UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Krikkiter]

This C.T. theory is a novel and interesting development. As if the struggle to present evidence for OMGAliens wasn't enough.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Well I have been doing a bit of my own research, on Rense.com, and I have discovered that Space Command operate their own secret fleet of space ships. This information comes from a hacker who logged into accounts without passwords while toking a joint a drinking Fosters. I don't think we should hold his choice of beer against him while evaluating his evidence.
http://www.rense.com/general67/hackerfeelsUSnavyhas.htm

 

[Krikkiter]

We will have to cut our intrepid UFO researcher some slack today with Wikipedia down.

Maybe weaselwords would have been a good short term replacement for him?

http://www.weaselwords.com.au/index3.htm

 

[Resume]

This C.T. theory is a novel and interesting development. As if the struggle to present evidence for OMGAliens wasn't enough.

He doesn't quite get it: introducing this idea means providing even more evidence, something at which he's not very good. I'd advise him to stop digging but he wouldn't take the advice, and it's fun imagining how big the hole will eventually become.

A big, empty, hole.

 

[GeeMack]

Proven how and to whom and in what context?

Proven with evidence, objectively, to anyone who cares to make him/herself aware of it, and in the context of reality.

What makes you so sure?

As Akhenaten mentioned, the absolute inability to objectively demonstrate it on the part of those who are most avidly and most desperately trying to. After all, if the people who really, really want to make "UFOs = alien craft" can't do it, what chance do rational, reality oriented, objective, intelligent people have?

Do you have some kind of ultra secret clearance to view Space Command surveillance records?

Do you? This one is always funny. "Ufology" kids pretending there's some secret information somewhere that will redeem their silly fantasy, and implying that our lack of knowledge of that information somehow demonstrates the existence of it. As arguments go, it's about as stupid as it gets. "Since nobody gets to see the evidence, it must be really good and really well hidden." Uh... no... if nobody has seen it, maybe it's because it doesn't exist.

Can you get inside the heads of eye-witnesses to judge their experiences for yourself?

Getting inside the heads of those who allegedly know of the existence of the aliens? Now there's another silly argument, just about as silly as the one about the secret information that nobody knows about therefore it must be a damned good secret. Well here is what we do know: Of those who claim to have seen alien craft, the tales they tell of their experience are indistinguishable from fiction, and it follows that critical thinking allows us to reject those tales.

How do you know with absolute certainty that nobody has had it proven to them?

The dishonest ploy of trying to deflect the burden of proof is noted. But carrying on... Speaking of absolute certainty, how have you eliminated witches and gods as an explanation for your alleged alien craft sighting? Or hallucinations? Or several other explanations that even you, at one point, seemed to allow as possibilities for your alleged alien craft sighting? What specific steps have you taken or processes have you applied to come to what appears to be your pretty darned certain conclusion that you saw an alien craft? Or don't the rules of objectivity apply to "ufology"?

In reality all you are saying is that you don't have sufficient evidence to be personally convinced. That's fine. Perhaps someday if you are lucky that will change for you.

In reality, objective reality as opposed to that weird reality you seem to have invented that allows for believing in non-existent things without being terribly conflicted, that whole other reality that was described like this...

Truth and reality are two seaparate issues. Therefore truth itself doesn't correspond to objective reality or any other reality.

... in our reality, we're saying there isn't any objective evidence at all.

 

[remirol]

ufology, may I ask you a question?

 

[Krikkiter]

He doesn't quite get it: introducing this idea means providing even more evidence, something at which he's not very good. I'd advise him to stop digging but he wouldn't take the advice, and it's fun imagining how big the hole will eventually become.

A big, empty, hole.

It's getting hard to watch but... just.... can't seem to... look away.

 

[TjW]

Hey John, could you imagine the pickle we'd all quickly get into if we started to replace one word with a random synonym will-nilly whilst talking to each other, just because it was listed under another word in the thesaurus? From my perspective, it looks like uf doesn't even understand how words work.

