UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

And it's only a big leap of faith that would make anyone conclude: OMGAliens!

Where in the memorandum does Gilbert R. Levy say that the (as yet) unidentified object was an alien craft rather than an Unidentified Flying Object? In fact, please show in the memorandum where he states that the object was even a UFO.

The document refers to the objects as "unidentified aerial objects" that were described by radar operators as "good sharp targets" and observed in numbers from four to eight. It goes on to say that " ... no theory exists at the present time as to the origin of the objects and they are considered to be unexplained."

It doesn't.

Protip: When someone asks you the time, don't tell them how to build a watch. It's really, really annoying.

However we know that there was a theory that ojects such as these might be ET craft, but that the ET theory was suppressed and although not completely ruled out, deemed unlikely. There are other documents illustrating that as well. But of course you should already know all this because the skeptics here claim to be fully informed about such things. So why do you need me to explain it all?

Because it looks like you're making all this 'ET theory' nonsense up and none of the skeptics here have any reason to care that it looks that way.

All I'm looking for here is some info from the skeptics on more recent sightings. How about those videos where it looks like there is some kind of swirling vortex in the sky? I was thinking CGI hoaxs and/or rocket tests but I don't have any specific details about launches or that sort of thing. They have been seen over Australia, China, Norway and elsewhere. Can anyone here put together a serious debunking report on these that I can post up on our site? That would be a real show of constructive input. way to spin the time I've spent here telling fairy stories into the appearance of having a working relationship with a reputable skeptical organisation like the JREF.

Hard to believe that people aren't jumping at the chance to help you with that.

 

[John Albert]

[Stories about UFOs] cause us to reach out and look for explanations and in doing so discover all kinds of interesting things about airplanes and space and history and science.

This is an absurd sweeping generalization. Saying UFO stories cause people to learn science and history is like saying Godzilla movies cause people to learn about paleontology, and TV shows like Survivor and Jersey Shore cause people to learn geography, anthropology, and wilderness subsistence skills.

UFO stories do not cause any of that. While UFO stories might inspire genuine learning of science in some cases, they more directly "inspire" people to be credulous and reject critical thinking, and to fabricate and boast colorful lies for personal attention. UFO "culture" also "inspires" backwards, illogical, and magical modes of thought, as well as paranoid conspiracism.

In all of its 421 pages, the entirety of "Research" and "Evidence" in this thread has discovered and exposed how extraordinarily self-deluded, illogical, and dishonest many UFO promoters tend to be.

 

[23_Tauri]

This is an absurd sweeping generalization. Saying UFO stories cause people to learn science and history is like saying Godzilla movies cause people to learn about paleontology, and TV shows like Survivor and Jersey Shore cause people to learn geography, anthropology, and wilderness subsistence skills.

UFO stories do not cause any of that. While UFO stories might inspire genuine learning of science in some cases, they more directly "inspire" people to be credulous and reject critical thinking, and to fabricate and boast colorful lies for personal attention. UFO "culture" also "inspires" backwards, illogical, and magical modes of thought, as well as paranoid conspiracism.

This ^

I would add that belief in aliens visiting Earth (ufology) is counterproductive to teaching people about the possibilities of life in other parts of the universe. Why? Because invariably, in their rush to convince people that we're visited by thousands of 'unknowns' (sic) each year, ufologists never discuss:

1. Just how mind-boggingly big space really is, and how far away is even the next nearest star;
2. The many variables that have come together so uniquely on Earth in order that life could evolve (water, temperature, magnetic core, an atmosphere, the building blocks of amino-acids etc.) and the improbable nature of all those things coming together in the same place at the same time;
3. And so on....

It requires real scientists- astronomers, astrophysists and so on - to speak out in order to counteract fantasies of ufologists and bring some sense into the discussion.

 

[ufology]

Point taken, however looking at a live visual contact is not the same as a video screen. It's a perception/experience and subject to errors by the organism that can pollute the data before it reaches others, and people are notorious for false reporting, memories, etc.

Paul,

Absolutely, which is why what you just said reaffirms a point I made some time ago on the false belief that results obtained from technology should always be deemed more accurate than an eyewitness. Both are subject to faults and errors, and therefore combining them can increase the chance of error rather than reduce it, and by this I don't mean using one as corroboration for the other, as in an object being seen by two separate people, one using a device and the other not, or seeing the object simultaneously using a device and direct observation, but an observer only seeing the object through some device as opposed to looking directly at it. This is why an observer's account can be more accurate than something like a video recording. An example are some videos from the Gulf Breeze area where although the object was never seen directly by the observer, it could be seen through a video camera on high magnification, and it turned out the object was part of the iris motor mechanism in the camera. Another example would be objects that have appeared on film that have turned out to be developing artifacts or light leaks.

Of course there are also many examples when equipment can be useful, but the point is that "objective" technical evidence can be wrong while an eyewitness is correct and the above examples prove this point.

 

[ufology]

Response Time

NOTE: Questions directed at me via a third party will not appear in my inbox and I won't notice them until I happen to log in on my own. If you need a direct response, please reply to one of my posts.

 

[Paul2]

Paul,

Absolutely, which is why what you just said reaffirms a point I made some time ago on the false belief that results obtained from technology should always be deemed more accurate than an eyewitness. Both are subject to faults and errors, and therefore combining them can increase the chance of error rather than reduce it, and by this I don't mean using one as corroboration for the other, as in an object being seen by two separate people, one using a device and the other not, or seeing the object simultaneously using a device and direct observation, but an observer only seeing the object through some device as opposed to looking directly at it. This is why an observer's account can be more accurate than something like a video recording. An example are some videos from the Gulf Breeze area where although the object was never seen directly by the observer, it could be seen through a video camera on high magnification, and it turned out the object was part of the iris motor mechanism in the camera. Another example would be objects that have appeared on film that have turned out to be developing artifacts or light leaks.

