Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

What wollery was actually explaining is not the question you instead decided to ask yourself. It was not a question. It was a statement of why your previous assertion that all "no" means is that there is no evidence to counter your claim is wrong.

You have not proven your assertion, so the answer is "no" until you shoulder a burden of proof and overcome the null.

Tomtomkent,

Once again you're interpreting things completely out of context. You need to review the posting history back to where the first poster replied "No" to the question I asked in the first place, which is what I was explaining to Wollery.

 

[John Albert]

The ground observers watched the unknown aircraft for only a short time as it seemed to hover

There you go again, making an assumption of something that you have no way of knowing. There's no way to know for sure that it was an "unknown aircraft," only that it was an "unidentified object."

From the distance those observers were from the object, it wouldn't have been humanly possible for them to identify it as an aircraft. You're completely overlooking that fact in your rush to declare the sighting was indeed the result of some extremely rare aircraft, instead of simply an unusual cloud formation.

Like I said before, I see that here all the time with airliners approaching from the west. They often end up flying right over my house and it takes them several minutes to get here.

But that's not what the observers reported. They reported it shrinking and disappearing within a couple minutes.

From the perspective of the airborne observers, hovering can also be an illusion based on relative motion.

Nobody argued otherwise.

It wasn't observed for long by either set of observers before it changed heading

Where do you get the impression that it "changed heading"?

Lastly the "flying wing" description is pretty much a dead giveaway. They existed at the time and they say that is what they saw.

Except there's no physical way they could have discerned that much detail about its shape from the distance they were viewing it from.

The idea that these professionals would mistake a cloud for a flying wing is quite simply preposterous.

You're making extraordinary assumptions again about the supposed infallibility of eyewitnesses. People—even experts—mistake things for other things all the time, especially when they're viewing barely discernible objects at the limits of human visual acuity.

I've asked you this question before, but you've never answered me:

Have you ever traveled in a commercial airliner during the daytime, and looked out the window with an unobstructed view of the sky and ground while in flight?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Tomtomkent,

Once again you're interpreting things completely out of context. You need to review the posting history back to where the first poster replied "No" to the question I asked in the first place, which is what I was explaining to Wollery.

Ufology, once more you are taking my criticism out of context.
The facts are simple. Wollery made a statement. You replied with a question, as though that was what Wollery had asked. Wollery had not asked anything, he had told you why your assertion failed.

It would not matter what assertion Wollery was responding to. His post was not a question. You rephrased it, innaccurately, to try and respond NOT to the statement that was made about your assertion, but to the question YOU WANTED to be asked. This is plain to see, and independant of the previous conversation or context.

Please do not be dishonest.

 

[ufology]

Ufology, once more you are taking my criticism out of context.
The facts are simple. Wollery made a statement. You replied with a question, as though that was what Wollery had asked. Wollery had not asked anything, he had told you why your assertion failed.

It would not matter what assertion Wollery was responding to. His post was not a question. You rephrased it, innaccurately, to try and respond NOT to the statement that was made about your assertion, but to the question YOU WANTED to be asked. This is plain to see, and independant of the previous conversation or context.

Please do not be dishonest.

Misrepresentation above. I used a direct cut and pasted quote of his question and responded to it accordingly. Maybe go back and start over.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7973081&postcount=41

 

[GeeMack]

I read the documentation and the report and watched the video and checked the specifications for the aircraft mentioned, and sourced out flying wing specifications from that time, and if you consider the margin of error for the details, there isn't anything I've said that doesn't make sense.

Another blatant falsehood. Don't you ever get tired of posting comments that simply aren't true? It doesn't make sense for you to claim that you've considered the "margin of error" when you've completely neglected the distances involved and the near impossibility of seeing detail on an allegedly 200 foot wide thing at those distances. Math is wholly rejected as a tool in "ufology", and tossing around phrases like "margin of error" while rejecting quantitative objective reality makes no sense. On the objective, skeptical side of the reality/fantasy line, your entire argument doesn't make sense.

The way you write off the illusion of apparent hovering isn't entirely justified either. The ground observers watched the unknown aircraft for only a short time as it seemed to hover, and at that point it may have been on a heading directly toward them.

Oh, absolute BS. The ground observers couldn't have seen more than a speck in the sky. They had no way of knowing if they were looking at a cloud, a plane of some sort, or a leaf blowing in the wind. It is not rational to pose an argument while entirely neglecting reality as you are doing.

Like I said before, I see that here all the time with airliners approaching from the west. They often end up flying right over my house and it takes them several minutes to get here. From the perspective of the airborne observers, hovering can also be an illusion based on relative motion. It wasn't observed for long by either set of observers before it changed heading and departed the area, and as we all know, as things get further away, they get smaller and smaller until they disappear, so that isn't anything unusual at all. Again I see the same thing here out my living room window daily. Lastly the "flying wing" description is pretty much a dead giveaway. They existed at the time and they say that is what they saw. They might as well have said they saw another airplane ... which is what they are. The idea that these professionals would mistake a cloud for a flying wing is quite simply preposterous. However it may have been the only available choice the analysists had if the FW incident was a secret test flight or related to some higher security matter.

But it has been unequivocally demonstrated many, many times in these threads that your observation skills are severely below par, so any opinon based on your observations can't be considered qualified, and any resulting arguments are not valid. Here's a bit of helpful cooperative skeptical advice: Consider reality when arguing a point. Neglecting it has repeatedly resulted in a complete failure to support your position.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Misrepresentation above. I used a direct cut and pasted quote of his question and responded to it accordingly. Maybe go back and start over.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7973081&postcount=41

You mean the Rhetorical question he answered within his own post?

Who are you trying to fool folo?

 

[mike3]

What wollery was actually explaining is not the question you instead decided to ask yourself. It was not a question. It was a statement of why your previous assertion that all "no" means is that there is no evidence to counter your claim is wrong.

You have not proven your assertion, so the answer is "no" until you shoulder a burden of proof and overcome the null.

What does the "no" really mean, then? What's so bad about asking for more information? You don't need to prove a conclusion to just ask for more information. So no "null" needs to be "overcome" to simply gain more information. From what I could tell, it looked like he was trying to seek out information that might even confirm the null. Nothin' wrong with that!

Provided this is the question you are referring to as being answered "no":

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7973033&postcount=39

See, he asked "Can anyone provide some follow-up on how the artifact might have actually came into his possession? DId he work at or have buddies at one of these fabricating plants? Were there any such plants near where he lived at the time?" