And herein lies your entire problem. For something to be scientific it must be repeatable, and UFO sightings just aren't repeatable.
But they are repeated every day. Everyday someone reports another UFO and for every report ten go unreported.
Now just because we cannot adequately describe what is occurring does not mean it is NOT occurring. Just because we have no precise language to describe what is occurring does not mean it is NOT occurring. Just because YOU cannot see a link between the reports, does NOT mean that links between them do not exist.
The amount of research effort put into discovering and describing what is occurring can be written in less than a paragraph – and I did so in list form near the head of my original post.
Let me ask you, would you consider physics to be a legitimate science if you could count the number total of legitimate, peer reviewed studies conducted - on your fingers? What about any other scientific endeavour designed to discover the nature of some phenomena or other…chemistry perhaps, cosmology, biology?
Remember, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. This thread is all about people LOOKING at (examining with a critical eye) the evidence I have posted, THEN making comments on the CONTENT of that evidence. We are not here to argue whether or not “evidence” is “evidence”, I simple asked people to make informed opinions on what I have presented.
Wollery, you seem to have returned to the old “anecdotes aren’t evidence” line. That is your opinion. I would not be as categorical as you in such an assessment. I contend there is value in them – because we CAN learn from them.
And you're wrong that a single instance can't prove a hypothesis. A single observation confirmed relativity, and a single observation, or instance, could easily confirm alien visitation.
Actually, a single observed instance can NEVER “prove” an hypothesis. No hypothesis is EVER proved on a single observation. Science simply does not work that way – nor can it nor should it.
The majority of UFOs are reported by people who already believe, or are willing to believe that UFOs exist and are alien visitors. They see what they want to see.
But this is a typical debunker line. You base it on no evidence except mere unfounded assertion. It is a debunker belief system. An article of faith, that has no truth in reality. Simply stating something is true, does not MAKE it true.
The vast majority of reported UFOs are completely mundane terrestrial phenomena that are misinterpreted by the willing and or gullible. So the "weight of evidence" shows that people are easily fooled into believing something that just isn't so.
The “vast majority” of UFO report have been INTERPRETED as mundane… but just because it CAN be interpreted as mundane, does not mean it IS mundane.
…and again with the unfounded (offensive to me at least) remarks about people who report UFOs being “gullible”. This is unfounded and really, uncalled for. You have no evidence that that is the case at all. In fact, all the evidence points to the fact that many people who report UFOs are reliable, responsible people.
Experiments in psychology bear this out, showing that under the right circumstances a large proportion of the population can be led to believe some extremely weird stuff.
Exactly what “Experiments in psychology” are you talking about here wollery? Or are you again simply regurgitating “what you have been told by others” as an article of faith. Have you seen any such “experiments”? Can you reference any?
The "weight of evidence" doesn't help you, and just reading UFO reports has no scientific merit. We need hard evidence. Until then it's just anecdote, the majority of which is patently absurd.
The weight of evidence helps everybody else, so why should it not help me? I agree, “merely” reading a report IS not “scientific” (strictly speaking) but reports can inform us. They can provide, for example, clues as to what direction and what form a true scientific investigation might be conducted.
Newton with his apocryphal apple did not say… “Oh, I just saw an apple fall… hmmm I wonder… ummm no, scratch that …my perception is too fallible for me to conclude anything useful from that observation…”
Until then it's just anecdote, the majority of which is patently absurd.
Again with the unfounded assertions – actually…no, you ARE right. The anecdotes ARE “absurd”. The stories contained within them ARE “unvelievable”. They information is just strange, impossible and yes…”absurd”. But I suggest that is simply because we do not understand them and I suggest this is because we have not enough research to understand them. Until we do – then they will remain exactly as you describe.
The indigenous tribe, on seeing technology in action for the first time would describe it in exactly your terms…and probably run away from such observations… yet there would be a few among them…older, wiser heads, that would say…wait a minute… the phenomena occurred…there must be a reason for it… perhaps we should research a bit to see if we can find out
And yes, we DO need “hard” evidence… but that is, in itself, NOT the be all and end all. How do we know that if we do not put in a little peer-reviewed research, it will not give us clues on how to obtain that hard evidence?
I didn't read anything in that rogue river report that made me think the witnesses saw a spacecraft.
I would like reports on the case from a better source than Bruce Maccabee though...
I NEVER claimed the Rogue River report to be explicable as a “spacecraft”. I am merely interested in exploring what it might – or might not - have been. For example we know from the descriptions it was not a conventional aircraft. We know from the Air force itself that it was not a “blimp” – or they would have SAID so. In fact if the Air Force had anything in the air that day anywhere NEAR the sighting, they would have stated that was what the witnesses saw. In fact the best they could come up with was “kite” (referring to a balloon array) – the closest launching place for which was more that 340miles away!
And please don’t think that just because you impugn the researcher or compiler of UFO reports that doing so makes any case for you position at all. As far as I know Dr. Bruce Maccabee is a genuinely qualified researcher who is genuinely interested in conducting properly constituted scientific research into the subject of UFOs. A very rare bird indeed! And as far as I am concerned he is to be commended for his efforts – considering the ridicule, approbation and probably worse that he must receive in return for his efforts.
This is your current best case? The witnesses had no idea how big the object was, how high it was or how far away it was.
Good grief!
What happened to your previous best -- Zamora, or was it Bentwoods?
But Gord…if you had read the report you would have discovered the witnesses DID provide size estimates AND estimated how high it was AND how far away it was. Your comments SHOULD be informed by the facts – at the very least.
Bentwoods? Your misstatement here is telling. It is “Bentwaters” Gord. Such a misstatement leads one to conclude that you are perhaps not familiar with the case?
So we are supposed to discuss which UFOs in what history? Feel free to elaborate which UFOs are most compelling so we can focus on what you think is most important? Remember, this is your evidence and it will wonder all over the place if you just say look and discuss. Once again, throwing a whole bunch of stuff up and hoping something sticks is a shotgun approach.
I suggested a way around this…so did Tapio. I though the idea was to take one case at a time. I thought (and correct me if I’m wrong) that Rogue River was the case currently under examination and discussion.)Your post here is unhelpful in achieving a rational structure to the debate…perhaps though that is your purpose? Just speculating. I may be wrong of course.
already covered that Rramjet at the request of Tapio
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5196105&postcount=460
if that was your best shot youre gonna be disappointed
Marduk, the “blimp” explanation has been shown to be an erroneous red herring. The Air Force would have latched onto that one quicker than the blink of an eye if there was ANY veracity at all in such an explanation. That they did NOT, shows that they simply could not justify that explanation.
Besides, a “blimp” just does NOT match what the witnesses describe – especially the “jet aircraft” speeds associated.
(…)
2) Would you mind sharing your speculation as to what is the purpose and gain of VEFI? Like, what do you think they are doing here and why?
ETA: Rramjet, please disregard the first question. I just saw that there is a link for physical evidence which I will review and see if there is indeed any and get back to you.
I have absolutely no idea “who” or even what they are and certainly cannot even begin to guess rationally at intention.
Ahhh the physical evidence link… the perils of posting a link to a website in the modern day… When I posted the sites I did, I attempted to ensure that the content was valid and the (sub) links worked… perhaps the site has gone down in the meantime (spooky! LOL) I have just rechecked and yes, only two links currently work. Has anyone though to inform the webmaster of that site? I will attempt to contact and see if I can get them to investigate and correct if possible…stand by…
Only two of the eleven links are active:
(...)
UFOs: The Physical Evidence - Overwhelming – But As Elusive As Ever
In a nutshell: There's plenty of physical evidence, but mainstream science and the military is afraid to admit it.
Yeah… at least your link works
Perhaps I’ll edit that one in… ummm… no …unfortunately too late…. I guess I’ll just have to live with that now….
And yes indeed! But WHY are they “afraid”? What are they afraid of? Nothing is done without a reason. What will be discovered about us(?), them (?) that they fight tooth and nail to quash the idea so vigorously?
Lets look at the history…at first the military decided to investigate… they did, and it seems in good faith… but then, after just a handful of projects…they suddenly became implacable in their approach. What does that tell you?
