Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

Oh, I don't know.

It seems that we've established beyond doubt that people see things in the sky that they can't identify (UFOs) and that no amount of torturing what evidence there is, no amount of attempting to redefine commonly understood meanings of words and phrases and none of the thousands of possible combinations of logical fallacies available will ever turn those UFOs into Omgaliens.

Wrong.

Then how much torturing what evidence there is, attempting to redefine commonly understood meanings of words and phrases, and attempting thousands of possible combinations of logical fallacies available will eventually turn those UFOs into Omgaliens? Because this thread stands as a testament to those strategies resulting in failure after failure after failure.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Wrong. We've established that some UFO reports describe objects that we haven't be able to explain as anything natural or man-made even though there should have been sufficient information to do so. And we've also determined that some of those reports describe objects that are obviously some sort of craft. And we've determined that the independent study of such reports resulted in a high probability that the objects are real and unknown to man, which by logical extension makes them alien to our civilization. And we call those objects UFOs ... sometimes referred to as "genuine UFOs". However all publicly known attempts to scientifically verify their existence have so far come up empty.

Wrong, he was absolutely correct. We've actually been able to determine that UFOs ( witches ) have been proven to exist in courts of law ( triers of fact ) while there has never been any evidence of any extraterrestrial craft or beings. Nor has there ever been any evidence for any alien terrestrial craft or beings. The red herring of calling it "scientific evidence", notwithstanding.

With the sufficiency of evidence for UFOs ( witches ), do you believe they exist ufology, YES or NO?

Also, you've never answered the question, What would the acronym be for something that is Unidentified, appears to be Flying, and appears to be an Object?

 

[Akhenaten]

Oh, I don't know.

It seems that we've established beyond doubt that people see things in the sky that they can't identify (UFOs) and that no amount of torturing what evidence there is, no amount of attempting to redefine commonly understood meanings of words and phrases and none of the thousands of possible combinations of logical fallacies available will ever turn those UFOs into Omgaliens.

Wrong.

Your disagreement ≠ Akhenaten is wrong.

We've established that some UFO reports describe objects that we haven't be able to explain as anything natural or man-made . . .

Since 'natural' or 'man-made' are the only two choices it's redundant to include these descriptors, which leaves us with "We've established that some UFO reports describe objects that we haven't been able to explain."

Which is what I said.

. . . even though there should have been sufficient information to do so.

What are the exact criteria by which 'should have been' and 'sufficient information' were decided?

And we've also determined that some of those reports describe objects that are obviously some sort of craft.

No, we have not. 'Unidentified' does not mean 'some kind of craft'.

And we've determined that the independent study of such reports resulted in a high probability that the objects are real and unknown to man, which by logical extension makes them alien to our civilization.

If the subject of a UFO report remains unidentified after any number and type of investigations are carried out on it then neither you or anybody else can legitimately ascribe to it any explanations as to its origins.

And we call those objects UFOs ... sometimes referred to as "genuine UFOs".

Either someone sees something that they can't identify (a 'genuine' UFO) or they don't (nothing). Again, your claim that only alien objects are genuine UFOs is based on you having actually identified the things, which you most certainly haven't done.

And if you had, then they wouldn't be any kind of UFO at all.

However all publicly known attempts to scientifically verify their existence have so far come up empty.

There is no need for anyone to scientifically verify the existence of UFOs.

Pretty much anyone who has ever looked up at the sky can do it.

 

[ufology]

But your theory relies on it being an unknown aircraft. A foreign spy plane, no less.

It being what? Are you back on the Point Mugu incident now?

 

[I Am He]

Wrong. We've established that some UFO reports describe objects that we haven't be able to explain as anything natural or man-made even though there should have been sufficient information to do so. And we've also determined that some of those reports describe objects that are obviously some sort of craft. And we've determined that the independent study of such reports resulted in a high probability that the objects are real and unknown to man, which by logical extension makes them alien to our civilization. And we call those objects UFOs ... sometimes referred to as "genuine UFOs". However all publicly known attempts to scientifically verify their existence have so far come up empty.

Can you please explain who these We happen to be??



I Am He

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh and when would "first hand experience" equate "objective evidence"?

No. Telling me to go watch the sky in the hope of havinga bias cinfirmation is not helpful advice. I donlt know what an alien craft looks like or behaves like. If I saw more UFOs or had more experiences I wouldnt stray from "weird stuff i don't recognise" to "for no apparent reason I will assume aliens".

 

[ufology]

Orbs caused by camera artifacts look entirely different than the orbs reported as UFOs.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Orbs caused by camera artifacts look entirely different than the orbs reported as UFOs.

In every single case, with no exceptions whatsoever?

 

[Akhenaten]

Orbs caused by camera artifacts look entirely different than the orbs reported as UFOs.

How do you know this? Have you seen all the reports?

 

[Audible Click]

Orbs caused by camera artifacts look entirely different than the orbs reported as UFOs.

I think we need to redefine orbs before we continue.

 

[ufology]

I think we need to redefine orbs before we continue.

Yes good suggestion. The orbs in ufology are easily seen with the naked eye and are not exclusive to photographic or video. Often they glow with a bluegreen-white light that is bright but not glaring and reminiscent of bioluminescence. They are distinguished from natural phenomena such as fireflies and meteors or bolides by their size and/or movement. Most often they have been reported outside at night. If one were in an enclosed room, there would be little chance of anyone with normal eyesight missing it.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes good suggestion. The orbs in ufology are easily seen with the naked eye and are not exclusive to photographic or video.

