UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

GeeMack

Wrong ... there isn't a "complete lack of evidence". Critical thinkers recognize the value of human experience and take it into consideration when making evaluations.

Oh good, you do understand that there is a plethora of evidence for witches then and you do take into consideration all of those eyewitnesses to UFOs ( witches ) and the fact that UFOs ( witches ) were found guilty in courts of law ( triers of fact ).

Then we all agree that UFOs ( witches ) are orders of magnitude more likely than Alien Space Ships ( fantasies ).

 

[GeeMack]

GeeMack

Wrong ... there isn't a "complete lack of evidence". Critical thinkers recognize the value of human experience and take it into consideration when making evaluations.

So show us where in human experience it has been objectively demonstrated that alien craft exist. Then we can actually propose that something might be, according to human experience, an alien craft. You sort of need that very first human experience of such an event, otherwise you're just making stuff up.

From Wikipedia:

"It has been described in more detail as "the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action."

Conceptualizing and synthesizing? That's just using our imaginations to make **** up. Sure, that works for fiction writers. And while it is obviously good enough criteria to accept the existence of something according to the abysmally low standards of the pseudoscience of "ufology", in real life where people deal in objective reality, a reality distinctly separated from fantasy, not so much.

So although scientific evaluation can be an important factor in critical thinking, it's not the only factor, and in the absence of material evidence that can be studied scientifically, critical thinking can aid in developing probabilities pro or con.

It has been more than substantially demonstrated in another discussion here on the JREF forum that the above opinion is unqualified because you lack the necessary understanding of what constitutes critical thinking.

Here's the constructive contribution you seem to be seeking yet have falsely implied you are not receiving: Calculate the probability of the truth of your claim: Some UFOs are alien craft. Calculate that based on the total number of things allegedly seen flying which were initially not identified as some particular thing, but which were later identified as alien craft. That would be the starting point for considering the value of human experience as it relates to the claim that some UFOs are alien craft.

 

[tsig]

No it doesn't. Simply becuase you interpret some aspects of UFO sightings to be in violation of the laws of physics doesn't mean they are, or that those particular sightings represent sightings of actual craft.





Ufology doesn't "require" a belief in E.T. and allowing for the possibility of an exotic explanation is not the same as believing in the supernatural.





You are of course kidding right? Do you really think an Air Force Commander would launch a fighter intercept in response to a call from someone who said they saw witches flying over D.C. ... get real.




UFOs don't demonstrate "supernatural abilities". They do however demonstrate a capacity for engineering that we cannot yet duplicate.

This talk of witches is just stupid because all UFOs are angels. Look at the facts, UFOs fly and we know that angels have wings, not only that but they're called heavenly beings so it looks like a slam dunk. UFOs = Angels.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No it doesn't. Simply becuase you interpret some aspects of UFO sightings to be in violation of the laws of physics doesn't mean they are, or that those particular sightings represent sightings of actual craft.

So if some guy claimed to see something the size of two VW beetles welded together, and itbroke the sound barrier with out the displaced air making a "sonic boom", thus violating the laws of physics it would not represent an alien space vessel?

Oh and on the witchery matter, as Foolio seems to think ACC believing in interstellar travel is relevant (as must his interest in psychic powers, crytstal skulls and the like, which are helpful to team witch), I will point out Newton believed in alchemy.

 

[Rincewind]

Fascinating witches with scintillating stitches? Room for a song there.

Ah - so much better than my comment...

Respect!

 

[ufology]

You have still not answered this question.

"Do you agree that "If evidence for witches is insufficient based on some standard, then applying the same standard to aliens will also show insufficient evidence."

For extra credit (and to save time), show your work.

Paul,

Let me try it another way.

Q. Do I agree that "If evidence for witches is insufficient based on some standard, then applying the same standard to aliens will also show insufficient evidence."

A1. Insufficient evidence ( by whatever standard ) for one thing does not allow us to conclude there will also be insufficient evidence ( by the same standard ) for something else.