Of course there are also many examples when equipment can be useful, but the point is that "objective" technical evidence can be wrong while an eyewitness is correct and the above examples prove this point.

But wouldn't you agree that eye witness testimony can be wrong while results obtained from technology can be correct? You can't generalize either way, you have to be skeptical of both within appropriate limits. And you have to be super-skeptical when all you have is eye witness testimony about something quite extraordinary.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

Of course there are also many examples when equipment can be useful, but the point is that "objective" technical evidence can be wrong while an eyewitness is correct and the above examples prove this point.

Back to the old 'infallible eyewitnesses' argument, eh? What makes you think it'll work this time around?

 

[Akhenaten]

NOTE: Questions directed at me via a third party will not appear in my inbox and I won't notice them until I happen to log in on my own.

I'm guessing that you think the above makes some kind of sense, but I can't for the life of me imagine why.

What the hell are you talking about?

If you need a direct response, please reply to one of my posts.

Is this is a joke post? It seems to be missing the bit that would make it funny.

 

[GeeMack]

[...] false belief [...] faults and errors [...] error [...] wrong [...]

I left the meaningful parts. The parts I snipped? Total nonsense. This was just another attempt to rationalize a faith based belief in aliens by trying to dishonestly redefine reality to fit the faith. Nope. Not going to work any better this time than any of the other times you've tried it.

 

[GeeMack]

Is this is a joke post? It seems to be missing the bit that would make it funny.

It appears to be an outright acknowledgement that ignorance is indeed part of the strategy for maintaining a belief in aliens, a belief that does not coincide with reality.

 

[ufology]

But wouldn't you agree that eye witness testimony can be wrong while results obtained from technology can be correct? You can't generalize either way, you have to be skeptical of both within appropriate limits. And you have to be super-skeptical when all you have is eye witness testimony about something quite extraordinary.

Sure, I believe I did say something to the effect that technology can be very useful. I'd even go so far as to say that if we had to generalize, then technology generally has the upper hand. As for being "super-skeptical" about the extraordinary, I'd say that if one is going to be skeptical at all, then the same principles should be applied evenly in every case otherwise you are only introducing bias. In other words we either simply accept it or reject it because it's so probable ( or improbable ) that a skeptical analysis is antipragmatic or an obvious waste of time. But we find some serious reason to be skeptical, it's the results of the inquiry that should be what determines our attitude toward the subject matter, not the subject matter itself.

 

[Akhenaten]

But wouldn't you agree that eye witness testimony can be wrong while results obtained from technology can be correct? You can't generalize either way, you have to be skeptical of both within appropriate limits. And you have to be super-skeptical when all you have is eye witness testimony about something quite extraordinary.

Sure, I believe I did say something to the effect that technology can be very useful. I'd even go so far as to say that if we had to generalize, then technology generally has the upper hand.

Why does your response start with "Sure" and then go on to disagree with everything that was said?

"You can't generalise either way" doesn't mean the same thing as "technology generally has the upper hand."

As for being "super-skeptical" about the extraordinary, I'd say that if one is going to be skeptical at all, then the same principles should be applied evenly in every case otherwise you are only introducing bias. In other words we either simply accept it or reject it because it's so probable ( or improbable ) that a skeptical analysis is antipragmatic or an obvious waste of time. But we find some serious reason to be skeptical, it's the results of the inquiry that should be what determines our attitude toward the subject matter, not the subject matter itself.

It's almost impossible to understand what you're trying to say in amongst all the waffle, but the gist of it seems to be "ECREE is nonsense and here's why".

That'll end well.

 

[Krikkiter]

I'm guessing that you think the above makes some kind of sense, but I can't for the life of me imagine why.

What the hell are you talking about?


Is this is a joke post? It seems to be missing the bit that would make it funny.

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Akhenaten]

Curiouser and curiouser.

Indeed. I don't know what's stranger, folo's perception that people are addressing him through third parties or that there's an alternative to "logging in on my own".

 

[Pixel42]

Indeed. I don't know what's stranger, folo's perception that people are addressing him through third parties or that there's an alternative to "logging in on my own".

Every morning I open a tab, click on my bookmark for the JREF forum (for which I've set the "keep me logged in" option), click on a subforum of interest to me, click on the "view unread posts" button of any thread I'm participating in and read all the latest posts.

Clearly I'm doing it all wrong.

 

[Krikkiter]

Indeed. I don't know what's stranger, folo's perception that people are addressing him through third parties or that there's an alternative to "logging in on my own".

There seems to be a similarity between 'fology and Golfy actually.

 

[Krikkiter]

Every morning I open a tab, click on my bookmark for the JREF forum (for which I've set the "keep me logged in" option), click on a subforum of interest to me, click on the "view unread posts" button of any thread I'm participating in and read all the latest posts.

Clearly I'm doing it all wrong.

That makes two of us then.

 

[Akhenaten]

That makes two of us then.

Three.

 

[Agatha]

Fourthed.

 

[Akhenaten]

Maybe Mr Folo is actually in a parallel forumverse and his posts here are in fact responses to questions being posed by another 'us'.

This would explain a great deal.