UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

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.

Of course where all this falls down is that there is no way to be able to verify an otherwise unevidenced observers account for accuracy. A video recording on the other hand can be analysed.

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.

Case in point. These things were only able to have been determined to be mundane because there was something to verify. With an observer who sees a floater in his eye and then reports it as a flying saucer, there is nothing to look into and therefore there is no way to tell how accurately he/she is describing his/her experience.

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.

No they don't. Objective technical evidence can be shown to be wrong (or right), an eye witness can not. Therefore eye witness testimony is not trusted alone, even in courts of law where it is used all the time, it will have no relevance unless there is physical evidence to back it up.

 

[remirol]

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.

Not just ignorance, wilful ignorance -- in short, he openly admits that ON PURPOSE, he doesn't read posts which contain things that disrupt his misperceptions of reality.

I could wilfully ignore gravity, but I'd go splat.

 

[23_Tauri]

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.

This is just rubbish. Stray Cat has explained to you why.

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.

Yeah, dude, because your first-hand observations of the black and white writing in this thread have proved to be so-o-o infallible....

By not noticing that I was a woman, and that you mistook Pixel42's reference to cold reading as card reading, you've demonstrated that your ability to observe and then re-call what you've observed is piss-poor. If you can't get it right with something as obvious as black letters on a pale grey background, what hope have you got of good re-call of events in a multi-facted, fast-moving world?

But don't worry, I'm not singling you out in this regard; please don't feel harrassed. Because this is the way things are for most people.

Machines, on the other hand, tend to get things right more of the time, because they are focused on specific tasks. Take your computer, this server and the all the electronics that go into making the words appear on your screen; if you go back through the thread you can verify that Pixel42 wrote the word "cold" and that I referred to me being a lady on more than one occasion. Still there, no errors.

Machines, aren't they great?

 

[23_Tauri]

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.

No, wrong again. Go and read the Extraordinary Claims, Extraordinary Evidence thread to understand why you are wrong, if what you are trying to say is that we should apply the same standards of evidence no matter what the claim.

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.

What's 'antipragmatic'? You're making words up now to appear intelligent and it's not working. You just make yourself look stupid when you use words that don't exist and write gobble-di-gook.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Good, you are acknowledging that UFOs ( witches ) were properly identified by those thousands of witnesses and properly found guilty in courts of law ( triers of fact ). UFOs ( witches ) are a given fact.

Now, do you have any evidence for Alien Space Ships?

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Like with UFOs ( witches ) and Alien Space Ships? Or are you simply being hypocritical here?

 

[Paul2]

Fourthed.

I'll have a fifth.

 

[Paul2]

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.

You're going to deny that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?!

 

[23_Tauri]

You're going to deny that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?!

I think he just did.

 

[ufology]

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."





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.

Not Exactly,

Requiring extraordinary skepticism is different than requiring extraordinary evidence. As for ECREE, the evidence for extraordinary claims just ends up being deemed extraordinary in a subjective way, but it's not a "requirement" other than to convince someone is highly biased. From an objective point of view the evidence may not be extraordinary at all. In other words any claim, including so-called extraordinary claims simply requires sufficient evidence, and such evidence may or may not be extraordinary. For example it was once thought to be an extraordinary idea that streaks of light in the sky were caused by rocks from space. Then we found the rocks ... and they're just rocks ... there's nothing extarordinary about them ... space it littered with them. The only thing that made the evidence extraordinary at the time was the subjective bias of those who didn't subscribe to the rocks from space theory.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Not Exactly,

Requiring extraordinary skepticism is different than requiring extraordinary evidence. As for ECREE, the evidence for extraordinary claims just ends up being deemed extraordinary in a subjective way, but it's not a "requirement" other than to convince someone is highly biased. From an objective point of view the evidence may not be extraordinary at all. In other words any claim, including so-called extraordinary claims simply requires sufficient evidence, and such evidence may or may not be extraordinary. For example it was once thought to be an extraordinary idea that streaks of light in the sky were caused by rocks from space. Then we found the rocks ... and they're just rocks ... there's nothing extarordinary about them ... space it littered with them. The only thing that made the evidence extraordinary at the time was the subjective bias of those who didn't subscribe to the rocks from space theory.

So your requirement for extraordinary evidence for the existence of UFOs ( witches ) is just more of your hypocrisy?

 

[ufology]

You're going to deny that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?!

Yes. I always have. Any claim requiring evidence simply requires sufficient evidence and whether or not such evidence is deemed extraordinary is a subjective interpretation.