Example ( using your exact phrasing ): If evidence for life on Mars is insufficient based on observation, then observation of Earth will also show insufficient evidence ( of life ).
​

A2. What it seems you are really trying to get at is that if "seeing is believing" for one thing, then it should also be good enough for something else, and on the surface I would tend to agree. However this is also where the analogy between witchcraft and alien craft breaks down. Why? Because seeing an object is not the same as seeing an invisible supernatural power. They are two different contexts. Add to the preceding the following considerations: Is there any scientific plausibility for invisible supernatural powers? No. Are alien craft scientifically plausible? Yes. Are alien craft from another planet scientifically plausible? Yes. Does any of this constitute material evidence sufficient to make a scientific conclusion? No. Does science pursue answers for other unexplained phenomena? Yes. Does science conclude that a lack of sceintific evidence for unexplained phenomena mean that such phenomena doesn't exist? No.

To sum up. The idea that observation alone ( by anyone at any time ) is a standard that can be applied equally to any situation in order to formulate a reasonable position is faulty because the context of the observation, the quality of the observers, and the resulting information can all vary greatly from example to example.

 

[ufology]

So if some guy claimed to see something the size of two VW beetles welded together, and itbroke the sound barrier with out the displaced air making a "sonic boom", thus violating the laws of physics it would not represent an alien space vessel?

You are referring to my sighting or something similar and I do believe what I saw was an alien craft. However no evidence from my observation tells me that it came from space. It came from behind a mountain. Where it was before that I don't know. My personal opinion is that space is not an unreasonable possibility because I don't see how the point of origin for such things could go undetected for so long here on Earth. As for breaking the sound barrier without making a sonic boom. Even as we speak scientists and engineers are developing ever quieter supersonic aircraft called QSSTs.

 

[23_Tauri]

Paul,

Let me try it another way.

Q. Do I agree that "If evidence for witches is insufficient based on some standard, then applying the same standard to aliens will also show insufficient evidence."

A1. Insufficient evidence ( by whatever standard ) for one thing does not allow us to conclude there will also be insufficient evidence ( by the same standard ) for something else.
Example ( using your exact phrasing ): If evidence for life on Mars is insufficient based on observation, then observation of Earth will also show insufficient evidence ( of life ).

No, that's not what Paul meant. But moving on...

A2. What it seems you are really trying to get at is that if "seeing is believing" for one thing, then it should also be good enough for something else, and on the surface I would tend to agree.

Ah, that's good, you understand that you can't have one set of rules for one thing and one for another without expecting to be criticised for having double standards (also known as 'special pleading' - you'll know that one, you use it a lot)

However this is also where the analogy between witchcraft and alien craft breaks down. Why? Because seeing an object is not the same as seeing an invisible supernatural power.

Oh dear. Oh dear, dear dear.

1. Unidentified Object =/= alien craft!
2. You don't know what sort of technology a witch might use to fly. What about if it was the same gravity-defying sooper tech as your alien chums, huh?

No, I can't be bothered anymore. I really can't, and I have work to do today. I shall leave it to the gentlemen and other lady here (I think there is only one other) who, over the past months, have been so patient and accommodating towards you, folo.

As it is, I think you have my posts on ignore so I am talking to the wall, anyway.

 

[23_Tauri]

You are referring to my sighting or something similar and I do believe what I saw was an alien craft. However no evidence from my observation tells me that it came from space. It came from behind a mountain. Where it was before that I don't know.

The truck depot? Or wherever it is that fireflies go to sleep during the day?

My personal opinion is that space is not an unreasonable possibility because I don't see how the point of origin for such things could go undetected for so long here on Earth.

It has struck me over the months that the things that you consider to be "not an unreasonable possibility" are generally not the same as for other folk.

