea stem from? I mean, other than your desire to wish UFOs ( witches ) into the cornfield.

A. The nature of the observer is different than the quality of the observer, however some factors might be somewhat relevant to both depending on how you look at them, such as quality of eyesight, quality of education, reputation for trustworthiness and objectivity.

The quality of eyesight of those people from the 1600's was excellent. They were sturdy tillers of the field and landed gentry and scholars and statesment and clergy. They were all known for their trustworthiness and objectivity and the excellence of their education. Are you now admitting that UFOs ( witches ) are the most likely explanation, given that UFOs ( witches ) have been proven in courts of law ( triers of fact ) by all those learned people? Do you have a law degree?

A. That depends on how you interpret the word "parallel" as it applies to specific examples e.g. A well educated observer from the 1300s isn't isn't a parallel for a well educated observer from the mid 1940s or the present day. An observer notorious for perpetrating hoaxes is not a parallel for an Air Force pilot who can face serious consequences for submitting a false report. An observer who believes UFOs are transports from Hell is not parallel for an observer who thinks there must be scientific explanation.

Is it just your own bias that causes you to think of people who lived in the 1300's as subhuman? That they were somehow an inferior race to modern humans? Are you saying that everyone who lived in the 1300's hallucinated everything they thought they saw? That they would have been unable to tell a cow from a horse or a UFO ( witch ) from an eagle? Why do you hate those poor people so much?

 

[Krikkiter]

ufology's personal anecdote regarding extraterrestrial visitation must be true because:

1. He is highly educated
2. He has excellent eyesight
3. He has a reputation for being trustworthy and objective.

In other words, he's a "quality observer."

Another couple of questions for you ufology (to add to the lengthening list of those that go unanswered)...

1. Who judges the "quality" of an observer and what are the criteria of the judgment (What qualifies as a "quality education"? How good does their eyesight have to be? How is trustworthiness and objectivity measured?)?
2. Did anyone judge you to be a "quality observer" in regards to your own anecdote? If so, who? If not, why not?