UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[23_Tauri]

Where the analogy breaks down is that although there may be more evidence for the existence of witches than there are of alien craft, alien craft are not witches, so even if witches were proven to exist or not to exist, so what? There is no correlation between the two. I could just as easily say there is more evidence for popsickles than alien craft, again it's not relevant. So again I suggest that if the skeptics here want to discuss witches, then they should start up a witch thread.

A further note. The skeptics here often call this switching of the subject matter a "straw man argument". For those who don't know what that is, see this link for an explanation.

"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
​

fog, your reading comprehension skills can't be this bad, surely?

No one here is saying are alien craft are witches. The witch analogy (because it's an analogy, not a strawman, go and look up analogy in the dictionary) posits that there is as much evidence for unidentified flying objects being witches on broomsticks as there are for unidentified flying objects being alien spaceships (or 'craft' as you now like to call them).

You have yet to provide any evidence to refute this - rather good, even though I say so myself - analogy. Would you like to do so?

 

[Stray Cat]

And the above is using witches ( the straw man )

Why (question) are you still (continuing) to use the witches (strawman) strawman when it has (past tense) been pointed (like a witches hat) out to you (Mr ufology) that your understanding (alien concept to you) of it (the strawman) is incorrect (wrong)?

Or are we into a round of redefining "strawman" now?

as a basis for maintaining UFOs ( alien craft ) are preposterous.

I would think the ayleeuns have teams for maintaining their craft.

The two circumstances are not equivalent in either context nor content

If you weren't so hung up on UFO meaning "alien craft", then you could start to see that your preferred explanation for something that appears to be flying that appears to be an object that has yet to be identified (UFO) is just one of many thousands of possible explanations. Witches on broom sticks are another.
If we are truly trying to find the identity of these apparently flying apparent objects (instead of simply confirming our blind beliefs) then we should examine every possibility in order to rule it out as an explanation.
So far, you have failed to rule Witches on Broomsticks out preferring instead to try to redefine what a strawman is in order to avoid facing the centuries of evidence given by upstanding members of the communities under oath in courts of law.

... except perhaps in the sense that the actions of the skeptics here bears a remarkable resemblance to the judges who condemned people as witches. Perhaps they would like to lock me up in a tower for heresy!

No, by misrepresenting the position of the sceptics, you have built a strawman. No one wants to lock you up for heresy, though I suggest that some people may want to mock you for believing heresay.

However let's give them the benefit of the doubt first. Hypothetically speaking, what exactly is "preposterous" in considering UFOs ( alien craft ) as an explanation for objects that appear to be some sort of craft unlike anything manmade in either appearance or performance? And try to answer the question without resorting to the witch straw man.

The preposterousness of it is that alien flying saucers have never been shown to exist. It's not hypothetically speaking at all, it's quite literal.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The main reason is firsthand experience. A firsthand experience is a result of direct exposure to the objective reality. It is not an anecdote nor is it any more subjective than any other perception, including the observation of scientific experiments. The only difference between the two is that I can't replicate it under controlled conditions. However that does not invalidate my own experience. It only means other people can't verify it. And since your question was what makes me think I know ... this answer is perfectly legitimate.

Other resons are that I was with two other people who corroborated parts of the event which took place over the course of an evening. Plus there was more than one observation of the object. Plus it was seen at night and in the morning light. Plus the details of the observation confirm sizes, distances and speeds within a margin of error wide enough to rule out any known manmade or natural phenomena.

The only skeptical explanations I've been given that are even remotely plausible given these factors is soime kind of hallucination that affected all three of us and lasted the whole night and only manifested itself in the form of this one object. I don't believe that explanation is reasonable. The only other skeptical opinions that plausibly explains are is a hoax or a combination of horribly poor memory and some kind of unconscious fabrication of the event, which is what the skeptics here have deemed it to be. I do not find that to be reasonable either. Skeptics will however provide evidence that while under pressure here to recount details, I posted a minor error not relevant to the sighting of the object, and it was pointed out that I had written a wrong direction in my online account. I conceed these factors are true, but also irellevant. The other so-called errors were actually errors on the part of the skeptics who posted non-scale graphics and made bad calculations regarding angles and distances. They may cite other factors, but examination using Google Earth showed that my initial estimates and descriptions were within the tolerances required to conclude that the object could not have been any known natural or manmade object or phenomenon.

If you have something new and constructive to add by way of questions or comments, please do so.

Rubbish. You revised your story time and again. All this proves is why first hand accounts are claims not evidence.

If you have something new and constructive to add (like evidence) please do so. But for your own dignitiy, stop repeating this rancid self justification. I have no reason to believe you have ever accurately reported what you saw, nor that what you describe in any way equates to "Alien craft". All you can offer is your opinion it looked like an alien craft, which proves less than nothing.

Stop pretending there is any way your estimates, exagerations and after the fact revisions prove anything. You didn't measure anything that night. None of your google mapping proves anything, because you
a) Have no accurate data
and b) kept changing the data you claimed to have.