 

[Krikkiter]

You are referring to my sighting or something similar and I do believe what I saw was an alien craft. However no evidence from my observation tells me that it came from space. It came from behind a mountain. Where it was before that I don't know. My personal opinion is that space is not an unreasonable possibility because I don't see how the point of origin for such things could go undetected for so long here on Earth. As for breaking the sound barrier without making a sonic boom. Even as we speak scientists and engineers are developing ever quieter supersonic aircraft called QSSTs.

ufology, could you please explain what you mean by the bolded part?

 

[Aepervius]

I think this thread has been long enough groundhog-day like, that it warrant its own "roulette" just like DOC thread...

 

[RoboTimbo]

Paul,

Let me try it another way.

Q. Do I agree that "If evidence for witches is insufficient based on some standard, then applying the same standard to aliens will also show insufficient evidence."

A1. Insufficient evidence ( by whatever standard ) for one thing does not allow us to conclude there will also be insufficient evidence ( by the same standard ) for something else.
Example ( using your exact phrasing ): If evidence for life on Mars is insufficient based on observation, then observation of Earth will also show insufficient evidence ( of life ).

So, your point is that while we know that UFOs ( witches ) exist because of the hundreds and thousands of witnesses to them and they've been found guilty in courts of law ( triers of fact ), that doesn't mean that Alien Space Ships exist. Ok, I can agree with you on that.

A2. What it seems you are really trying to get at is that if "seeing is believing" for one thing, then it should also be good enough for something else, and on the surface I would tend to agree.

No, you don't agree on the surface or at any other level. You're fighting tooth and nail with your special pleading to wish Alien Space Ships into existence.

However this is also where the analogy between witchcraft and alien craft breaks down. Why? Because seeing an object is not the same as seeing an invisible supernatural power.

So the fact that we can easily see UFOs ( witches ) doesn't mean that paranormal, physics-defying Alien Space Ships exist. I can agree with you on that, also.

They are two different contexts.

In the one context, we have known fact UFOs ( witches ) and the other context we have Alien Space Ships which have never been shown to exist.

Add to the preceding the following considerations: Is there any scientific plausibility for invisible supernatural powers? No.

As you've said above, paranormal, physics-defying Alien Space Ships aren't plausible. I agree with you again.

Are alien craft scientifically plausible? Yes.

Absolutely! They could be flying them all over the place on their own world just like we fly our craft and UFOs ( witches ) fly on our world.

Are alien craft from another planet scientifically plausible? Yes.

No, why would you think something never shown to exist is plausible? It isn't like UFOs ( witches ), which have been proven to exist.

Does any of this constitute material evidence sufficient to make a scientific conclusion? No.

Woo hoo! Red letter day! You got another one right. Witches are just the only scientifically plausible answer.

Does science pursue answers for other unexplained phenomena? Yes. Does science conclude that a lack of sceintific evidence for unexplained phenomena mean that such phenomena doesn't exist? No.

You are on a roll! You're admitting that UFOs ( witches ) could possibly exist!

To sum up. The idea that observation alone ( by anyone at any time ) is a standard that can be applied equally to any situation in order to formulate a reasonable position is faulty because the context of the observation, the quality of the observers, and the resulting information can all vary greatly from example to example.

So, you're saying that we know UFOs ( witches ) exist because of the quality of the observers and because they've been shown to exist in courts of law ( triers of fact ).

 

[RoboTimbo]

You are referring to my sighting or something similar and I do believe what I saw was an alien craft.

You have to belive it. It's your religion. It isn't like UFOs ( witches ) which are known and proven to exist in courts of law ( triers of fact ).

However no evidence from my observation tells me that it came from space.

<snork>

It came from behind a mountain. Where it was before that I don't know.

Well, when a mama firefly and a papa firefly love each other very much....

My personal opinion is that space is not an unreasonable possibility because I don't see how the point of origin for such things could go undetected for so long here on Earth.

Fireflies and UFOs ( witches ) have been detected for thousands of years. UFOs ( witches ) are mentioned in the Bible.