I might try this exercise later today when I have break, see what utter gobble-di-gook comes out the other end of my newly patented Random Synonym Generator^TM

Given that skeptics deal in evidence, and ufology's near-constant use of the word 'proof', perhaps we should begin asking for the alcohol content of the various claims.

 

[23_Tauri]

How do you know with absolute certainty that nobody has had it proven to them?

It. IT.

The existence of alien space ships. Here. In our airspace, and secreted away in our sooper seekrit military bases.

IT.

Here’s a little mental exercise for you, foo. Substitute any other paranormal, supernatural or otherwise unevidenced claim for ‘it’ and see how it sits with you. I’ll give you some suggestions of things for which some people believe there is proof, to get you started:

1. Bigfoot
2. Snad’s Space Fishies
3. God
4. Witches
5. The Flying Spaghetti Monster (bless his noodly-ness on high)
6. The afterlife
7. Ghosts
8. Clairvoyance
9. Receiving messages from dead people.

Get the idea? Good!

 

[GeeMack]

It. IT.

The existence of alien space ships. Here. In our airspace, and secreted away in our sooper seekrit military bases.

IT.

Here’s a little mental exercise for you, foo. Substitute any other paranormal, supernatural or otherwise unevidenced claim for ‘it’ and see how it sits with you. I’ll give you some suggestions of things for which some people believe there is proof, to get you started:

1. Bigfoot
2. Snad’s Space Fishies
3. God
4. Witches
5. The Flying Spaghetti Monster (bless his noodly-ness on high)
6. The afterlife
7. Ghosts
8. Clairvoyance
9. Receiving messages from dead people.

Get the idea? Good!

One would have to understand the concept of the dishonest logical fallacy of special pleading and recognize when it's being used in order to get that idea. Given the incessant use of that particular fallacy in arguments presented by practitioners of the pseudoscience of "ufology", it doesn't seem they will be able to meet those criteria.

 

[23_Tauri]

One would have to understand the concept of the dishonest logical fallacy of special pleading and recognize when it's being used in order to get that idea. Given the incessant use of that particular fallacy in arguments presented by practitioners of the pseudoscience of "ufology", it doesn't seem they will be able to meet those criteria.

I think what you're trying to tell me, GeeMack, is "good luck with that, Tauri".

 

[John Albert]

Hey John, could you imagine the pickle we'd all quickly get into if we started to replace one word with a random synonym will-nilly whilst talking to each other, just because it was listed under another word in the thesaurus?

Hyperbolize nurture you bequeath compass scrupulously a crotchety vestigial maintaining what I'm severe stopping at vent between analogous catastrophe.

 

[ufology]

So remind us. Of all the documentation that was in the past suppressed, that people such as Podesta fought the government in court to have such documents released (against the wishes of the government who were desperate to keep the documents secret), how many of those documents have provided information about aliens?

Again you've missed the point. It was maintained that it has never been proven that alien craft exist. I just pointed out that alien craft have never been proven to exist to that poster, but could very well have been proven to other people and asked how the poster could be so sure it hasn't been. Is there some priviledged inside knowledge the poster has on this? Can the poster get inside the heads of the witnesses to experience what it is they have seen? Do they have access to Space Command data? Of course that set off all the irrellevant commentary that provided no answers because we all know that making blanket and completely polarized statements concerning this issue betrays one's bias and the skeptics here typically scurry to bury the evidence of that bias as fast as they can by throwing anything they can on top of it.

 

[Resume]

Again you've missed the point. It was maintained that it has never been proven that alien craft exist. I just pointed out that alien craft have never been proven to exist to that poster, but could very well have been proven to other people and asked how the poster could be so sure it hasn't been.

Like witches have been proved to some, but not others?

This is your idea of standards of evidence? Really?