 

[GeeMack]

Not Exactly,

Requiring extraordinary skepticism is different than requiring extraordinary evidence. As for ECREE, the evidence for extraordinary claims just ends up being deemed extraordinary in a subjective way, but it's not a "requirement" other than to convince someone is highly biased. From an objective point of view it not be extraordinary at all. In other words any claim, including so-called extraordinary claims simply requires sufficient evidence, and such evidence may or may not be extraordinary. For example it was once thought to be an extraordinary idea that streaks of light in the sky were caused by rocks from space. Then we found the rocks ... and they're just rocks ... there's nothing extarordinary about them ... space it littered with them. The only thing that made the evidence extraordinary at the time was the subjective bias of those who didn't subscribe to the rocks from space theory.

More nonsense. Special pleading, arguments from incredulity and ignorance, and more the the same old dishonest redefining of terms. Interesting that your comments are intentionally devoid of any substance, any evidence, or even anything that remotely resembles research. Your arguments are like endless strings of gibberish constructed in a way that allows you to completely ignore the reality of what's being discussed.

Bottom line: You have no support for the claim that some UFOs are alien craft.

 

[ufology]

So your requirement for extraordinary evidence for the existence of UFOs ( witches ) is just more of your hypocrisy?

I don't require extraordinary evidence, just sufficient evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes. I always have. Any claim requiring evidence simply requires sufficient evidence and whether or not such evidence is deemed extraordinary is a subjective interpretation.

Would you consider ordinary evidence to consist of eyewitnesses testimony? And if so, would that be enough to convince you of the existence of something?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I don't require extraordinary evidence, just sufficient evidence.

Oh good. We have the firsthand accounts and testimony of thousands of eyewitnesses and we have confirming evidence of RADAR returns for the existence of UFOs ( witches ). UFOs ( witches ) have been proven in courts of law.

Why don't you believe in them?

 

[23_Tauri]

I don't require extraordinary evidence, just sufficient evidence.

If a light in the sky, which acts like a firefly, is sufficient evidence for you to conclude that you saw a UFO (alien craft), why is it not sufficient evidence for you to conclude that you saw a UFO (witch)?

 

[23_Tauri]

Not Exactly,

Requiring extraordinary skepticism is different than requiring extraordinary evidence. As for ECREE, the evidence for extraordinary claims just ends up being deemed extraordinary in a subjective way, but it's not a "requirement" other than to convince someone is highly biased. From an objective point of view the evidence may not be extraordinary at all. In other words any claim, including so-called extraordinary claims simply requires sufficient evidence, and such evidence may or may not be extraordinary. For example it was once thought to be an extraordinary idea that streaks of light in the sky were caused by rocks from space. Then we found the rocks ... and they're just rocks ... there's nothing extarordinary about them ... space it littered with them. The only thing that made the evidence extraordinary at the time was the subjective bias of those who didn't subscribe to the rocks from space theory.

Does anyone here understand this? It reads like word salad to me.

ETA:

More nonsense. Special pleading, arguments from incredulity and ignorance, and more the the same old dishonest redefining of terms. Interesting that your comments are intentionally devoid of any substance, any evidence, or even anything that remotely resembles research. Your arguments are like endless strings of gibberish constructed in a way that allows you to completely ignore the reality of what's being discussed.

Ah, that's what is was. Thank you GeeMack, at least someone's making sense.

 

[ufology]

Would you consider ordinary evidence to consist of eyewitnesses testimony? And if so, would that be enough to convince you of the existence of something?

RoboTimbo,

To keep your question in context, I offer this as replacement: Would you consider eyewitness evidence sufficient to convince you of the existence of something? The most obvious answer is that if you were the eyewitness it certainly could but not necessarily be sufficient. If you haven't seen it yourself, then it should become a matter of probabilities. Sometimes those probabilities can approach certainty for all practical purposes, but it's still not the same as seeing it yourself.

 

[23_Tauri]

RoboTimbo,

To keep your question in context, I offer this as replacement: Would you consider eyewitness evidence sufficient to convince you of the existence of something?

Err... I think RoboTimbo asked you the question, dude.

The most obvious answer is that if you were the eyewitness it certainly could but not necessarily be sufficient. If you haven't seen it yourself, then it should become a matter of probabilities.

...said the poster who has displayed a complete lack of understanding of statistics.

Sometimes those probabilities can approach certainty for all practical purposes, but it's still not the same as seeing it yourself.

You don't understand confidence levels, foo, so cut the sciencey-sounding, - but in actuality meaningless, - waffle.

ETA: am I reaching dangerous levels of internal toxicity yet?