As for breaking the sound barrier without making a sonic boom. Even as we speak scientists and engineers are developing ever quieter supersonic aircraft called QSSTs.

UFOs ( witches ) have been doing that for years, probably using some technology that those scientists are only now discovering. Really close fireflies can simulate the same effect. So can hoaxes.

 

[GeeMack]

[* Repetitive nonsensical special pleading snipped. *]

What would it take for you to accept that some UFOs are witches?

 

[Akhenaten]

You have still not answered this question.

"Do you agree that "If evidence for witches is insufficient based on some standard, then applying the same standard to aliens will also show insufficient evidence."

For extra credit (and to save time), show your work.

Paul,

Let me try it another way. Let me pretend you asked a different question.

FTFY

Q. Do I agree that "If evidence for witches is insufficient based on some standard, then applying the same standard to aliens will also show insufficient evidence."

A1. Insufficient evidence ( by whatever standard ) for one thing does not allow us to conclude there will also be insufficient evidence ( by the same standard ) for something else.

As suggested by the FTFY above, your answer doesn't match the question you were asked.

The question as originally asked is dealing with the standard of evidence required for us to reach reliable conclusions about the existence of things.

For instance, the standard of evidence required to determine the existence of oranges will also allow us to establish that apples exist, but will produce a negative (or at least 'indeterminate') result for fooglefruits.

The question you're dishonestly pretending to answer would be something like 'Do you agree that "If no evidence can be found for fooglefruits then neither oranges or apples exist?"'

Example ( using your exact phrasing ): If evidence for life on Mars is insufficient based on observation, then observation of Earth will also show insufficient evidence ( of life ).
​

The only thing this is an example of is muddled thinking (or, more likely, blatant dishonesty).

The original question dealt with a comparison of two things which have never been demonstrated to exist but your 'example' attempts to compare one thing which has not been demonstrated to exist with another that has.

Once again, you are comparing apples to fooglefruits.

A2. What it seems you are really trying to get at is that if "seeing is believing" for one thing, then it should also be good enough for something else, and on the surface I would tend to agree.

Of course you'd tend to agree, since:

• it's not what Paul was suggesting, and
  
  
• it's completely wrong

Par for the course, really.

However this is also where the analogy between witchcraft and alien craft breaks down.

Nobody is trying to draw an analogy between witchcraft and alien craft other than your strawman.

The analogy is between UFOs ( witches) and UFOs ( alien craft ).

Why? Because seeing an object is not the same as seeing an invisible supernatural power.

Nobody is talkiing about invisible supernatural powers.

What's being discussed is how one tells the difference between visible witches and visible Omgaliens and it's painfully obvious that you have absolutely no idea how to do so.

<irrelevant nonsense>

To sum up. The idea that observation alone ( by anyone at any time ) is a standard that can be applied equally to any situation in order to formulate a reasonable position is faulty because the context of the observation, the quality of the observers, and the resulting information can all vary greatly from example to example. I will continue my special pleading on behalf of the Omgaliens no matter how many times it's pointed out that my doing so is completely transparent and totally without either integrity or the slightest trace of scientific rigour.

Allow me to offer my own summary of your entire post:

Say hello to Nimrod, folo. I have a feeling you'll be seeing a lot of each other.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You are referring to my sighting or something similar and I do believe what I saw was an alien craft. However no evidence from my observation tells me that it came from space. It came from behind a mountain. Where it was before that I don't know. My personal opinion is that space is not an unreasonable possibility because I don't see how the point of origin for such things could go undetected for so long here on Earth. As for breaking the sound barrier without making a sonic boom. Even as we speak scientists and engineers are developing ever quieter supersonic aircraft called QSSTs.

So it could in fact have been a perfectly regular non-alien craft thatyou misidentified.

Or your own obsertvations are allowed to break the laws of physics, with out being supernatural?