 

[23_Tauri]

And.... (because I'm not finished yet..... )

There is no correlation between the two.

Yes there is. There's HEAPS of correlation between witches and alien spaceships as an explanation for UFOs. That is why the analogy is such a startlingly good one (even though I say so myself )

1. It has been proposed that witches fly. Believers in alien spaceships propose that they can fly, too.
2. Believers in UFOs = 'alien spaceships' say that they have been witnessed by thousands of people. Believers in witches say that witches have been witnessed by thousands.
3. Books written by witch believers record stories of witches, based on witness testimonies, aka anecdotes. Ufologists who believe in alien spaceships (ok, call them 'craft' if you must) write books on sightings based on witness testimonies aka anecdotes;
4. The existence of both witches and alien space ships has been proposed by learned members of society, often in responsible positions of office.
5. Both witches and alien spaceships have been attributed supernatural powers;
6. Both can turn men into newts. Oh, no, that's just the witches, ignore that one.

I could just as easily say there is more evidence for popsickles than alien craft, again it's not relevant.

No, that would be a stupid analogy, because popsickles (sic) don't fly.

So again I suggest that if the skeptics here want to discuss witches, then they should start up a witch thread.

This is the UFOs, The Research, The Evidence, thread. I propose we discuss witches here as they are a possible explanation for UFOs. You tell me why they aren't.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yes, I fail to see at what point Ufology assumed he had the konch shell and dictate which explanations of UFO(Unidentified Flying Objects) were valid. Apparently just because we didnt fall for the UFO(Alien Craft) scam he is trying to simply prevvent conversation about any other kind of UFO.

This is nonsense.
UFO(Withces) is as valid as UFO(Alien Craft), UFO(Ghosts), UFO(Will'o'wisp), UFO(Teddy hanging from a balloon signalling for help with his flashlight) or UFO(post hypnotic suggestion).

Any made-up explanation that claims to identify the unidentified is valid for discussion if we are willing to accept "I saw one and think it was a spaceship, just let me retrofit my story anytime a possible explanation is offered" as valid.

 

[23_Tauri]

And the above is using witches ( the straw man ) as a basis for maintaining UFOs ( alien craft ) are preposterous. The two circumstances are not equivalent in either context nor content ...

You just can't see it, can you? You are so locked into your faith-based belief system that some UFOs are alien spaceships that you aren't aware that you're typing out piffle.

except perhaps in the sense that the actions of the skeptics here bears a remarkable resemblance to the judges who condemned people as witches. Perhaps they would like to lock me up in a tower for heresy!

We're not condemning anyone. The parallel is between witch-hunters and ufologists, in their shared willingness to believe without any verifiable evidence.

However let's give them the benefit of the doubt first. Hypothetically speaking, what exactly is "preposterous" in considering UFOs ( alien craft ) as an explanation for objects that appear to be some sort of craft unlike anything manmade in either appearance or performance?

Errrr... because they (alien spaceships) haven't been shown to even exist?

Unlike witches, of course. Witches exist. And they aren't made out of straw.

And try to answer the question without resorting to the witch straw man.

Which strawman?

 

[23_Tauri]

All you can offer is your opinion it looked like an alien craft, which proves less than nothing.

Which, when nobody knows what an alien craft even looks like or behaves like, is quite a feat of unbridled audaciousness.

 

[Stray Cat]

Which strawman?

No, the witch straw man... Though I think Mr ufoguy may be getting mixed up between a strawman (as a logical fallacy) and a Pagan Wickerman.

 

[Akhenaten]

Wouldn't that be a straw witch-man?

 

[23_Tauri]

No, the witch straw man... Though I think Mr ufoguy may be getting mixed up between a strawman (as a logical fallacy) and a Pagan Wickerman.

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/wicker_man.jpg[/qimg]

Not to be confused with Alan Whicker, who, like aliens in spaceships, was known for his love of travel.

Ahkenaten, I'm loving the hat.

 

[Akhenaten]

Ahkenaten, I'm loving the hat.

I had to get an extra-wide one to fit over the nemes.

 

[Krikkiter]

No, the witch straw man... Though I think Mr ufoguy may be getting mixed up between a strawman (as a logical fallacy) and a Pagan Wickerman.

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/wicker_man.jpg[/qimg]

Terrible, terrible movie that one.

 

[Stray Cat]

Terrible, terrible movie that one.

No it was a great movie.... it was the US remake that was terrible.

 

[Krikkiter]

No it was a great movie.... it was the US remake that was terrible.

Ahhh I see. I'll have to check out the original. Thanks.

 

[Garrison]

Unlike witches, of course. Witches exist. And they aren't made out of straw.

Clearly not:

 

[RoboTimbo]

Here's that link again for you: Straw Man

Here's that question for you again since you claim to hate your cowardly dodging of questions:

Could all those witnesses have been wrong about witches? Answer the question, logy. Yes or no.

