UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

You still haven't provided any reason that suggests the object you saw was something extraordinary that defies conventional explanation. Therefore there is no evidence that you saw a UFO.

Whatever it was he saw remains unidentified. It was, and is, a UFO. The abject dishonesty in trying to stuff your nonsensical redefinition of terms into this discussion is simply not rational. The abject dishonesty in continuing to shirk your responsibility for burden of proof and foist that off onto other people is also not rational.

 

[John Albert]

We've been over and over and over this same territory how many times now? I've lost count. We've dedicated at least 50 pages of discussion to this "UFO" redefinition alone, let alone all the others.

The more we hammer these same points down only for J Randall Murphy to come around and pull them back up again, the more obvious it becomes (to me, anyway) that he's a pathological liar who enjoys the attention he gets from being at the center of these crazy arguments.

 

[Daylightstar]

Krikkiter,

You still haven't provided any reason that suggests the object you saw was something extraordinary that defies conventional explanation. Therefore there is no evidence that you saw a UFO.

ufology,

That can be explained. Krikkiter cought the UFO (Null hypothesis) while it was in between a right angle turn in the sky and a triple bounce across the horizon.
Just before it came down, left a "depression in the landscape" and a "large burn circle in the tall grass" to finally offload a giant talking rabbit with big black almond shaped eyes to hit on small children by saying hello to them.

Anything is possible, with quantum and all.

So Krikkiter's account is quite extraordinary that defies conventional explanation.

 

[Krikkiter]

You had to be there.

 

[Krikkiter]

Ok so I've been trying to pin down the main logical fallacy in Ufology's reasoning.

Would this be a fair representation of his logic sequence?

1. Aliens exist.

2. UFO's have been observed.

3. Therefore, all UFO's must be of alien origin.

I'm not sure I've got that quite right.

 

[Daylightstar]

It simpler than that, I think:

1. UFOs have been observed.
2. Therefore, aliens exist.
(3. See 2.)

 

[Krikkiter]

It simpler than that, I think:

1. UFOs have been observed.
2. Therefore, aliens exist.
(3. See 2.)

Is that affirming the consequent?

 

[Paul2]

Both make it clear that UFO covers all flying objects for which no explanation cane be determined and that extraterrestrial origin is just an assumption.

Ufology, this is why you can't hang your hat on the "especially" clause of the definition of UFOs. You may think you are winning a battle about the definition of UFOs, but you are losing the war.

We have definitions of "UFO" from reputable sources that say nothing except "unidentified flying object," and we have definitions from reputable sources that reference alien origins as mere assumptions. You earlier said "all" definitions reference alien origins, which is demonstrably wrong. Only some do.

But none of that makes matters, though, for what evidence we should require before we seriously entertain the idea that some observed phenomenon is an alien/ET craft.

 

[John Albert]

Ok so I've been trying to pin down the main logical fallacy in Ufology's reasoning.

The main one?

That's a toughie. There are so many, how so I choose?

How about this: you name one off the top of your head, and I bet I can find something he's said that exemplifies it.

 

[Krikkiter]

The main one?

That's a toughie. There are so many, how so I choose?

How about this: you name one off the top of your head, and I bet I can find something he's said that exemplifies it.

Circular reasoning. I feel like there's got to be some circular reasoning in there somewhere.

 

[ehcks]

The main one?

That's a toughie. There are so many, how so I choose?

How about this: you name one off the top of your head, and I bet I can find something he's said that exemplifies it.

At this point, should we just stop at the "WTF? Fallacy"?

http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2006/07/examples-of-wtf-fallacy.html

 

[Daylightstar]

Is that affirming the consequent?

I'm not seeing a conditional premise.

I now however do think that you may be right in putting his acceptance of OMG Aliens in the first spot.

 

[Daylightstar]

The main one?

That's a toughie. There are so many, how so I choose?

How about this: you name one off the top of your head, and I bet I can find something he's said that exemplifies it.

Ooh can we all play?

 

[23_Tauri]

Lastly, I still have no useful information from any skeptics here on Clark McClelland.

And what reasons have you given for us to take this nutcase's opportunist's totally loopy, unsubstantiated stories for anything but a money-making scam on the internet?

But perhaps skeptic Lance will dig something up. At least he's provided some useful information in the past. Or maybe the SUNlite people or CSI ( formerly CSICOP ). But the JREF people here seem to do nothing but ufology bash and spread anti ufology propoganda.

The SUNlite people? Is Astrophotographer to be addressed in the plural now?

 

[RoboTimbo]

We've been over and over and over this same territory how many times now? I've lost count. We've dedicated at least 50 pages of discussion to this "UFO" redefinition alone, let alone all the others.

