UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Agatha]

What do you call something which a person can't identify, appears to be flying, and appears to be an object?

According to the Rredefinictionary (second ed, Rramjet and ufolgy, 2011), you're supposed to call it "OMG...aliens!!!"

 

[John Albert]

Here's a non-complete list:

Extraterrestrial craft
Craft from other universes
Time travellers (from the future and/or from the past)
Space borne lifeforms
Lifeforms from the upper atmosphere
Lifeforms from other universes
Secret terrestrial craft (human)
Craft from unknown non-human sentient terrestrial species
Craft from unknown human civilizations
Manifestations of Jungian archetypes
Paranormal projections of human minds
Manifestations of "Trickster"-like beings

Angels
Demons
Souls of the dead
Beings from inside the Hollow Earth
Telepathic projections
Manifestations of the collective subconscious
Atmospheric electrical charges reacting with piezoelectric charges from the lithosphere

 

[EHocking]

Q. Tell me why not a single alien UFO has been seen directly above someones head..?
A. I've run across a few sighting reports of UFOs that passed directly overhead of the observer. However they are rare, probably for the same reason that most aircraft are not seen flying directly overhead unless you are standing on a runway. It's a statistical improbability..

Proof by assertion/ignorance.

Fortunately the "all crows are black" argument works here.

Yesterday I had a very large military helicopter fly directly overhead - so low (at a guess, under 200ft) that it set of car alarms.
I was not standing on a runway and 40kms from the nearest airport.

I mention this only to point out the inconsistency in which you (and indeed, other proponents on this thread) address "mundane" explanations.
Whenever a "sceptic" suggests ANY alternative to the UFO believer's world view an argument ensues (think blimps), they you dismiss this one point with a totally unsupportable declaration, in this example that the the possible mundane explanation of an UFO passing directly overhead might be a regular aircraft is "statistical improbable".

Of course, when pressed, no such statistics will be produced, or the definition of "statistical" or "improbable" will be redefined ad infinitum...

 

[Tomtomkent]

What do you call something which a person can't identify, appears to be flying, and appears to be an object?

But in his world it CAN be identified as aliens. Because Ufology says so.

 

[ufology]

Interesting but why should we accept them as reality and not dreams or other products of vivid imaginations?

Are the following linked childhood stories, or similar, reason to believe fairies exist?
http://www.fairygardens.com/sightings/youth9.html

Sideroxylon,

Interesting link. I don't have any explanation for extraordinary experiences like those. I just know that they happen to people and that most people write them off as purely imaginary. Perhaps they are. I don't know that for sure. What I am sure of is that some of the experiences do not seem imaginary and I'm not sure what process would explain it. The old "children have such vivid imaginations" doesn't really explain anything. If you remember being a child I'm sure you remember you could tell the difference between "playing" and simply observing something. Plus children aren't prone to doing halluciogenic drugs and they are naive about the world, so they have no machinations.

So what if the experiences of these people are more than imaginary? What are they exactly? It's easy to simply write them off as child's fantasies. Perhaps that is what the causal forces behind the experiences want. Fresh young relatively uncontaminated minds that will never be taken seriously to study the behavior of. Are they connected with UFOs? In some cases they seem to be. Could they be explained by a clandestine ultra high-tech presence. There is no scientific reason why that isn't possible.

 

[Archer17]

Regarding Whitley Streiber’s reports....

Sorry, you lost me. Only the most credulous would believe anything he says, as he not only has no evidence, he writes fiction on the same subject...DUH!

Unless he's changing his tune Streiber himself admitted the results of his "implant" extractions were disappointing. One was collagen, the other cartilage IIRC.

 

[GeeMack]

So what if the experiences of these people are more than imaginary? What are they exactly? It's easy to simply write them off as child's fantasies. Perhaps that is what the causal forces behind the experiences want. Fresh young relatively uncontaminated minds that will never be taken seriously to study the behavior of. Are they connected with UFOs? In some cases they seem to be. Could they be explained by a clandestine ultra high-tech presence. There is no scientific reason why that isn't possible.

So you do agree that UFOs could be the result of some prankster gods messing with people by putting visions directly into their minds.

 

[Daylightstar]

ufology,

That you think you 'encountered a giant talking rabbit' when you were six, is one thing. Relating such a story in adulthood as true (that the giant talking rabbit was actually there) .... is a wee bit problematic.