 

[RoboTimbo]

And the above is using witches ( the straw man ) as a basis for maintaining UFOs ( alien craft ) are preposterous. The two circumstances are not equivalent in either context nor content ... except perhaps in the sense that the actions of the skeptics here bears a remarkable resemblance to the judges who condemned people as witches. Perhaps they would like to lock me up in a tower for heresy!

Why do you maintain that UFOs ( witches ) are preposterous? That's a ufology ( strawman ) of your own devising. What's being presented is an incredible amount of evidence for UFOs ( witches ).

Witches were witnessed by citizens of impeccable repute. Leaders of their communities, members of the church and clergy, citizens in positions of leadership. Witches were tried and convicted in courts of law, with their rules or law, order and discovery. Are you saying that all of those witnesses with the wealth of evidence that they must have presented could have been wrong? All those courts made the wrong judgment based on evidence? It beggars belief that you still don't believe in UFOs ( witches ). Can you point to a court case where Alien Space Ships were found guilty?

However let's give them the benefit of the doubt first. Hypothetically speaking, what exactly is "preposterous" in considering UFOs ( alien craft ) as an explanation for objects that appear to be some sort of craft unlike anything manmade in either appearance or performance? And try to answer the question without resorting to the witch straw man.

However, let's give you the benefit of the doubt first. Hypothetically speaking, what exactly is "preposterous" in considering UFOs ( witches ) as an explanation for objects in either appearance or performance? And try to answer the question without cowardly dodging.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The main reason is firsthand experience. A firsthand experience is a result of direct exposure to the objective reality. It is not an anecdote nor is it any more subjective than any other perception, including the observation of scientific experiments. The only difference between the two is that I can't replicate it under controlled conditions. However that does not invalidate my own experience. It only means other people can't verify it. And since your question was what makes me think I know ... this answer is perfectly legitimate.

Oh good, you do understand that all of those thousands of percipients to UFOs ( witches ) and witchcraft weren't telling anecdotes. Those were firsthand experiences that they had. Because those witches were tried in courts of law, we know that what the witnesses experienced first hand must have been replicated and therefore UFOs ( witches ) and an objective reality, a dead certainty. It means other people could and did verify it, validating the objective reality of UFOs ( witches ).

Other resons are that I was with two other people who corroborated parts of the event which took place over the course of an evening. Plus there was more than one observation of the object. Plus it was seen at night and in the morning light. Plus the details of the observation confirm sizes, distances and speeds within a margin of error wide enough to rule out any known manmade or natural phenomena.

The details of the firsthand experiencers to UFOs ( witches ) were corroborated by other independent witnesses and such overwhelming evidence was given in courts of law that UFOs ( witches ) were found guilty of the charge. Hundreds of times. Has an Alien Space Ship ever been found guilty in a court of law?

The only skeptical explanations I've been given that are even remotely plausible given these factors is soime kind of hallucination that affected all three of us and lasted the whole night and only manifested itself in the form of this one object.

LOL. No, the most plausible explanation I've heard is that you made the whole thing up, the J Randall Murphy UFO ( firefly ) Hoax.

I don't believe that explanation is reasonable. The only other skeptical opinions that plausibly explains are is a hoax or a combination of horribly poor memory and some kind of unconscious fabrication of the event, which is what the skeptics here have deemed it to be. I do not find that to be reasonable either. Skeptics will however provide evidence that while under pressure here to recount details, I posted a minor error not relevant to the sighting of the object, and it was pointed out that I had written a wrong direction in my online account. I conceed these factors are true, but also irellevant. The other so-called errors were actually errors on the part of the skeptics who posted non-scale graphics and made bad calculations regarding angles and distances. They may cite other factors, but examination using Google Earth showed that my initial estimates and descriptions were within the tolerances required to conclude that the object could not have been any known natural or manmade object or phenomenon.

LOL again. No, you changed your story as the inconsistencies were pointed out to you and you've desperately clung to your fantasy ever since.

If you have something new and constructive to add by way of questions or comments, please do so.

Why? You continue to cowardly dodge constructive questions. Here's one:

Could all of those witnesses have been mistaken about UFOs ( witches )? Could all those courts of law, triers of fact, have made the wrong judgment about UFOs ( witches )?

Don't continue to cowardly dodge the question, log. Answer it, yes or no.

 

[Paul2]

The main reason is firsthand experience. A firsthand experience is a result of direct exposure to the objective reality. It is not an anecdote nor is it any more subjective than any other perception, including the observation of scientific experiments. The only difference between the two is that I can't replicate it under controlled conditions. However that does not invalidate my own experience. It only means other people can't verify it.

An experience has a subjective, internal component, and we also make objective conclusions about our experiences. "I saw a flash of light" versus "Someone took a photograph of me with a flash bulb."

It is *exactly* verification that lets us move from "my own perception/experience is valid" to "my own conclusion about what my experience represents objectively." So, if you can't verify it, you're left with just the internal, subjectively valid experience and can not make any objective claim about it.

 

[TjW]

Just keep stuffing more straw into that witch scarecrow.

So you don't know they aren't witches? Because, presumably if you did, you'd be able to say how you know.