The more we hammer these same points down only for J Randall Murphy to come around and pull them back up again, the more obvious it becomes (to me, anyway) that he's a pathological liar who enjoys the attention he gets from being at the center of these crazy arguments.

Sadly, this is true. The evidence here and on his own website indicate that he is unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, even if he has to pretend to himself that he is making arguments. As long as he can continue the charade and plausibly deny to himself that he has lost, he can continue to pretend that he really saw aliens, a giant talking bunny rabbit, MIB, and whatever other fantasies he dreams up, embellishing them with wild abandon along the way.

His petulant tantrums concerning his Rredefinition of UFO to mean Alien Space Ship are just symptomatic of it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Krikkiter,

You still haven't provided any reason that suggests the object you saw was something extraordinary that defies conventional explanation. Therefore there is no evidence that you saw a UFO.

ufology,

You still haven't provided a reason to suggest that there is any reason for the UFO to be extraordinary or defy conventional explanation. Therefore there is no evidence that you have any comprehension about what a UFO is.

It is an Unidentified Flying Object. In other words, the observer is unable to identify it, it appears to be Flying, and it appears to be an Object. Let me know which of those terms is interfering with your comprehension and we'll try to explain it in simpler terms.

By the way, do you have any evidence for Alien Space Ships?

 

[Paul2]

At this point, should we just stop at the "WTF? Fallacy"?

http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2006/07/examples-of-wtf-fallacy.html

Thanks for letting us all know about this, I'd never heard that fallacy before, but, so very, very, very clearly, the need for it is so very, very, very obvious.

 

[GeeMack]

Sadly, this is true. The evidence here and on his own website indicate that he is unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, even if he has to pretend to himself that he is making arguments.

His is a world where truth and reality are firmly believed to exist as separate realms...

Truth and reality are two seaparate issues. Therefore truth itself doesn't correspond to objective reality or any other reality.

Truth, to a "ufologist", is pretty much the opposite of what truth is to your normal healthy everyday English speaking human. It does not correspond to reality... at all... period.

As long as he can continue the charade and plausibly deny to himself that he has lost, he can continue to pretend that he really saw aliens, a giant talking bunny rabbit, MIB, and whatever other fantasies he dreams up, embellishing them with wild abandon along the way.

The search for truth, as commonly defined, not the "ufological" definition where it has no relationship whatsoever with reality, can be so interesting and exciting. I've often wondered why some people so steadfastly shun that interest and excitement in favor of fanatically clinging to a fantasy. It's like Bigfooters or religious fundamentalists. Jesus, reality is out here for the taking, folks. Loads of it, everywhere you look! Maybe living in fantasy land is just the path of least resistance for people who don't have the gumption or smarts or courage to actually embrace reality.

 

[wollery]

Paul,

If you want to settle for such poor results just to suit your bias then all your doing is proving your lack of standards. And I don't believe you for a second that you didn't cherry pick your results to suit your bias. When your type "define UFO" into google the first result is this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ufo

UFO  [yoo-ef-oh or, sometimes, yoo-foh] noun, plural UFO's, UFOs.

any unexplained moving objectobserved in the sky, especially one assumed by some observers to be of extraterrestrial origin.

Interesting. Let's look at the first part of that sentence closely;

any unexplained moving object observed in the sky

And again;

any unexplained moving object observed in the sky

The rest is a subclause that uses the word especially, signifying a tendency or predominance, but not a hard and fast rule, includes the word assumed indicating a personal opinion not based in fact, and the phrase some observers which indicates less than everyone (usually a minority). In other words, the second part of the sentence is saying that a minority of people hold an opinion that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin.

You've got to love someone who picks a definition that actually contradicts the position he offers it in support of.

It's also fascinating that you ignore all of the rest of that page, which includes several other notes and definitions.

And as for your second definition, from The Oxford Online Dictionary;

a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials.

Let's look at the highlights of that sentence;

a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials.

I suggest you look up the words claim, often and suppose. You can use the Oxford Online Dictionary if you like.


You also ignore the huge raft of online and hardcopy definitions that others have provided. You have cherry-picked the definitions that you think suport your position, ignoring or dismissing all others. But the silliest part is that those definitions you cherry-picked don't actually support your position at all!

 

[John Albert]

You have cherry-picked the definitions that you think suport your position, ignoring or dismissing all others. But the silliest part is that those definitions you cherry-picked don't actually support your position at all!

It's the exact same thing he did with the definition of "pseudoscience."

Not only did he cherry pick the definition itself, but then he deconstructed that definition and cherry-picked only the words within the definition that he wanted to emphasize, ignoring the rest. In other words, he cherry-picked the cherry-pickings!