UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

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.

No, you're missing the point. It's not all about making semantic arguments to make up for a lack of objective evidence. It's about you supporting your claim that some UFOs are alien craft. That would be the constructive contribution to this thread that has been missing from the "UFOs = alien craft" proponents since the very beginning over 16,000 posts and more than two years ago.

 

[John Albert]

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.

How do you ever expect to obtain access to "all the information"?

That is impossible. So that's what you're waiting for, the day when you acquire the miracle of omniscience?

And until that glorious day, you're just going to go on believing that "some UFOs = alien craft" without a single shred of objective evidence?

 

[ufology]

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?

ehcks,

Here is some "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft. Diring the Washington D.C. sightings in 1952 a USAF F-94 jet interceptor was vectored by radar to a UFO, the pilot saw the UFO, his aircraft was momentarily surrounded by several more, and the UFO he had been pursuing suddenly accellerated out of range at what the pilot described as "phenomenal speed" and dissappeared from the radar scopes at the same time. No manmade or natural object we know of can explain this sighting. Therefore the object that was tracked, intercepted, observed and pursued was alien to our civilization. To deny that this case is not "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft would be willful denial ... but willful denial and offhanded dismissal is also typical of the skeptics here. So which will it be for you this time?

 

[John Albert]

Putting plenty on the redefined list.

There's already plenty on the redefined list!

Here is some "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft.

Lemme guess: it's storybook time again.

Diring the Washington D.C. sightings in 1952 a USAF F-94 jet interceptor was vectored by radar to a UFO, the pilot saw the UFO, his aircraft was momentarily surrounded by several more, and the UFO he had been pursuing suddenly accellerated out of range at what the pilot described as "phenomenal speed" and dissappeared from the radar scopes at the same time.

*sigh* Here we go again...

Got evidence? (Besides just telling a story? In case you forgot, stories aren't evidence.)

No manmade or natural object we know of can explain this sighting.

What evidence (besides a story) do you have that it even really happened in the first place?

Therefore the object that was tracked, intercepted, observed and pursued was alien to our civilization.

There's that jump to conclusion we were just talking about. Funny how often it seems to show up whenever you're posting stories about UFOs.

No evidence has ever been found that any extraordinary craft have ever been constructed by non-human beings, therefore there's no logical framework on which to propose that conclusion. You might as well conclude it was God, or angels, or a portal to Hell, or a shapeshifted witch flying on her broomstick.

To deny that this case is not "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft would be willful denial

It's not "denial." Who denied it? Sure, we've questioned it, but are you saying these UFO stories should be just accepted as fact without question, and without evidence?

It's not "denial," it's critical thinking: in other words, demanding evidence before accepting something as true.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

No. It's an opinion based on the 100% failure of any "ufologist" ever to bring a speck of objective evidence to the table.

The "unsupported conjecture" comment is equally invalid.

No, it's not invalid. It may be uncomfortable for the "ufology" proponents who seem to want to avoid facing reality at all costs, even at the cost of their own honesty. But it's not invalid. Unless of course you can objectively demonstrate that there is or has been a cover-up of information that does objectively demonstrate the existence of alien craft. You can't? Didn't think so.

Oh, and as far as you alluding to things? It could be argued that is one of the main causes of the complete failure to support your claim. As a constructive contribution, I'd suggest you cease alluding.

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?

I'm saying there are no formerly classified documents that any of us are aware of that objectively support your claim that some UFOs are alien craft. And if you believe you are able to show how that's incorrect, you certainly have wasted a lot of time going through all sorts of dishonest gyrations in order to avoid it.

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?

It's already been demonstrated many times that your take on what is or is not a straw man argument is not a qualified opinion. We can add "willful ignorance" to the list of terms which you either don't understand or which you're intentionally and dishonestly redefining.

Interesting how you continue to avoid making a constructive contribution to the thread by being willfully ignorant (yes, that's a proper use of the term) of the question I continue to ask: 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? A number or an admission that you don't know would be appreciated.

And that null hypothesis of yours you have been willfully ignoring (the term properly used again)...

"All UFOs are of mundane origin."​

... are you prepared to admit that you are unable to falsify it and take back your claim that some UFOs are alien craft?

 

[ehcks]

ehcks,

Here is [a claim]

Claims are not evidence for themselves. Anecdotes are not evidence.

Where's the video? The pictures? Even an audio recording would be better than you typing a misremembered fictional story.

 

[ufology]

How do you ever expect to obtain access to "all the information"?

That is impossible. So that's what you're waiting for, the day when you acquire the miracle of omniscience?

Explain the above to the person who made the statement with such certainty that alien craft have never been proven. Maybe they will listen to you because your reasoning above is exactly why such statements are prejudicial. The best that can be said at this point is that alien craft have not been proven to everyone and those who claim to have had it proven to them haven't got sufficient material scientific evidence to back their claim.

 

[Stray Cat]

ehcks,

Here is some "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft. Diring the Washington D.C. sightings in 1952 a USAF F-94 jet interceptor was vectored by radar to a UFO, the pilot saw the UFO, his aircraft was momentarily surrounded by several more, and the UFO he had been pursuing suddenly accellerated out of range at what the pilot described as "phenomenal speed" and dissappeared from the radar scopes at the same time. No manmade or natural object we know of can explain this sighting. Therefore the object that was tracked, intercepted, observed and pursued was alien to our civilization. To deny that this case is not "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft would be willful denial ... but willful denial and offhanded dismissal is also typical of the skeptics here. So which will it be for you this time?

None of the FoI documents regarding the 1952 Washington UFO incident tell this story the way you tell it.

