Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[23_Tauri]

What I'm saying is exactly what I wrote. If it is not clear, try restating your question using a specific example. Maybe we can make some progress by trying some different approaches.

Well, there is this specific case that I've read about an object seen doing figures of eight over Lake Windermere and then moving off at a speed of 25km/s. Do I then take it that this would be a specific example which is sufficient for you to believe that people have seen something they associate with those things, but insufficient for you to draw any conclusions about exactly what it was they saw?

 

[ufology]

Well, there is this specific case that I've read about an object seen doing figures of eight over Lake Windermere and then moving off at a speed of 25km/s. Do I then take it that this would be a specific example which is sufficient for you to believe that people have seen something they associate with those things, but insufficient for you to draw any conclusions about exactly what it was they saw?

There have been more than one sighting of the type you describe, not only near Lake Windermere, but in other places in the world. The sighting we had was sufficient to convince me ( personally ) that UFOs ( alien craft ) are real, and by alien I mean alien to our civilization. By craft I mean some kind of conveyance. I don't know exactly how it worked. I don't know if it came from space or from a base or a mother ship or what its purpose was.

 

[carlitos]

]

Please tell me you aren't starting up with this nonsense again?


Please answer Paul2's polite query, which you seem to have missed:

I don't see what that has to do with anything. I am just asking for a clear distinction between potentially sufficient and sufficient.

Try this for me, humor me for a second. Make two lists; one list contains all the statements in my previous post that you agree with, and the other list contains the ones you don't agree with.

 

[dafydd]

There have been more than one sighting of the type you describe, not only near Lake Windermere, but in other places in the world. The sighting we had was sufficient to convince me ( personally ) that UFOs ( alien craft ) are real, and by alien I mean alien to our civilization. By craft I mean some kind of conveyance. I don't know exactly how it worked. I don't know if it came from space or from a base or a mother ship or what its purpose was.

Windermere. It's not a lake, it's a mere.

 

[GeeMack]

There have been more than one sighting of the type you describe, not only near Lake Windermere, but in other places in the world.

Yes, there have been sightings of things that were unidentified. So?

The sighting we had was sufficient to convince me ( personally ) that UFOs ( alien craft ) [...]

UFOs are unidentified flying objects. To persistently equate unidentified things with some particular thing is internally inconsistent, a contradiction of terms, an oxymoron, and is therefore an irrational basis for an argument.

[...] are real, [...]

There is no objective evidence to suggest that what you believe has any relationship with reality.

[...] and by alien I mean alien to our civilization.

There is absolutely nothing for you to use as a comparison to draw the conclusion that it was "alien to our civilization". And you haven't objectively eliminated any of the dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of mundane possibilities that might explain your sighting. So your conclusion does not rationally follow.

By craft I mean some kind of conveyance.

Again, there has been nothing presented in this thread other than wishful thinking and wild guesses on which to base that conclusion.

I don't know exactly how it worked. I don't know if it came from space or from a base or a mother ship or what its purpose was.

Bottom line, you don't know pretty much anything about what you claim to have seen. And since you don't know anything about it, it is irrational to draw a conclusion that it was some particular thing.

And for some reason you continue to avoid responding to this: Of everything which has appeared to be a flying object, which was at first unidentified but which was eventually identified as some particular thing, how many of them turned out to be alien craft? We're looking for a number here.

 

[23_Tauri]

There have been more than one sighting of the type you describe, not only near Lake Windermere, but in other places in the world. The sighting we had was sufficient to convince me ( personally ) that UFOs ( alien craft ) are real, and by alien I mean alien to our civilization. By craft I mean some kind of conveyance. I don't know exactly how it worked. I don't know if it came from space or from a base or a mother ship or what its purpose was.

Ok. Likewise, there has been more than one sighting of "Lock Ness monster, ghosts, big foot, chupacabra, demons, angels, (and) Elvis", in other places in the world. Taking big foot as an example, many thousands of people, in many locations around the world say that they have seen creatures fitting the description of 'big foot'.

You wrote that my misconception is that you don't apply the same reasoning to ufology (as you do to big foot, for example) when in fact you do. So far, I don't see any evidence that you apply the same reasoning. Perhaps you could explain to me why those hundreds (thousands) of big foot sightings don't convince you (personally) that furry creature (big foot) is real.

 

[ufology]

I don't see what that has to do with anything. I am just asking for a clear distinction between potentially sufficient and sufficient.

Try this for me, humor me for a second. Make two lists; one list contains all the statements in my previous post that you agree with, and the other list contains the ones you don't agree with.