 

[John Albert]

Appeals to cover ups are lame in the extreme. And who are Space Command?

Space Command are the guys who track all the satellites, spent rocket parts and other assorted junk floating around in low Earth orbit. They're responsible for making sure the ISS doesn't get brought down by a hunk of some exploded Chinese satellite, among other things.

The reason there's so much secrecy around Space Command should be plainly obvious, even if you're not a UFOlogy conspiracist nutcase.

 

[Agatha]

This Space Command? http://www.afspc.af.mil/

How far does their jurisdiction extend? Over the whole world?

Do you contend that they have evidence (rather than anecdotal claims) of the existence of alien craft and are covering such evidence up?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Again you've missed the point. It was maintained that it has never been proven that alien craft exist.

You maintain that UFOs ( witches ) don't exist.

I just pointed out that alien craft have never been proven to exist to that poster, but could very well have been proven to other people and asked how the poster could be so sure it hasn't been.

As UFOs ( witches ) have in fact been proven to exist in courts of law ( triers of fact ) so why do you disbelieve in them?

Is there some priviledged inside knowledge the poster has on this?

What privileged inside knowledge do you have that UFOs ( witches ) don't exist?

Can the poster get inside the heads of the witnesses to experience what it is they have seen?

Still referring to UFOs ( witches ), I assume you to mean.

Do they have access to Space Command data? Of course that set off all the irrellevant commentary that provided no answers because we all know that making blanket and completely polarized statements concerning this issue betrays one's bias and the skeptics here typically scurry to bury the evidence of that bias as fast as they can by throwing anything they can on top of it.

Yes, it does betray your bias and your special pleading and your cowardly dodging in not answering questions.

 

[GeeMack]

Again you've missed the point. It was maintained that it has never been proven that alien craft exist. I just pointed out that alien craft have never been proven to exist to that poster, but could very well have been proven to other people and asked how the poster could be so sure it hasn't been. Is there some priviledged inside knowledge the poster has on this? Can the poster get inside the heads of the witnesses to experience what it is they have seen?

Yep, abandoning the burden of proof mixed with the dishonest tactic of attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Do they have access to Space Command data?

Do you? Remember how it was already pointed out that arguing something might exist because we don't know whether or not it exists is a stupid argument?

Of course that set off all the irrellevant commentary that provided no answers because we all know that making blanket and completely polarized statements concerning this issue betrays one's bias and the skeptics here typically scurry to bury the evidence of that bias as fast as they can by throwing anything they can on top of it.

First, nobody is picking on you. The feigned sense of persecution is so old there's mold growing on it. Nobody is buying it.

Second, it's not the skeptics who are biased here. Only one person in this discussion right now is certain that "UFOs = alien craft". The skeptics are open minded. It would only take a mote of objective evidence to get them to perk up their ears and accept that claim as reasonable.

And third, how dare you accuse the skeptics here of scurrying to bury anything when the "ufologists" are doing all the avoiding, evading, and pretending certain aspects of reality don't exist?

Allow me to demonstrate with this aspect of reality which you will undoubtedly scurry to bury... again: Of all the things apparently seen flying and initially unidentified but which were eventually identified as a particular thing, how many of those turned out to be alien craft? Does it get a little too close to honest reality for the pseudoscience of "ufology" to come up with the simple answer to that one?

 

[ehcks]

Again you've missed the point. It was maintained that it has never been proven that alien craft exist.

Statements like this are what really makes the dishonesty of using "proof" instead of "evidence" stand out.

Of course it hasn't been proven. That would mean everyone would be absolutely certain. That's impossible for more than one reason. This is why "proofs" are mathematical, not scientific.

What you mean is that there has never been any evidence that alien craft exist. No one's ever recorded an alien craft on video, on pictures, on any type of recording device. It means that no one has ever seen an alien craft and gained any useful information about it.

As far as we have evidence for, there are no aliens, and there's no such thing as alien space craft. Do you have any evidence to refute this?