Orbs in ufology?

In any case, with out photos or video how do you know anything about them?

Surely not just anecdotally?

Often they glow with a bluegreen-white light that is bright but not glaring and reminiscent of bioluminescence.

Bioluminescence is what fireflies utilise, isn't it?

They are distinguished from natural phenomena such as fireflies and meteors or bolides by their size and/or movement.

How are size and movement determined?

Most often they have been reported outside at night. If one were in an enclosed room, there would be little chance of anyone with normal eyesight missing it.

Let's see some of these reports.

 

[Audible Click]

Orbs in ufology?

In any case, with out photos or video how do you know anything about them?

Surely not just anecdotally?





Bioluminescence is what fireflies utilise, isn't it?





How are size and movement determined?





Let's see some of these reports.

Oh, Akhenaten even left room for your answers, Ufology. I'm really interested in your reply, I'm sure Jim is too.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes good suggestion. The orbs in ufology are easily seen with the naked eye and are not exclusive to photographic or video. Often they glow with a bluegreen-white light that is bright but not glaring and reminiscent of bioluminescence. They are distinguished from natural phenomena such as fireflies and meteors or bolides by their size and/or movement. Most often they have been reported outside at night. If one were in an enclosed room, there would be little chance of anyone with normal eyesight missing it.

So dust and insects have never been mistaken for non-mundane orbs?

 

[AdMan]

Yes good suggestion. The orbs in ufology are easily seen with the naked eye and are not exclusive to photographic or video. Often they glow with a bluegreen-white light that is bright but not glaring and reminiscent of bioluminescence. They are distinguished from natural phenomena such as fireflies and meteors or bolides by their size and/or movement. Most often they have been reported outside at night. If one were in an enclosed room, there would be little chance of anyone with normal eyesight missing it.

And yet there is no more solid evidence supporting the hypothesis that these "orbs in ufology" are of non-mundane origin than there is the hypothesis that photographic orbs are anything more than dust or camera artifacts.

Why is that, I wonder?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Orbs caused by camera artifacts look entirely different than the orbs reported as UFOs.

You can't make an absolute statement about this, but I will grant you that most UFO photos are lens flares and window reflections, and not orbs.

Hans

 

[Resume]

Orbs caused by camera artifacts look entirely different than the orbs reported as UFOs.

Indeed. Especially the out of focus ones. In focus they look like tossed hubcaps of course.

 

[Stray Cat]

Yes good suggestion. The orbs in ufology are easily seen with the naked eye and are not exclusive to photographic or video. Often they glow with a bluegreen-white light that is bright but not glaring and reminiscent of bioluminescence. They are distinguished from natural phenomena such as fireflies and meteors or bolides by their size and/or movement. Most often they have been reported outside at night. If one were in an enclosed room, there would be little chance of anyone with normal eyesight missing it.

Nonsense!

Lens flares are regularly held up as proof of UFOs;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbFNx6rgvkc

Plain old 'out of focus distant lights held up as proof of UFOs;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXnk515BVP4&feature=related

This silly woman has a large collection of various planes, bits of dust and insects that she says are UFOs. she gives them names and thinks she can call them to her will;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NV80HxYKaE

A collection of all kinds of guff described as Orb UFOs;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaDsp26dVao&feature=related

And a pile of Pseudo-Scientific twaddle;
http://www.burlingtonnews.net/orbs.html

All describing dust artifacts, out of focus stuff and lens flare as UFOs, every one of them easily explained by the exact same mechanism that explains every indoor Orb (and outdoor Orb for that matter) ever photographed or videoed.

Of course the anecdotal accounts don't match these easily explained videos and photos. That's mostly because anecdotal accounts are inaccurate and the tellers of these tall tales go to some lengths to try and preempt explanations by dishonestly including details that they think will rule out mundane possibilities (eg: they can't have been Chinese lanterns because they were moving horizontally etc).

 

[AdMan]

Nonsense!

Lens flares are regularly held up as proof of UFOs;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbFNx6rgvkc

Plain old 'out of focus distant lights held up as proof of UFOs;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXnk515BVP4&feature=related

This silly woman has a large collection of various planes, bits of dust and insects that she says are UFOs. she gives them names and thinks she can call them to her will;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NV80HxYKaE

A collection of all kinds of guff described as Orb UFOs;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaDsp26dVao&feature=related

And a pile of Pseudo-Scientific twaddle;
http://www.burlingtonnews.net/orbs.html

All describing dust artifacts, out of focus stuff and lens flare as UFOs, every one of them easily explained by the exact same mechanism that explains every indoor Orb (and outdoor Orb for that matter) ever photographed or videoed.

Of course the anecdotal accounts don't match these easily explained videos and photos. That's mostly because anecdotal accounts are inaccurate and the tellers of these tall tales go to some lengths to try and preempt explanations by dishonestly including details that they think will rule out mundane possibilities (eg: they can't have been Chinese lanterns because they were moving horizontally etc).

Ha ha!

Good post.

Here's another case where car headlights were misidentified as orb UFOs/ghosts but then were properly investigated (why does that sound somehow familiar... a light coming down a mountain... why, kinda reminds me of this.):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKIQ8DpWC_Q

 

[Stray Cat]

Perhaps we should stay on topic. This thread is about orbs.

UFO photos can be discussed in a thread for that.

Hans

Well as soon as ufology finds an example of a UFO Orb that isn't a non UFO Orb confused, perhaps he'll post it in the correct thread (a thread he's been totally avoiding recently) so we can rip it to shreds in the correct thread.