UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

Proven how and to whom and in what context?

Show evidence. Objective evidence that at least one alien craft has been roaming around earth. You know, like science works?

What makes you so sure? Do you have some kind of ultra secret clearance to view Space Command surveillance records? Can you get inside the heads of eye-witnesses to judge their experiences for yourself? How do you know with absolute certainty that nobody has had it proven to them?

Now you're talking about subjective stuff. That's beliefs and not evidence. That confusion is causing you a lot of problems in this discussion

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.

You are still talking about faith and belief. Focus on objective evidence and it all becomes much easier.

 

[Jocce]

I made no reference to a "cover up", simply to the existence of high level security surrounding Space Command ... which you can lookup for yourself when Wikipedia returns from protest ... and then you'll realize why they might have sufficient proof for our previous poster. And BTW it's been proven that there has been a widespread suppression of information related to UFOs in the past, and there is no reason to think the latest information would be open for public inspection. So your "lame" comment is clearly based on faulty information. Or maybe you have some other reason besides "lame" that you'd like to share?

The gobmint has been covering up stuff before, therefore they are covering up aliens too. That's evidence for alien craft right there!

Come on...can't you do any better?

 

[ufology]

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?

No. I'm merely pointing out that they are one of the agencies that could have the kind of "proof" some of the skeptics here might accept, but that because of the restricted access to the records, the general public may simply be unaware of it. Therefore without inside knowledge from such sources around the world, or without direct access to witnesses memories, anyone who claims that the existence of alien craft has never been proven is simply stating a biased opinion. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to show that records pertaining to UFOs have been routinely witheld from the public, including reports that describe craft that are alien to our civilization. A case in point being the D.C. radar visual sighting and intercept by a USAF F-94 in '52. How many more equally good or better reports are there? We don't know do we? But we do know for sure that numerous records pertaining to UFOs have been made exempt from FOIA provisions. Yet we get comments from the skeptics like "the cover up is lame". The only thing that is lame are such lame comments. They serve no useful purpose in this discussion other than to flame the thread.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Anyone who claims that the existence of witches has never been proven is simply stating a biased opinion.

Government agencies could have proof of witches too.

 

[Jocce]

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.

Actually, I have access to all that data and I know for a fact that alien craft does not visit earth and has never done. It's proven to me. Wow,this stuff is easy once you get the rules clarified.

ETA: What you so ufology was a firefly. It's been proven to me without a doubt.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So you are saying that unless we know what evidence every agency in the world has, we have no reason to say something has not been proven to us?

Ok, you know the absence of evidence works the same regardless of reason? We have no reason to assume that ufos are alien because we have no evidence. I don't care if it was stolen, destroyed, lost or never existed, it is not there. With out evidence, for any given reason, the existence remains unproven.

But sure, now add another assertion, that the agencies could, would, or have ever, surpressed evidence of aliens.

 

[Resume]

Yet we get comments from the skeptics like "the cover up is lame". The only thing that is lame are such lame comments. They serve no useful purpose in this discussion other than to flame the thread.

Add lame to the list of redefinitions.

 

[ufology]

So you are saying that unless we know what evidence every agency in the world has, we have no reason to say something has not been proven to us?

No. I'm saying that making the statement that alien craft have never been proven to exist ( period ) without having access to and examination of all the data is biased. Certainly I would accept that it has never been proven to most of "us" whomever you are referring to there besides me.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No. I'm merely pointing out that they are one of the agencies that could have the kind of "proof" some of the skeptics here might accept, but that because of the restricted access to the records, the general public may simply be unaware of it. Therefore without inside knowledge from such sources around the world, or without direct access to witnesses memories, anyone who claims that the existence of alien craft has never been proven is simply stating a biased opinion. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to show that records pertaining to UFOs have been routinely witheld from the public, including reports that describe craft that are alien to our civilization. A case in point being the D.C. radar visual sighting and intercept by a USAF F-94 in '52. How many more equally good or better reports are there? We don't know do we? But we do know for sure that numerous records pertaining to UFOs have been made exempt from FOIA provisions. Yet we get comments from the skeptics like "the cover up is lame". The only thing that is lame are such lame comments. They serve no useful purpose in this discussion other than to flame the thread.

So you're saying that there could be UFO ( witch ) reports on file with Space Command that we haven't seen? And anyone who claims that UFOs aren't witches is just showing bias? There could very well be tens of thousands of UFO ( witch ) reports, containing so much better proof of witches than we are allowed to see. But we already know that witches exist in fact. Isn't it frightening that UFOs ( witches ) can outrun our fastest fighter jets?

 

[RoboTimbo]

No. I'm saying that making the statement that alien craft have never been proven to exist ( period ) without having access to and examination of all the data is biased. Certainly I would accept that it has never been proven to most of "us" whomever you are referring to there besides me.

Are you saying that Space Command has shown you files that prove Alien Space Ships exist? Or has shown them to anyone? Do you have evidence for that claim?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

No. I'm saying that making the statement that alien craft have never been proven to exist ( period ) without having access to and examination of all the data is biased. Certainly I would accept that it has never been proven to most of "us" whomever you are referring to there besides me.

Is arguing that something doesn't exist when there is no evidence for it more or less biased than arguing that something does exist when there is no evidence for it?

 

[GeeMack]

Yet we get comments from the skeptics like "the cover up is lame". The only thing that is lame are such lame comments. They serve no useful purpose in this discussion other than to flame the thread.

No. The argument that there could be a cover-up of what could be objective evidence of alien craft, and that unsupported conjecture somehow supports the notion that "UFOs = alien craft" is lame. It's just a plain stupid argument. There could be damned near anything anyone can imagine that is being covered up by who/whatever. So? Would it be rational to believe every conceivable thing until we get to examine the evidence warehouses of every information storage organization there is or ever was? That's nuts.