I don't have the time or inclination to create lists. So lets try it again. Suppose you go to the casino to play a slot machine. You get a handful of tokens and choose your machine. Each token is potentially sufficient for making you into a winner, and if you win, the token that won will have been sufficient for making you a winner, but there is no way to know beforehand exactly which one it will be. You only know that given enough tokens, the more you play the more likely it is you will win, and the clear disctinction will be when you are either broke or a pile of cash lands in your lap.

 

[Spektator]

(snip) You only know that given enough tokens, the more you play the more likely it is you will win, and the clear disctinction will be when you are either broke or a pile of cash lands in your lap.

The more likely it is you will win? Isn't that the gambler's fallacy? Casinos sort of depend on this for making money.

 

[dafydd]

I'm still waiting to hear how the aliens found out we were here and why they thought it was worth spending hundreds or possibly thousands of years traveling to us. And also why when they arrive they don't just land on the White House lawn but instead pay a silly game of hide and seek.

 

[Resume]

The sighting we had was sufficient to convince me ( personally ) that UFOs ( alien craft ) are real, and by alien I mean alien to our civilization. By craft I mean some kind of conveyance. I don't know exactly how it worked. I don't know if it came from space or from a base or a mother ship or what its purpose was.

You're introducing we into the equation; without corroboration, there is no we, just you. And with all the ghost, Virgin Mary, bigfoot, chupacabra, and Nessie personal sightings, why would you imagine a group of skeptics would give your personal confabulation any more gravity?

Since the thread topic is evidence, I'll ask again: have you any objective evidence for your Lake Windemere, figure-eighting Volksblimp?

 

[wollery]

I don't have the time or inclination to create lists. So lets try it again. Suppose you go to the casino to play a slot machine. You get a handful of tokens and choose your machine. Each token is potentially sufficient for making you into a winner, and if you win, the token that won will have been sufficient for making you a winner, but there is no way to know beforehand exactly which one it will be. You only know that given enough tokens, the more you play the more likely it is you will win, and the clear disctinction will be when you are either broke or a pile of cash lands in your lap.

That's actually a pathetically poor analogy for whether or not the evidence for UFOs is sufficient.

If I go into a casino with a bucket of coins to feed into a slot machine I can be pretty certain that at some point I will win some money from at least one of those coins. In fact, I can know, a priori, what my chance of any one coin winning will be. This is because we can know the settings of the slot machine. Yes, it's possible with only a handful of coins that I won't win, but I know that it's both possible and likely that I could win at least a small amount.

With UFOs we have no real idea whether or not any sighting is of a genuine alien craft. They could be, or there could be no such thing and all UFOs are actually misidentified mundane things or hoaxes. There is no a priori knowledge of whether or not there's a chance of "hitting the jackpot".

I present you with two slot machines and a handful of coins. I tell you that the machine on the left pays out on average $10 for every $20 that you put in it, and that if the one on the right pays out it could possibly pay out $1,000,000,000, but there's a chance that it will never pay out anything at all.

Which machine would you play, and for how long?

In what way are the two slot machines comparable?


The second slot machine is the one that is equivalent to the UFO situation, except that we've been feeding it coins for a while now, and no sign of any payout yet.

 

[remirol]

Suppose you go to the casino to play a slot machine. You get a handful of tokens and choose your machine. Each token is potentially sufficient for making you into a winner, and if you win, the token that won will have been sufficient for making you a winner, but there is no way to know beforehand exactly which one it will be. You only know that given enough tokens, the more you play the more likely it is you will win, and the clear disctinction will be when you are either broke or a pile of cash lands in your lap.

Yeah... your analogy actually quite adequately demonstrates the problem. None of your tokens that you're sitting there with is a winner. You cannot pick up any single token and say "This one will win." Science isn't about getting lucky, science is about evidence and repeatable results. Slot machines are, in fact, quite the opposite, and completely by design. If you're trying to do science with a slot-machine mentality, then you'll always fail.

(And, in fact, the more you play, the more likely it is that you will lose, because you will not make back as much money as the tokens cost you.)

 

[TjW]

You're assuming a few things here:

A.) That there are, in fact, slot machines.
B.) That the slot machines are honest.

What would your opinion be of a casino that has been open for sixty years, with not a single payout?

 

[ufology]

Ok. Likewise, there has been more than one sighting of "Lock Ness monster, ghosts, big foot, chupacabra, demons, angels, (and) Elvis", in other places in the world. Taking big foot as an example, many thousands of people, in many locations around the world say that they have seen creatures fitting the description of 'big foot'.

You wrote that my misconception is that you don't apply the same reasoning to ufology (as you do to big foot, for example) when in fact you do. So far, I don't see any evidence that you apply the same reasoning. Perhaps you could explain to me why those hundreds (thousands) of big foot sightings don't convince you (personally) that furry creature (big foot) is real.

I'm ambivalent about Bigfoot. Perhaps it's because I haven't studied it enough. I'm not a Bigfootologist ( or whatever you call them ). I have perhaps half a dozen Bigfoot books and I've seen a couple of documentaries. I also have less general knowledge about the animal kingdom. My ufology studies on the other hand include countless hours sifting through official reports from the NARA archives, interviewing witnesses, reading articles about UFOs from both a pro and con perspective. I have taken a university level astronomy course and I've maintained an interest in mainstream science since I was a child. Grant it most of that is popular science, so shows like Cosmos, magazines like Scientific American, Astronomy, National Geographic, and non-fiction books written for the public at large. I've even got a few copies of Skeptical inquirer. By considering the issue of UFOs within that framework, I find that it is reasonable to believe alien visitation is possible, and given the number of reports from what we would generally consider reliable sources, and sometimes corroborated by multiple independent witnesses and mechanical sensors ( RADAR ), I find it reasonable to believe that it is also probable. Finally what makes me certain, to the extent that anyone can be certain of anything based on firsthand experience, is that I've seen a UFO myself. The closest we might come to similar quantity and quality of information would be if all the nations in the world used their version of the USGS and their national forest services to conduct a 20 plus year official study and that during that time reports from top level rangers, sometimes corroborated by independent trained professionals and some form of animal tracking sensors all indicated that a Bigfoot creature exists. I've never heard of anything close to that level of investigation or study. And I've never seen one myself.

 

[ufology]

You're assuming a few things here:

A.) That there are, in fact, slot machines.
B.) That the slot machines are honest.

What would your opinion be of a casino that has been open for sixty years, with not a single payout?

We're assuming things for the sake of illustrating potential sufficiency vs sufficiency. There is no way to make an analogy without making assumptions, and no analogy is perfect. With respect to ufology, potential sufficiency vs sufficiency needs to be reflected on with respect to actual UFO sightings and firsthand witnesses; those sightings where firsthand witnesses are sure of what they saw but can't prove it are potentially sufficient, but they still aren't sufficient ( for other people ) without further evidence. Such evidence may come in the form of independent corroboration, data from sensors e.g. RADAR, material, or perhaps even some form of transmitted communication.

Using the slot machine analogy, there have been some partial payouts ( good quality sightings backed by independent sources and detection equipment like RADAR ). No grand prize yet, but that doesn't mean that one of the sightings that hasn't been investigated yet may not produce it.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm ambivalent about Bigfoot. Perhaps it's because I haven't studied it enough. I'm not a Bigfootologist ( or whatever you call them ). I have perhaps half a dozen Bigfoot books and I've seen a couple of documentaries. I also have less general knowledge about the animal kingdom. My ufology studies on the other hand include countless hours sifting through official reports from the NARA archives, interviewing witnesses, reading articles about UFOs from both a pro and con perspective. I have taken a university level astronomy course and I've maintained an interest in mainstream science since I was a child. Grant it most of that is popular science, so shows like Cosmos, magazines like Scientific American, Astronomy, National Geographic, and non-fiction books written for the public at large. I've even got a few copies of Skeptical inquirer.

All entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

By considering the issue of UFOs within that framework, I find that it is reasonable to believe alien visitation is possible, and given the number of reports from what we would generally consider reliable sources, and sometimes corroborated by multiple independent witnesses and mechanical sensors ( RADAR ), I find it reasonable to believe that it is also probable.

You keep saying things like "probable", but you're clearly using an uncommon definition for the term. We have discussed many times in this thread how redefining terms to make your beliefs seem more real to you is a dishonest way to construct an argument. If you want to work with probability, start with the quantitative answer to this: Of all the things apparently seen flying which were at first unidentified, when eventually identified as a particular thing, how many of them turned out to be alien craft?

Finally what makes me certain, to the extent that anyone can be certain of anything based on firsthand experience, is that I've seen a UFO myself.

You've seen something you couldn't identify. I've seen something I couldn't identify. Millions of people have seen unidentified flying objects. So what? Since nobody has ever seen an alien craft, we, none of us, including you, do not know what one looks like, therefore we, none of us, including you, can't possibly know if some unidentified thing we saw might have been an alien craft. Your faith is only as relevant as anyone's faith in gods, or even Bigfoot. So you're engaging in special pleading, which is a logical fallacy.