Im confused as to how you distinguish which deviations from the known universe are "technology we don't know about yet" and which are "supernatural" and apparently impossible.

The answer seems to be based on what you like to think, which is no basis for reality.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I think this thread has been long enough groundhog-day like, that it warrant its own "roulette" just like DOC thread...

The Ufology drinking game would be a surefire way to get smashed.

 

[Akhenaten]

So if some guy claimed to see something the size of two VW beetles welded together, and it broke the sound barrier without the displaced air making a "sonic boom", thus violating the laws of physics it would not represent an alien space vessel?

You are referring to my sighting or something similar and I do believe what I saw was an alien craft.

That's the whole problem. Despite a complete lack of evidence you'll hold onto that belief until your last gasp and it makes it impossible for you to approach the subject of UFOs ( Unidentified Flying Objects ) in anything even vaguely resembling a logical manner.

As Mr Timbo says, it's become your religion, and as the famous Mr Anonymous once said, "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

However no evidence from my observation tells me that it came from space.

No evidence from your observation tells anyone that anything came from anywhere. It's just a story, and there is no evidence.

It came from behind a mountain. Where it was before that I don't know. My personal opinion is that space is not an unreasonable possibility because I don't see how the point of origin for such things could go undetected for so long here on Earth.

I'd be willing to bet that the only reason you've become so keen on positing a terrestrial origin for your UFOs ( "OMG . . . aliens!" ) is because even you realise that suggesting the occurrence of not one, not two or three, but scores and scores of extraterrestrial visitations is beyond ludicrous.

Attempting to substitute 'beyond ludicrous' with 'patently absurd' might work with other ufailogists, folo, but it'll never fly, supersonically or otherwise, in the real world.

As for breaking the sound barrier without making a sonic boom. Even as we speak scientists and engineers are developing ever quieter supersonic aircraft called QSSTs.

Your link doesn't work for me, however, I did find this:

The SAI Quiet Supersonic Transport (QSST) was a project by Supersonic Aerospace International (SAI) to develop a commercial supersonic business jet. As of 2011, no news is available about the current status of the project, and the company's website has been dormant since about 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAI_Quiet_Supersonic_Transport​

You're supposed to be building men out of all that straw, folo, not clutching at it.

 

[Akhenaten]

I think this thread has been long enough groundhog-day like, that it warrant its own "roulette" just like DOC thread...

I tried to design a version of DOC vs Ufology snakes and ladders, with the snakes representing logical fallacies and the ladders representing sound arguments, but as you can imagine I ended up with a board that looked like the Well of Souls in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

 

[GeeMack]

You are referring to my sighting or something similar and I do believe what I saw was an alien craft.

Yes, religiously, without any basis in objective reality. But let's run with that for a moment anyway. In order to rationally come to that conclusion, you must have compared the thing you allegedly saw to what we know about alien craft from our collective human experience. Where in our collective human experience has it ever been shown that alien craft even exist? Or will you admit that you have not rationally come to your conclusion?

However no evidence from my observation tells me that it came from space any such thing actually occurred.

As a constructive contribution, I've fixed your error.

It came from behind a mountain. Where it was before that I don't know.

Interesting, but not unexpected, that you should continue to repeat this slice of useless anecdote as if it's meaningful in any way.

My personal opinion is that space is not an unreasonable possibility because I don't see how the point of origin for such things could go undetected for so long here on Earth.

You're leaving out one crucial step. To rationally opine about the origin of something, whether from space or from inside a hollow Earth, it must be demonstrated that the alleged thing exists. Can you admit that you did not rationally arrive at your opinion?

As for breaking the sound barrier without making a sonic boom. Even as we speak scientists and engineers are developing ever quieter supersonic aircraft called QSSTs.

Of course discussing that sort of technology would only be relevant to this discussion if there was reason to believe something, anything, was traveling faster than the speed of sound. So being off topic, it appears to be an attempt to divert the discussion from the failure to support the claim that some UFOs are alien craft.