And I notice you conspicuously ignored that nagging question again, you know, the one that requires you grapple with reality head on? 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? The question is phrased in such a way that the appropriate answer is either a number or, "I don't know." No waffling maybe's or could-be's or special pleading or dishonest redefinition of terms allowed.

How many, in a number? Or you don't know.

 

[ufology]

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.

Again you are missing the point. I didn't make the original statement. So tell it to your peer who made the original comment, and while you are at it correct your mistake that there is "no evidence". There is plenty of evidence, just not the kind you accept as valid ... call it sufficient material scientific evidence if you want, but saying there is "no evidence" is not accurate.

 

[GeeMack]

No. I'm saying that making the statement that alien craft have never been proven to exist ( period ) without having access to and examination of all the data is biased. Certainly I would accept that it has never been proven to most of "us" whomever you are referring to there besides me.

It hasn't been proven to you, either. A not-so-elaborate Internet hoax perpetrated for the purpose of getting some alien believer kids interested in joining your on-line club does not constitute proof... or evidence... or even a good honest try at arguing the claim.

How's it coming on falsifying that null hypothesis of yours, by the way...

"All UFOs are of mundane origin."​

You do know the only way to make it go away is to falsify it or to rescind your claim that some UFOs are alien craft?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Again you are missing the point. I didn't make the original statement. So tell it to your peer who made the original comment, and while you are at it correct your mistake that there is "no evidence". There is plenty of evidence, just not the kind you accept as valid ... call it sufficient material scientific evidence if you want, but saying there is "no evidence" is not accurate.

Yes, there is evidence that UFOs are witches.

 

[John Albert]

No. I'm merely pointing out that they are one of the agencies that could have the kind of "proof" some of the skeptics here might accept, but that because of the restricted access to the records, the general public may simply be unaware of it.

Do you not see how that kind of thinking amounts to conspiracist nonsense?

The Department of Homeland Security are one of the agencies that could have a database of known witches on file, but that because of the restricted access to the records, the general public may simply be unaware of it.

The same argument could be made about lots of silly things.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are one of the agencies that could have proof that giant talking bunny rabbits exist, but that because of the restricted access to the records, the general public may simply be unaware of it.

See?

Therefore without inside knowledge from such sources around the world, or without direct access to witnesses memories, anyone who claims that the existence of alien craft has never been proven is simply stating a biased opinion.

Nope.

Until some objective evidence surfaces to corroborate these extraordinary claims (that have been made for over half a century, in direct correspondency with the popular folklore, without any corroborating evidence whatsoever), it's logical and reasonable to assume it's merely another popular delusion like so many others.

People talk an awful lot of crap, in case you haven't noticed. Refusing to accept the crap that people say in the absence of credible evidence is not a bias. But selectively believing some of the unevidenced crap that people say, simply because you prefer to believe it? Now that's a bias.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to show that records pertaining to UFOs have been routinely witheld from the public, including reports that describe craft that are alien to our civilization.

Alright then, let's see some of this evidence.

A case in point being the D.C. radar visual sighting and intercept by a USAF F-94 in '52.

What have you got (besides stories) to support your allegation of a cover-up, and to support the claim that this event ever happened in the first place?

How many more equally good or better reports are there?

"Equally good or better reports"?

You really haven't learned a thing here, have you?

We don't know do we?

Argument from ignorance.

But we do know for sure that numerous records pertaining to UFOs have been made exempt from FOIA provisions. Yet we get comments from the skeptics like "the cover up is lame". The only thing that is lame are such lame comments. They serve no useful purpose in this discussion other than to flame the thread.

There could be any number of reasons why the government might classify some records. Your assumption that it amounts to a "cover up" is indeed lame. It's the old conspiracist fallacy, "the lack of evidence is the evidence!"

 

[ehcks]

Again you are missing the point. I didn't make the original statement. So tell it to your peer who made the original comment, and while you are at it correct your mistake that there is "no evidence". There is plenty of evidence, just not the kind you accept as valid ... call it sufficient material scientific evidence if you want, but saying there is "no evidence" is not accurate.

I quoted you not quoting someone. It was your statement.

And no, it is not inaccurate to say there is no evidence of alien craft. We're on page 417 of a thread titled UFOs: The Reseach, the Evidence and there is neither research nor evidence suggesting the slightest possibility of aliens even existing, much less visiting this planet.

Do you have any evidence?

 

[Resume]

Again you are missing the point. I didn't make the original statement. So tell it to your peer who made the original comment, and while you are at it correct your mistake that there is "no evidence". There is plenty of evidence, just not the kind you accept as valid ... call it sufficient material scientific evidence if you want, but saying there is "no evidence" is not accurate.

Putting plenty on the redefined list.

 

[ufology]

The argument that there could be a cover-up of what could be objective evidence of alien craft, and that unsupported conjecture somehow supports the notion that "UFOs = alien craft" is lame. It's just a plain stupid argument.

The above is yet another misrepresentation by the fabrication of content and context. I made no claim as suggested. I only made the claim that stating with certainty without having access to all the information, that alien craft have never been proven ( period ), is a biased and prejudicial opinion. The "unsupported conjecture" comment is equally invalid. I gave an example of a formerly classified report about UFOs and alluded to the numerous other documents on UFOs that remain exempt from FOIA provisions. Are you saying no such report or documents exist? If so it's just another example of your willful ignorance of the facts. So now what will it be ... more straw or more denial?

 

[John Albert]

J. Randall Murphy, I think you need to go back to school and learn the meaning of the word "evidence."