The closest we might come to similar quantity and quality of information would be if all the nations in the world used their version of the USGS and their national forest services to conduct a 20 plus year official study and that during that time reports from top level rangers, sometimes corroborated by independent trained professionals and some form of animal tracking sensors all indicated that a Bigfoot creature exists. I've never heard of anything close to that level of investigation or study. And I've never seen one myself.

There are no reports of alien craft from top level air/space observers. There are no reports of alien craft from independent trained professionals. There is no evidence obtained from sensors, RADAR, photography, or otherwise that supports your claim that some UFOs are alien craft, or that alien craft even exist for that matter. You still haven't falsified the null hypothesis, which is: All UFOs are of mundane origin. Until you do that, all your arguments built on the position that alien craft exist will be dismissed as fiction.

 

[ufology]

Yeah... your analogy actually quite adequately demonstrates the problem. None of your tokens that you're sitting there with is a winner. You cannot pick up any single token and say "This one will win." Science isn't about getting lucky, science is about evidence and repeatable results. Slot machines are, in fact, quite the opposite, and completely by design. If you're trying to do science with a slot-machine mentality, then you'll always fail.

(And, in fact, the more you play, the more likely it is that you will lose, because you will not make back as much money as the tokens cost you.)

Well actually slot machines are designed using principles that have been carefully tested. The statistical probabilities have been worked out mathematically and encoded into the machine programming so that the chances of winning are preset. Given sufficient tokens, the machine will eventually produce a winner, but as you say, we can't point to any one token and say which one will produce that result.

 

[RoboTimbo]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Such evidence may come in the form of independent corroboration, data from sensors e.g. RADAR, material, or perhaps even some form of transmitted communication.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Not to mention FLIR. Why didn't you mention FLIR? Especially FLIR corroborated by military personnel ( trained observers )?

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Using the slot machine analogy, there have been some partial payouts ( good quality sightings backed by independent sources and detection equipment like RADAR ). No grand prize yet, but that doesn't mean that one of the sightings that hasn't been investigated yet may not produce it.[/SIZE][/FONT]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that no sightings have produced any Alien Space Ships.

Why do you discount the possibility of UFOs ( Santa Claus )?

 

[23_Tauri]

I'm ambivalent about Bigfoot. Perhaps it's because I haven't studied it enough. I'm not a Bigfootologist ( or whatever you call them ). I have perhaps half a dozen Bigfoot books and I've seen a couple of documentaries. I also have less general knowledge about the animal kingdom. My ufology studies on the other hand include countless hours sifting through official reports from the NARA archives, interviewing witnesses, reading articles about UFOs from both a pro and con perspective. I have taken a university level astronomy course and I've maintained an interest in mainstream science since I was a child. Grant it most of that is popular science, so shows like Cosmos, magazines like Scientific American, Astronomy, National Geographic, and non-fiction books written for the public at large. I've even got a few copies of Skeptical inquirer. By considering the issue of UFOs within that framework, I find that it is reasonable to believe alien visitation is possible, and given the number of reports from what we would generally consider reliable sources, and sometimes corroborated by multiple independent witnesses and mechanical sensors ( RADAR ), I find it reasonable to believe that it is also probable. Finally what makes me certain, to the extent that anyone can be certain of anything based on firsthand experience, is that I've seen a UFO myself.

So it's your pet subject, we get that. We also get that you think you've seen an alien spacecraft. In case you hadn't noticed, not many people here share your interpretation of the now famous Windermere Firefly Incident.

The closest we might come to similar quantity and quality of information would be if all the nations in the world used their version of the USGS and their national forest services to conduct a 20 plus year official study and that during that time reports from top level rangers, sometimes corroborated by independent trained professionals and some form of animal tracking sensors all indicated that a Bigfoot creature exists. I've never heard of anything close to that level of investigation or study. And I've never seen one myself.

Actually, a closer analogy would be if a small proportion of countries who had been influenced by post war popular culture about Big Feet collated reports about Big Feet sightings over the past 60 years, and that during that time not a single report from top level rangers, sometimes corroborated by other Big Feet chasers, turned out to be a Big Feet.

Then we're getting a bit closer to your Aliens Are Here And We Have the Reports to Prove It story.

 

[TjW]

Using the slot machine analogy, there have been some partial payouts ( good quality sightings backed by independent sources and detection equipment like RADAR ). No grand prize yet, but that doesn't mean that one of the sightings that hasn't been investigated yet may not produce it.

A "partial payout"? A slot machine either pays or it doesn't. Something is either positively identified or it isn't. There have been no payouts. There have been no positive identifications of alien craft. None. Nit. Zero. Nada.