 

[ufology]

Correct Usage and Meaning of the Word UFO

Ok. I have to assume, given the following that your answer is yes:

"Part of every common definition is that because UFOs defy conventional explanation, they are thought to be alien craft, usually of extraterrestrial origin."

So, given the above can you explain this to me? When I was 12 or so, whilst lying on on grass in a field with my brother pondering the mysteries of the universe we both saw something move across the night sky. At the time I had no idea what it was and to this day I'm still not sure what it was. I have a sneaking suspicion it was a satellite.

So lets be sure about this. Because I can't explain what it was (it remains unidentified) it is necessarily and absolutely an alien craft?

Krikkiter,

OK we can use your example very well here. In the official definitions, UFOs are separated from other objects by appearance and performance characteristics that do not match known manmade or natural objects or phenomena. So even if a distant light or unidentified object were spotted that could have been explained as an aircraft, it was not to be reported as a UFO.

Similarly, popular modern usage and definitions define UFOs as extraterrestrial spacecraft, flying saucers or some other alien craft. At the very least, the common denominator is that they are something extraordinary to the observer that seems to defy explanation.

Therefore if you believed the object you saw could have been explained as a satellite, then it was not a UFO. So saying "I saw a UFO" with respect to that object would not be correct usage. However saying, "I saw something once that could have been a satellite." would be OK.

Now if that light that had seemed like a satellite had suddenly stopped and then instantly accellerated down to hover in a field across from you and looked like some sort of alien craft, then darted away over the horizon, it would be perectly acceptable usage to say, "I saw a UFO", and everyone would know you weren't just talking about some "unidentifed" but otherwise ordinary object.

In either case you might be inclined to fill out a UFO report. This is where the context of usage has its second application. The object you actually saw would become the subject of a UFO report, but that doesn't mean it was an actual UFO. So it would be correct to ask with respect to the UFO report, "What is the object in this UFO report?" But it would not be correct usage to ask, "What is the UFO in this report?"

Because the semantics issue in ufology is not well understood it is common to see many incorrect usages, even among ufologists. Critics and skeptics also tend to capitalize on this to spread their propoganda, usually by pontificating about the relevance of the word "unidentified" as part of the origin of the word UFO, and failing to acknowledge that the word origin and the word's definition and meaning are significantly different. In the case of the critics here, you see them capitalize on it by misrepresenting my position in the form of gross oversimplification. They are well aware of issue and it has been discussed here at length, so they can't use the excuse that they don't know. It's just willful ignornace and deception.

 

[Spektator]

Unless he's changing his tune Streiber himself admitted the results of his "implant" extractions were disappointing. One was collagen, the other cartilage IIRC.

Strieber has a history of embroidering, embellishing, and flat making up stories that he tries to pass off as factual. One example is his very detailed account of how in August of 1966 he was pinned down by gunfire on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin when Charles Whitman went on a murderous sniping rampage from a campus tower. However, Strieber's whereabouts at the time were easily traced, and he wasn't even in Texas--he was in fact thousands of miles away IIRC--at the time of the event. He later retracted the story and said it was a false memory implanted by aliens, but it isn't the only time he was caught fabricating his own experiences.

 

[ufology]

ufology,

That you think you 'encountered a giant talking rabbit' when you were six, is one thing. Relating such a story in adulthood as true (that the giant talking rabbit was actually there) .... is a wee bit problematic.

Daylightstar,

I've not made the claim that it was actually there, only that it seemed real to me at the time. What do I think it was now? I still think it seemed real to me. Was it? It was real in some sense. I saw it and I heard it. Was it an objective reality? I don't know. In the end we don't know anything is an objective reality. We simply presume that it is based on the reasoning we develop as we mature. However science has no definitive or logical explanation for existence or reality itself. Our entire existence could be some sort of elaborate generated construct. phenomena like particle-wave duality and quantum entaglement are circumstantial evidence of such a model ... so who really knows for sure ... do you? If so, I'm sure we'd all like to hear how you've got existence itself all figured out. So again, I don't know how or why these things happen to people ... they just seem to happen sometimes.

 

[Garrison]

Krikkiter,

OK we can use your example very well here. In the official definitions, UFOs are separated from other objects by appearance and performance characteristics that do not match known manmade or natural objects or phenomena. So even if a distant light or unidentified object were spotted that could have been explained as an aircraft, it was not to be reported as a UFO.

And you are back to that nonsense are you? UFO's are separate in that they are unidentified, and nothing else.

Similarly, popular modern usage and definitions define UFOs as extraterrestrial spacecraft, flying saucers or some other alien craft. At the very least, the common denominator is that they are something extraordinary to the observer that seems to defy explanation.

You repeatedly using UFO in that way does not make it popular, indeed you appear to be the only person posting here using it in that way.

Therefore if you believed the object you saw could have been explained as a satellite, then it was not a UFO. So saying "I saw a UFO" with respect to that object would not be correct usage. However saying, "I saw something once that could have been a satellite." would be OK.

No one is going to accept your tiresome efforts to redefine the term 'UFO' however many times you choose to repeat.

Now if that light that had seemed like a satellite had suddenly stopped and then instantly accellerated down to hover in a field across from you and looked like some sort of alien craft, then darted away over the horizon, it would be perectly acceptable usage to say, "I saw a UFO", and everyone would know you weren't just talking about some "unidentifed" but otherwise ordinary object.

The rest of this is just more drivel and special pleading and I see no point in repeating what is obvious to everyone else here Ufology, you have neither evidence nor research, just a bag full of claims and a childish insistence that words should mean what you want them to mean. It is not going to happen regardless of how much you whine.

 

[Garrison]

Daylightstar,

I've not made the claim that it was actually there, only that it seemed real to me at the time.

So you distinguish it from your UFO(unknown) sighting how exactly?

 

[John Albert]

I've not made the claim that it was actually there, only that it seemed real to me at the time.

But do you or do you do not offer the same disclaimer regarding your other stories, such as the Lake Windermere incident, the levitation claim, or the MIB black Cadillac encounter?

 

[GeeMack]

OK we can use your example very well here. In the official definitions, UFOs are separated from other objects by appearance and performance characteristics that do not match known manmade or natural objects or phenomena. So even if a distant light or unidentified object were spotted that could have been explained as an aircraft, it was not to be reported as a UFO.

If something is identified, it shouldn't be reported as an unidentified thing.

Similarly, popular modern usage and definitions define UFOs as extraterrestrial spacecraft, flying saucers or some other alien craft. At the very least, the common denominator is that they are something extraordinary to the observer that seems to defy explanation.

Popular modern usage and definitions define UFOs as unidentified flying objects, things that are perceived to be objects and perceived to be flying but aren't identified as some particular thing. If they are not identified as some particular thing, it cannot rationally be inferred that they are any particular thing ( aliens ). That would be an equivocation fallacy, a mistake if it hadn't already been explained in detail, and intentionally dishonest when it has.

Therefore if you believed the object you saw could have been explained as a satellite, then it was not a UFO. So saying "I saw a UFO" with respect to that object would not be correct usage. However saying, "I saw something once that could have been a satellite." would be OK.

Now if that light that had seemed like a satellite had suddenly stopped and then instantly accellerated down to hover in a field across from you and looked like some sort of alien craft, then darted away over the horizon, it would be perectly acceptable usage to say, "I saw a UFO", and everyone would know you weren't just talking about some "unidentifed" but otherwise ordinary object.

In either case you might be inclined to fill out a UFO report. This is where the context of usage has its second application. The object you actually saw would become the subject of a UFO report, but that doesn't mean it was an actual UFO. So it would be correct to ask with respect to the UFO report, "What is the object in this UFO report?" But it would not be correct usage to ask, "What is the UFO in this report?"

Right, if something is identified, it shouldn't be reported as an unidentified thing.

Because the semantics issue in ufology is not well understood it is common to see many incorrect usages, even among ufologists. Critics and skeptics also tend to capitalize on this to spread their propoganda, usually by pontificating about the relevance of the word "unidentified" as part of the origin of the word UFO, and failing to acknowledge that the word origin and the word's definition and meaning are significantly different. In the case of the critics here, you see them capitalize on it by misrepresenting my position in the form of gross oversimplification. They are well aware of issue and it has been discussed here at length, so they can't use the excuse that they don't know. It's just willful ignornace and deception.

It is not the fault of the skeptics that "ufologists" have failed so utterly and completely to support the claim that some UFOs are alien craft. Nobody is preventing "ufologists" from making their case in a rational and cogent way, well nobody other than the "ufologists" themselves. There is no persecution going on, nobody putting barricades in the way of the alleged research, nobody spreading any anti-"ufologist" propaganda. It's just not happening regardless of the persistent bleating of "ufologists".

The truth is, there is no objective evidence to support the claim that some UFOs are alien craft. The truth is, "ufologists" refuse to engage in a legitimately objective and scientific approach by addressing their very own null hypothesis which is: All UFOs are of mundane origin. Consequently the truth is, "ufology" is pseudoscience.

 

[Paul2]

Daylightstar,

I've not made the claim that it was actually there, only that it seemed real to me at the time. What do I think it was now? I still think it seemed real to me. Was it? It was real in some sense. I saw it and I heard it. Was it an objective reality? I don't know. In the end we don't know anything is an objective reality. We simply presume that it is based on the reasoning we develop as we mature. However science has no definitive or logical explanation for existence or reality itself. Our entire existence could be some sort of elaborate generated construct. phenomena like particle-wave duality and quantum entaglement are circumstantial evidence of such a model ... so who really knows for sure ... do you? If so, I'm sure we'd all like to hear how you've got existence itself all figured out. So again, I don't know how or why these things happen to people ... they just seem to happen sometimes.

So the thing that prevents you from saying that things may not be what they seem is solipsism?

 

[Daylightstar]

ufology,

Daylightstar,

I've not made the claim that it was actually there, only that it seemed real to me at the time. What do I think it was now? I still think it seemed real to me. Was it? It was real in some sense. I saw it and I heard it. Was it an objective reality? I don't know. In the end we don't know anything is an objective reality. We simply presume that it is based on the reasoning we develop as we mature. However science has no definitive or logical explanation for existence or reality itself. Our entire existence could be some sort of elaborate generated construct. phenomena like particle-wave duality and quantum entaglement are circumstantial evidence of such a model ... so who really knows for sure ... do you? If so, I'm sure we'd all like to hear how you've got existence itself all figured out. So again, I don't know how or why these things happen to people ... they just seem to happen sometimes.

That's a lovely classic straw man after the last question mark.
Particle-wave duality and quantum entanglement have no bearing on your claim to encounter a giant talking rabbit when you were six years old.

This is your story with respect to the rabbit, as you relate it as an adult:

The next day, I wanted to play with my new friends again, so I returned to the spot in the field, but was unable to locate the depression in the landscape, and I never saw the other children or the spaceship again. However there was a large burn circle in the tall grass near where the depression in the landscape had been, and as I was returning home another strange thing happened. As I was making my way through the tall grass when I suddenly came face to face with a large white rabbit. This patch of grass was at least as tall as I was, and so was the rabbit. It had big black almond shaped eyes and as we stood there looking at each other, I distinctly heard it say "hello". Not realizing that rabbits could talk, I said hello back and was trying to think of what else to say when it turned around and disappeared into the grass. I tried to follow it, but it eluded me.

You elaborately claim that the giant talking rabbit was actually there.
Again, for a six year old to make such a claim is okay, but for an adult to maintain that claim, not so much.

 

[ufology]

So the thing that prevents you from saying that things may not be what they seem is solipsism?

Paul,

I don't subscribe to the whole of any particular philosophical or theological system. If what I say fits part of some label, then that part is shared with that belief system or world view, but that does not by extension mean that I also subscribe to the rest of that or any other such system or view. When I say that we still don't know the true nature of reality, I simply state what appears to be a fact, regardless of whatever paradigm might share the same view. If I were to label myself as anything, it would be something like "truth seeker". In simplest terms, I view the concept of truth as a direct correspondence within identical contexts between what is posited and what is actually the case.

 

[John Albert]

if i were to label myself as anything, it would be something like "bull****ter".

ftfy

In simplest terms, I view the concept of truth as a direct correspondence within identical contexts between what is posited and what is actually the case.

In other words, you have no problem with telling lies under certain contexts.

 

[Daylightstar]

...In the end we don't know anything is an objective reality. ...

ufology,

So you have uncertainty about whether you really were at lake Windemere?