• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
AdMan said:
It's interesting how key parts of ufology's arguments depend on the ways he chooses to redefine various terms.
Click to expand...


It's getting worse.


ufology said:
In the term UFO, the word "unidentified" has not been redefined by the USAF, but placed into a specific context. To say that it has been redefined, or to fail to use it within the proper context is to misrepresent the term.
Click to expand...

Now he's redifined "redefined".
 
Audible Click said:
Ufology, do you have an opinion on Snadert's beliefs? I'm genuinely curious how you view this "offshoot" of mainstream UFO (the alien type) thinking.
Click to expand...


Snad's stuff is associated with cryptozoology, which is of peripheral interst to ufologists. At the present time in ufology, it falls under the general area of UFO studies right next to mythology and is given about as much weight ( in terms of reality ) as Pegasus or unicorns.
 
ufology said:
I don't know why pseudosciences spend so much time redefining words ... maybe ask them.
Click to expand...


Why do you spend so much time redefining words?


ufology said:
As for "actual evidence" there is plenty of it, just none that from past experience here, you'll accept.
Click to expand...


Actual evidence is that which would withstand the scrutiny of critical thought. That you have none of this evidence doesn't mean that critical thought needs to be redefined.
 
Akhenaten said:
Well why not go and get some of the acceptable kind? The way ufologist tell it, not only has Earth been visited by alien/ET visitors, but the skies are absolutely swarming with them.
Click to expand...


Well, like I've said before, I'm still waiting for approval from our galactic overlords to open my Mothership Cruise travel agency. I was thinking it would make a nice retirement project, and if you book now ( no charge ), I'll see what I can do to get you a discount ( assuming I hear from them ). Maybe we can get Stray there to do me up a travel poster ... you know like the old classic train or ship cruise posters but with a great big mothership instead.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
As for "actual evidence" there is plenty of it, just none that from past experience here, you'll accept.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence. There are only anecdotes, which is just a 25¢ word for "stories." In other words, "claims."

You have claims, made by people who say they saw something they were unable to identify.

"Claims" are not synonymous with "evidence." Evidence is the objective, testable stuff that is required to substantiate claims.

How is it that even now, you still don't understand how this works? A group of over 10 people has been working for hours on end every day for over two months, trying to educate you about this one single point.


ufology said:
It should also be noted that although the USAF didn't use the specific phrase, "null hypothesis" ( that I'm aware of ), it did use a process similar in that investigators ruled out as many mundane objects as possible before arriving at their conclusion for any particular case.
Click to expand...


If they did not start with the baseline assumption that all UFOs are the result of mundane causes, and if they did not rely only on verifiable evidence to falsify that assumption, their "process" may have been "similar," but it was not proper science.

Another word for their "process similar" in that case would be "pseudoscience."
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Snad's stuff is associated with cryptozoology, which is of peripheral interst to ufologists. At the present time in ufology, it falls under the general area of UFO studies right next to mythology and is given about as much weight ( in terms of reality ) as Pegasus or unicorns.
Click to expand...
But weren't you saying earlier that by alien you don't mean alien to this planet aka extraterrestrial, but some kind of intelligence that we don't have knowledge of at the present time? Maybe from a different dimension? Wouldn't this include the kind of intelligent skyfishes that Snad was describing?

And what of the blobs on the Secret Space vids? A UFO is a UFO, right? You can argue the toss about whether the study of blobs falls under Cryptozoology or Ufology, but it's still the (pseudoscientific) study of unidentified blobs, no?

Nice to see you back, by the way. Hello. :)
 
ufology said:
Snad's stuff is associated with cryptozoology, which is of peripheral interst to ufologists. At the present time in ufology, it falls under the general area of UFO studies right next to mythology and is given about as much weight ( in terms of reality ) as Pegasus or unicorns.
Click to expand...


Please explain the process by which you were able to eliminate space fishies as being responsible for your own sighting.
 
Akhenaten said:
No, they're based on the definititions accepted by the many. What you're talking about is a variety of special pleading and that's why it isn't working.
Click to expand...