Not proof. Proof is what you use to show how sin(2x)=2cosxsinx. Evidence is what you use to show that things exist in the real world.

 

[John Albert]

Again you've missed the point. It was maintained that it has never been proven that alien craft exist. I just pointed out that alien craft have never been proven to exist to that poster, but could very well have been proven to other people...

Proven, how? Are you talking about alien abductions?

How do you know that all those experiences weren't dreams, hallucinations, hypnagogia, sleep paralysis, or any number of other psychological phenomena?

Those kinds of phenomena are well-known to cognitive psychology, and for centuries have been responsible for experiences of the supernatural, paranormal, spiritual, religious, otherworldly, and just downright weird. Those psychological effects are well known. They may be unusual in the sense that they do not happen to most people, but they're not in any way extraordinary or beyond the scientific understanding of how the Universe works.

Alien spacecraft, on the other hand, are quite an extraordinary, and unknown thing. No evidence has ever been shown that confirms that extraterrestrial life even exists, let alone intelligent extraterrestrial life with the extremely advanced space travel capability required to span interstellar distances. Alien spacecraft are far beyond the scientific understanding of how the Universe works.

To this day, no evidence has ever been shown to prove that extraterrestrials have ever visited Earth in spaceships. Stories are not evidence, and the extraordinary "performance characteristics" sometimes described by UFO storytellers are also far beyond the scientific understanding of how the Universe works. If an actual physical object indeed displayed those characteristics, it would be a violation of the laws of physics as we understand them. Therefore, until some evidence surfaces that such things are even possible in the first place, those kinds of reports are most likely attributed to misperception, imagination, hallucination, or confabulation. Those reports are extraordinary claims, and therefore require extraordinary evidence.

...and asked how the poster could be so sure it hasn't been.

See, here's where you keep missing the point.

What you did there in the highlighted part above is make an argument from ignorance.

What you did, in effect, was to say, "you can't prove it doesn't exist, therefore it does." That is a logical error. There's no possible way to prove a universal negative. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim to show evidence that it's true, not on the person challenging the claim to disprove it.

Once you start taking wild stories at face value and using arguments from ignorance instead of critical thinking, then all bets are off. You might as well start believing in witches, ghosts, gods, portals to Hell, boogeymen, bigfoot, Nessie, chiropractic, the 9/11 Truth movement, giant talking bunny rabbits and every other silly imaginary thing that comes down the pike.

Is there some priviledged inside knowledge the poster has on this? Can the poster get inside the heads of the witnesses to experience what it is they have seen? Do they have access to Space Command data?

Do you?

Do you have privileged knowledge, on which basis to make your extraordinary claims? Can you get inside the heads of the alleged witnesses to know they aren't lying or imagining things? Do you have access to Space Command data?

We're not the ones making the extraordinary claims about outer space aliens flying around our skies. We're the ones thinking critically, asking all the important, relevant questions that any good scientific skeptic would ask of anyone with any extraordinary claim. We've asked to see the evidence, but all we're getting is endless bald assertions, storybook recitals, appeals to misleading authority, unfounded speculation, logical errors, dishonest semantic switchcraft, appeals to science fiction, and whiny accusations of persecution, just for asking.

Of course that set off all the irrellevant commentary that provided no answers because we all know that making blanket and completely polarized statements concerning this issue betrays one's bias and the skeptics here typically scurry to bury the evidence of that bias as fast as they can by throwing anything they can on top of it.

We're not the ones with the bias here. Skepticism is biased only toward that which has been confirmed as being consistent with reality.

Quit shifting the blame onto us for your own failures, and the failures of UFOlogists worldwide who reject logic, critical thinking, and any standards of evidence in favor of their pet faith in outer space aliens. You want us to respect your claims, then show us the evidence to support them just like everyone else has to do. Your special pleadings cut no ice, and your crybaby act is just pathetic.