 

[ufology]

Claims are not evidence for themselves. Anecdotes are not evidence.

Where's the video? The pictures? Even an audio recording would be better than you typing a misremembered fictional story.

I should have known ... if you didn't go with willful ignorance or affhanded dismissal you move the goalposts. Eye witness accounts are evidence. So stop your denial. You didn't ask for videos or photos. You asked for "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft. So address the case ... radar/visual pursuit by a USAF F-94 ... during the D.C. sightings in '52.

 

[Stray Cat]

Eye witness accounts are evidence. Stop your denial.

Eye witness account are sometimes used to back up physical evidence. Stop your denial... you have no evidence that needs backing up with eye witness accounts.

 

[John Albert]

Explain the above to the person who made the statement with such certainty that alien craft have never been proven.

They have not been "proven." We don't even have any evidence for them.

Maybe they will listen to you because your reasoning above is exactly why such statements are prejudicial. The best that can be said at this point is that alien craft have not been proven to everyone and those who claim to have had it proven to them haven't got sufficient material scientific evidence to back their claim.

Alien craft have not been proven to anyone, ever. Some people might think they have, but they haven't. In the absence of evidence, they have no way of knowing what they saw or experienced.

Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around this simple fact of logic? It appears you're just being stubborn because you want so desperately to believe.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Eye witness accounts are evidence.

Of witches.

Stop your denial.

Indeed.

 

[ufology]

Eye witness account are sometimes used to back up physical evidence. Stop your denial... you have no evidence that needs backing up with eye witness accounts.

Physical evidence isn't all eye witness accounts are used to back up. The D.C. sightings in 1952 involved multiple witnesses and radar tracking. The eye-witness observation of the pilot backed up the radar tracking of an object that no manmade or natural phenomenon can adequately explain to this day. This easily qualifies as "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft. So address the case ... radar/visual pursuit by a USAF F-94 ... during the D.C. sightings in '52.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I should have known ... if you didn't go with willful ignorance or affhanded dismissal you move the goalposts. Eye witness accounts are evidence.

Of witches.

So stop your denial.

Yes, do.

You didn't ask for videos or photos. You asked for "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft witches. So address the case ... radar/visual pursuit by a USAF F-94 ... during the D.C. sightings in '52.

ftfy. Address the case for UFOs ( witches ), ol.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Physical evidence isn't all eye witness accounts are used to back up. The D.C. sightings in 1952 involved multiple witnesses and radar tracking.

The Campeche case involved multiple military, trained observer eye-witnesses and FLIR tracking.

The eye-witness observation of the pilot backed up the radar tracking of an object that no manmade or natural phenomenon can adequately explain to this day.

Campeche has been explained. That's what you really hate.

This easily qualifies as "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft. So address the case ... radar/visual pursuit by a USAF F-94 ... during the D.C. sightings in '52.

Campeche easily qualifies as overwhelming evidence that the DC sightings were of something mundane. Remember your very own null hypothesis which you don't comprehend?

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

When will you be providing the evidence to falsify that?

 

[Stray Cat]

Physical evidence isn't all eye witness accounts are used to back up. The D.C. sightings in 1952 involved multiple witnesses and radar tracking. The eye-witness observation of the pilot backed up the radar tracking of an object that no manmade or natural phenomenon can adequately explain to this day. This easily qualifies as "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft. So address the case ... radar/visual pursuit by a USAF F-94 ... during the D.C. sightings in '52.

This story you keep telling does not match the documents made at the time of the incident. The physical evidence only shows that some people couldn't identify what they were looking at. There is no news there, we know that happens all the time.
You sticking a dodgy story (provenance unknown) onto it and calling it "eye witness account" is typical of the silly dishonest methods of UFOlogy.

What is the exact source of your story?

 

[ufology]

The Campeche case involved multiple military, trained observer eye-witnesses and FLIR tracking.


Campeche has been explained. That's what you really hate.


Campeche easily qualifies as overwhelming evidence that the DC sightings were of something mundane. Remember your very own null hypothesis which you don't comprehend?

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"
​

When will you be providing the evidence to falsify that?

How predictable, if you can't deny, dismmiss or move the goalposts, you switch the subject matter and substitute something else that suits your argument. Please address the case in question, not the Campeche case.

 

[ehcks]

How predictable, if you can't deny, dismmiss or move the goalposts, you switch the subject matter and substitute something else that suits your argument. Please address the case in question, not the Campeche case.

The goalposts are exactly where they have always been.

1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
2. Anecdotes aren't even ordinary evidence.

 

[GeeMack]

Physical evidence isn't all eye witness accounts are used to back up. The D.C. sightings in 1952 involved multiple witnesses and radar tracking. The eye-witness observation of the pilot backed up the radar tracking of an object that no manmade or natural phenomenon can adequately explain to this day. This easily qualifies as "slight evidence" that "suggests" the "possibility" of alien craft. So address the case ... radar/visual pursuit by a USAF F-94 ... during the D.C. sightings in '52.

Yes or no, is there objective evidence showing that what was seen was an alien craft? And are you able to describe the process you've applied to eliminate witches or gods as explanations being equally as well supported as that of alien craft?

 

[RoboTimbo]

How predictable, if you can't deny, dismmiss or move the goalposts, you switch the subject matter and substitute something else that suits your argument. Please address the case in question, not the Campeche case.

It did address the case in question, along with many other posters who addressed the case in question. That you can't comprehend how it points out the weaknesses in your arguments isn't my problem. That you don't address it does point out that you do understand how it points out the weaknesses in your argument.

When will you be addressing those things which point up the weakness of your religion? It's time for you to stop cowardly dodging questions.