UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

Pixel,

Let's try that again, this time removing the bias:

Claim 1: There's a shed at the bottom of my garden
Claim 2: There are fairies at the bottom of my garden

Sufficient evidence for claim 1: A shed at the bottom of the garden.
Sufficient evidence for claim 2: A fairy at the bottom of the garden.

Sounds like an unnecessary complication in daily life, but whatever. Show us your fairy then if that's the way you like it.

 

[23_Tauri]

And the honest answer you desparately seek to avoid, is that you have no clue what alien spacecraft should look like.

Given your lack, why should anyone believe you?

You know what would really tickle me? If an actual Alien Space Ship really did land, and it looked nothing like ufolo's description.

Like a shapeless, oozing blob of slime or something.

 

[Garrison]

You know what would really tickle me? If an actual Alien Space Ship really did land, and it looked nothing like ufolo's description. [qimg]http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p133/debs711/icon_lol.gif[/qimg]

Like a shapeless, oozing blob of slime or something.

Well this is the thing; most of these alleged alien spacecraft seem uncomfortably close to something that a human being might imagine a spacecraft should look like. I always go back to the way that so many sightings after Kenneth Arnold resembled the newspaper blurb 'flying saucer' rather than the physical description Arnold gave.

 

[tsig]

So they started out looking like tossed hubcaps or garbage can lids and now they sort of resemble . . . I don't know, really fast Volksblimps?

Fireflys.

 

[tsig]

Reports indicate that alien craft can vary in appearance in all aspects from the seemingly mundane to the highly unusual with the most common feature being a prevalence of some basic geometrical shape such as an oblate spheroid, sphere, cylinder, triangle, disk, other low aspect ratio shapes or a combination of such shapes. The one I saw was a glowing sphere.

Or fireflys.

 

[ufology]

The following may not work in every case, but it works here.

Thanks, logy, for proving ECREE. A shed is not extraordinary. A fairy is extraordinary. So you just said we need something extraordinary to demonstrate an extraordinary claim like fairies, and that we only need something mundane like a shed to demonstrate a claim like a shed in a garden.

Actually, I never said, "we need something extraordinary to demonstrate an extraordinary claim like fairies". You are putting words in my mouth. What I said is that for anything requiring evidence, all that is needed is sufficient evidence. I also gave a historical example to prove the point that the evidence for something once considered to be extraordinary ( shooting stars are rocks from space ) can be very ordinary ( a rock from space ). So ECREE is misleading in that the so called "extraordinariness" of something is based on people's personal opinions regarding what they feel is extraordinary, and that to require it as extra evidence beyond what is sufficient is biased.

 

[RoboTimbo]

gy, you've said that Campeche was not like the Washington DC case and so couldn't be compared. I'd like for you to give some cases which you think are similar to the 1952 Washington DC case.

 

[Akhenaten]

Mr Ufology, your answer misses the very obvious point that what is deemed sufficient varies with the nature of the claim.

Sideroxylon,

Actually, my answer ( that sufficient evidence is all that is needed ) doesn't miss the point at all because in my original post I gave an example of how a seemingly extraordinary claim in the past isn't seen as extraordinary at all now, and neither is the evidence. This whole business of what constitutes extraordinary is based purely on the relative knowledge of those considering the problem, and those without the knowledge are more apt to think something is "extraordinary" when in fact it's not.

As previously explained, folog, putting the claim and the evidence in different historical contexts invalidates your argument.

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.

What you're dishonestly trying to do here is place the claim in the context of people who had no understanding of the way the cosmos worked and the evidence in the context of people like us who know all about such things as bolides.

When the first meteorites were found and identified they were not 'just rocks'. They turned out to be extraordinary evidence for what had until then been an extraordinary claim.

You do realise, don't you, that your pretense that someone else's posts are invisible doesn't render them that way for everyone?

Or are you genuinely having trouble seeing my posts?

Would it be easier for you if I were to format them like this:

​

 

[ufology]

gy, you've said that Campeche was not like the Washington DC case and so couldn't be compared. I'd like for you to give some cases which you think are similar to the 1952 Washington DC case.

Misrepresentation above. I didn't say they coiuldn't be compared. I maintained that the comparison between the two isn't sufficient enough to justify applying the same reasoning for Campeche to the D.C. incident, and I gave my reasons. You still haven't addressed those reasons.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Misrepresentation above. I didn't say they coiuldn't be compared. I maintained that the comparison between the two isn't sufficient enough to justify applying the same reasoning for Campeche to the D.C. incident, and I gave my reasons. You still haven't addressed those reasons.

Addressed them in what way? I never said I disagreed with them. But, in other words, you maintain that they aren't comparable. Like I said.