The above argument claims that considering the proper context is the same as "special pleading" ( which it's not ) and backs it by appealing to the popular vote ... how ironic.
 
ufology said:
The above argument claims that considering the proper context is the same as "special pleading" ( which it's not ) and backs it by appealing to the popular vote ... how ironic.
Click to expand...

No, that's called a consensus regarding language.
 
ufology said:
Snad's stuff is associated with cryptozoology, which is of peripheral interst to ufologists. At the present time in ufology, it falls under the general area of UFO studies right next to mythology and is given about as much weight ( in terms of reality ) as Pegasus or unicorns.
Click to expand...


Snad has anecdotal and photographic "evidence" just like you do. What makes his "evidence" any less verifiable than yours?
 
ufology said:
I don't know why pseudosciences spend so much time redefining words ... maybe ask them.
Click to expand...
Why do you spend so much time redefining words? UFOs are Unidentified Flying Objects. We agree that they are Unidentified, they often are found to not be Flying, and equally often found to not even be Objects. None have been found to be aliens flying in spaceships in our skies.

As for "actual evidence" there is plenty of it, just none that from past experience here, you'll accept.
Click to expand...
No, there is no actual evidence for aliens flying in spaceships in our skies.

The null hypothesis remains intact. Would you like for me to remind you what it is?
 
ufology said:
Akhenaten said:
No, they're based on the definititions accepted by the many. What you're talking about is a variety of special pleading and that's why it isn't working.
Click to expand...


The above argument claims that considering the proper context is the same as "special pleading" ( which it's not ) and backs it by appealing to the popular vote ... how ironic.
Click to expand...


That you believe giving the 'U' in UFO a specific meaning different from its commonly accepted one is "putting it in proper context" is pretty much a text book example of special pleading.

And the meanings of words are indeed decided by what amounts to a popular vote. Are you going to try and claim that dictionaries are written as rule books, rather than to codify accepted usage of words? Rramjet tried that idiotic approach for years in the "ECREE is nonsense thread" and failed just as dismally as you will should you attempt the same strategy.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
As for "actual evidence" there is plenty of it, just none that from past experience here, you'll accept.
Click to expand...

No,sir...you do not get to "blame" the lameness of your argument on others...if you can't live with what you promote, then stop promoting it.
 
Akhenaten said:
That you believe giving the 'U' in UFO a specific meaning different from its commonly accepted one is "putting it in proper context" is pretty much a text book example of special pleading.

And the meanings of words are indeed decided by what amounts to a popular vote. Are you going to try and claim that dictionaries are written as rule books, rather than to codify accepted usage of words? Rramjet tried that idiotic approach for years in the "ECREE is nonsense thread" and failed just as dismally as you will should you attempt the same strategy.
Click to expand...


There is no special pleading at all ... I use the definition of UFO from the very people who created the word within the exact context of the way they defined it, backed by specific examples. There is no more special pleading in the fact that those who study UFOs have defined it for use within their field than there is in the way a ecology defines the word "dominant" compared to the generic usage ... be reasonable.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
There is no special pleading at all ... I use the definition of UFO from the very people who created the word within the exact context of the way they defined it, backed by specific examples. There is no more special pleading in the fact that those who study UFOs have defined it for use within their field than there is in the way a ecology defines the word "dominant" compared to the generic usage ... be reasonable.
Click to expand...

That's fine if you want to redefine "UFO" to mean alien spaceship.

Do you have any evidence for "UFOs"?
 
RoboTimbo said:
That's fine if you want to redefine "UFO" to mean alien spaceship.

Do you have any evidence for "UFOs"?
Click to expand...


The above isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that because the objects have not been able to be identified as any known manmade object, they are alien to our civilization. Whether or not they are "spaceships" is a whole other matter. Regarding evidence, unless you are prepared to accept UFO reports as evidence, then there is little to discuss. You will have to see one for yourself I guess .. or would you not consider that as evidence either?
 
ufology said:
The above isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that because the objects have not been able to be identified as any known manmade object, they are alien to our civilization.
Click to expand...
Yes you are (jumping to conclusions and making **** up to suit your preconceived belief). Perhaps you could explain how this is different from assuming Gods?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom