UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[TheGoldcountry]

How is it perfectly rational to propose ANY explanation for unexplained phenomena, when you have no evidence to support it? It is only because your position is so obvious to you that you see it as the only possible answer.

 

[John Albert]

Objects that people see in the sky, that by reason of their appearance and performance characteristics don't conform to any known natural or manmade object or phenomena are not fictional. If you think so you are being willfully ignorant and to insist on remaining that way is not rational either.

There's no evidence at all to support any claims of "appearance" or "performance characteristics." Claims do not represent evidence for themselves. Claims unsupported by evidence are dismissed for lack of evidence. That is rational thinking. It is not ignorant.

Assuming something is true simply because you want to believe it, is not rational. That is willfully ignorant thinking. It is the exact same kind of thinking that inspires belief in gods, the supernatural, old wives' tales and other forms of superstition. You're total unwillingness to learn or adapt your mode of thinking to account for reality is proof that it is irrational.

 

[Sledge]

John Albert,

Objects that people see in the sky, that by reason of their appearance and performance characteristics don't conform to any known natural or manmade object or phenomena are not fictional. If you think so you are being willfully ignorant and to insist on remaining that way is not rational either.

Is it really necessary to go over this again? We're discussing unidentified objects. We don't know what size they are or what distance they were from the viewer. It is impossible to state that they have an appearance and performance characteristics that cannot be be achieved by anything natural or manmade that we know of. The only way to be able to claim this is if you know the dimensions and location of the object, and know the details of every possible natural phenomenon and aircraft. You don't. No one does. Stop being silly.

 

[abaddon]

GeeMack,

When you use the word "us" above, you must only be referring to your little cabal of ufology bashers here on the JREF, because there have been many UFO sightings that have allowed many other people to become reasonably certain that Earth has been visited by alien craft.

"little cabal"?

You are in a minority of one here.

And, despite the thread title, have yet to produce scientific research or evidence of anything.

In fact, when pressed to do so, you simply reply with the one word response "denied".

Clearly, you have none to offer.

 

[John Albert]

When you use the word "us" above, you must only be referring to your little cabal of ufology bashers here on the JREF

Come on now, that's just not fair. You're making us out to be prejudiced bigots or something. We don't just bash UFOlogy. We also bash bigfoot hunters, psychics, spirit mediums, homeopaths, conspiracy theorists, religious fundamentalists and all other kinds of pseudoscientists, kooks and woos.

 

[RoboTimbo]

because there have been many UFO sightings that have allowed many other people to become reasonably certain that Earth has been visited by alien craft.

Perhaps you could present the evidence that falsified the J Randall Murphy null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​

We would all love to see actual evidence of alien visitation. Not a hoaxer trying to redefine them into existence.

 

[Spektator]

In short, no research, no evidence.

I propose that the JREF posters create a document that officially defines "rational person" as "a human being who insists on developing tangible and testable evidence before investing credence in such things as alien spacecraft, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and other such purported phenomena."

If we have a document with that definition, it settles things, no?

 

[ufology]

It's not unreasonable to believe the fantasies of a child? Um, yeah I'd say it actually is. I'd say it's not unreasonable to encourage the play activities of a child, even to the point of humoring a child in some harmless fantasies. But would I believe a child who said a rabbit talked to him? Absolutely not. I would put that claim down to imaginative play and nothing more.

But a 53-year-old adult, on the other hand?

There's certainly something unreasonable about that. Mentally healthy adults are able to discern reality from fantasy.

John Albert,

Again you take what I say out of context and misrepresent the point that was made. Typical typical typical ...

 

[GeeMack]

Again you take what I say out of context and misrepresent the point that was made. Typical typical typical ...

Will you ever be making a point like, for instance, offering some objective evidence to support your claim that some UFOs are alien craft? Or how about we make it easy and you just falsify your very own null hypothesis...

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin."​

Or since you seem keen on talking about UFO hoaxes, why don't you tell us what it is about your very own alleged alien craft sighting that makes it different, objectively, from any other hoax anyone might try to foist off on the gullible rubes?

 

[ufology]

In short, no research, no evidence.

I propose that the JREF posters create a document that officially defines "rational person" as "a human being who insists on developing tangible and testable evidence before investing credence in such things as alien spacecraft, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and other such purported phenomena."

If we have a document with that definition, it settles things, no?

Spektator,

Above is the perfect example of goalpost moving on your part and is typical of most skeptics. You've gone from simply asking for "evidence" to requiring "tangible and testable evidence". I have no problem with people wanting tangible and testable evidence. I only have a problem with people who use the absence of such evidence for such phenomena as evidence of the absence of such phenomena. I also have no problem admitting that civilian ufology has yet to provide tangible and testable evidence. I only have a problem with people who think that because the tangible testable evidence isn't laying right there on the ground right in front of us that we shouldn't keep trying to figure out what is causing the phenomena. I'm also fine with those who limit their own belief in things to what is tangible and testable. Where it goes wrong is when those people think there is nothing that exists beyond what is immediately tangible and testable and they foist that way of thinking on others using social intimidation tactics like ridicule and mockery.

 

[ufology]

Will you ever be making a point like, for instance, offering some objective evidence to support your claim that some UFOs are alien craft? Or how about we make it easy and you just falsify your very own null hypothesis...

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin."​

Or since you seem keen on talking about UFO hoaxes, why don't you tell us what it is about your very own alleged alien craft sighting that makes it different, objectively, from any other hoax anyone might try to foist off on the gullible rubes?

GeeMack,

Already did that GeeMack by citing the Batelle Memorial Institute's statistical study which when applied to your pet hypothesis ( not mine ) above using the actual priciples developed to evaluate a null hypothesis, the results are overwhelmingly in favor of the existence of some kind of alien craft visiting Earth. To be clear, by alien, I mean that the study had no Earthly explanation for the "unexplained" reports. I don't cite this a proof, but I do cite it as objective evidence ... objective meaning it was carried out by a reputable third party team of evaluation experts.

 

[GeeMack]

GeeMack,

Already did that GeeMack by citing the Batelle Memorial Institute's statistical study which when applied to your pet hypothesis ( not mine ) above using the actual priciples developed to evaluate a null hypothesis, the results are overwhelmingly in favor of the existence of some kind of alien craft visiting Earth. To be clear, by alien, I mean that the study had no Earthly explanation for the "unexplained" reports. I don't cite this a proof, but I do cite it as objective evidence ... objective meaning it was carried out by a reputable third party team of evaluation experts.

First of all it's your null hypothesis. It was created by you when you made the claim that some UFOs are alien craft. It is your null hypothesis until the moment you rescind your claim, ETA: or falsify it. You made it; you own it. The fact that you don't like it because it makes you responsible for your own failure doesn't change that.

And second, no, you haven't falsified that null hypothesis. You would have to demonstrate objectively that at least one unidentified flying object is indeed an alien craft. That you have not done. Dishonestly redefining terminology in order to magic aliens into existence has not worked, and will not work. Dishonestly avoiding producing objective evidence does not change that reality.

And how about that J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax? What is it about your alleged alien sighting that makes it objectively different than any other made up tale or attempted hoax?

 

[Stray Cat]

Spektator,

Above is the perfect example of goalpost moving on your part and is typical of most skeptics. You've gone from simply asking for "evidence" to requiring "tangible and testable evidence".

No, it's a sign of your own credulity that you would accept anything less than "tangible and testable evidence".

If anyone here really meant "evidence" in general, we would no doubt be swamped with;
Unreliable evidence
Hoaxed evidence
Misrepresented evidence

Read the top banner of this website and ask yourself; "What kind of evidence would a scientific, educational forum require?"

No goal posts have been moved by us.

 

[I Am He]

John Albert,

Again you take what I say out of context and misrepresent the point that was made. Typical typical typical ...

Are you saying that you were not a child when your ..... so called .... Alien Space Craft ...... was first seen by yourself? When you relayed your story here and were asked for some proof you gave a story that has changed a few times but still did not have anything to back it up. Then you expect the people here to believe someone who professes to know every kind of aircraft that has ever flown at the age of sixteen years of age and posses total recall to boot. Now you are back to being the misquoted and persecuted act again.




I Am He

 

[ufology]

Are you saying that you were not a child when your ..... so called .... Alien Space Craft ...... bla bla bla

So You Are Who?

If you're auditioning for the gang of ufology bashers here you'll need to do more to impress them. On the other hand, if you have anything constructive to contribute please do so. Or is that asking too much?

 

[I Am He]

So You Are Who?

If you're auditioning for the gang of ufology bashers here you'll need to do more to impress them. On the other hand, if you have anything constructive to contribute please do so. Or is that asking too much?

The truth hurts, doesn't it? Well, when talking to juveniles you will get a juvenile reply.



I Am He

 

[John Albert]

John Albert,

Again you take what I say out of context and misrepresent the point that was made. Typical typical typical ...

Please show and explain exactly where & how I took anything you said out of context.

 

[GeeMack]

On the other hand, if you have anything constructive to contribute please do so.

What is it about your own alleged alien sighting that makes it objectively different from any other UFO hoax? (Hint: If there is nothing that objectively sets it apart from any other hoax, you can admit that as your honest answer.)

 

[ufology]

I would love to hear your take on the some other option besides material scientific evidence.

Paul,

You have already hear my "take". Do you have any useful information I can add to my study of the topic yet?

 

[Paul2]

Paul,

You have already hear my "take". Do you have any useful information I can add to my study of the topic yet?

On the chance that we misunderstand each other, I meant your take on the topic of non-scientific evidence in general. Once we discuss general principles, then we can dispassionately apply them to specific cases.

If you mean something along the lines of "memories make good evidence," then you're right, I have already heard your take on that.