So, you give a list of cases which you think are similar to the 1952 Washington DC case so that we may compare them.

 

[ehcks]

Actually, I never said, "we need something extraordinary to demonstrate an extraordinary claim like fairies".

Oh, but you did. Right here:

Claim 1: There's a shed at the bottom of my garden
Claim 2: There are fairies at the bottom of my garden

Sufficient evidence for claim 1: A shed at the bottom of the garden.
Sufficient evidence for claim 2: A fairy at the bottom of the garden.

Fairies would be extraordinary. A fairy would itself be extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that fairies exist.

In the same way, an alien spacecraft would be extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that alien spacecraft exist. But we would also accept aliens themselves, or many other kinds of truly alien technology.

 

[23_Tauri]

Well this is the thing; most of these alleged alien spacecraft seem uncomfortably close to something that a human being might imagine a spacecraft should look like. I always go back to the way that so many sightings after Kenneth Arnold resembled the newspaper blurb 'flying saucer' rather than the physical description Arnold gave.

'zactly.

And then when we started building and flying triangular and V-shaped fighter planes, and we started seeing them on our TV screens, then alien space ships started getting in on the triangular act, too.

Weird.

 

[ufology]

As previously explained, folog, putting the claim and the evidence in different historical contexts invalidates your argument.

Actually the historical example ( meteors are rocks from the sky ) does not invalidate my argument at all. However if you don't like it, then let's try another approach. Perhaps you could answer the following question?

Q. When a claim requires evidence, what else besides sufficient evidence is required to validate the claim?

 

[Akhenaten]

As previously explained, folog, putting the claim and the evidence in different historical contexts invalidates your argument.

Actually the historical example ( meteors are rocks from the sky ) does not invalidate my argument at all. However if you don't like it, then let's try another approach. Perhaps you could answer the following question?

Q. When a claim requires evidence, what else besides sufficient evidence is required to validate the claim?

I see no reason to try another approach when you've made no attempt to respond to the first one other than stamping your foot and saying "Is not!"

Also, there seemed to be something wrong with your font so I fixed it up for you.

 

[Garrison]

Actually the historical example ( meteors are rocks from the sky ) does not invalidate my argument at all. However if you don't like it, then let's try another approach. Perhaps you could answer the following question?

Q. When a claim requires evidence, what else besides sufficient evidence is required to validate the claim?

Perhaps you've forgotten Ufology but you haven't presented any credible evidence for the argument that UFO = alien craft, let alone 'sufficient'.

 

[23_Tauri]

Actually the historical example ( meteors are rocks from the sky ) does not invalidate my argument at all. However if you don't like it, then let's try another approach. Perhaps you could answer the following question?

Q. When a claim requires evidence, what else besides sufficient evidence is required to validate the claim?

If the claim is extraordinary, then it requires sufficient, extraordinary evidence!

Let me illustrate with an example:

You say "I have an alien space ship at the bottom of my garden"

If true, this is extraordinary evidence (an alien space ship) for an extraordinary claim (existence of alien space ships)

However, it is not sufficient evidence for you to simply tell me this. In order for your extraordinary evidence to be sufficient for your extraordinary claim, you have to actually take me to the bottom of your garden so I can see and touch the alien space ship for myself.

At which point, I shall be sufficiently wowed and bamboozled.

 

[abaddon]

Actually the historical example ( meteors are rocks from the sky ) does not invalidate my argument at all. However if you don't like it, then let's try another approach. Perhaps you could answer the following question?

Q. When a claim requires evidence, what else besides sufficient evidence is required to validate the claim?

When will you answer?

What do "alien craft" look like?

How do you know?

 

[Stray Cat]

You say "I have an alien space ship at the bottom of my garden"

If true, this is extraordinary evidence (an alien space ship) for an extraordinary claim (existence of alien space ships)

However, it is not sufficient evidence for you to simply tell me this. In order for your extraordinary evidence to be sufficient for your extraordinary claim, you have to actually take me to the bottom of your garden so I can see and touch the alien space ship for myself.

Unless the alien space ship is in his shed.
I mean no one would hoax a shed would they?

 

[23_Tauri]

Unless the alien space ship is in his shed.
I mean no one would hoax a shed would they?

Doctor doctor! There's an Alien Space Ship in my shed!
It's a Dragon in my garage, don't you know anything?

 

[Paul2]

Q. When a claim requires evidence, what else besides sufficient evidence is required to validate the claim?

Yes, sufficient evidence is required. And while several tablespoons of water may be sufficient to fill a shotglass, you'd need an extraordinary number of tablespoons of water to have sufficiently fill up a hole the size of Lake Erie.

See how "sufficient" can actually mean different amounts (and perhaps quality of evidence) in different cases?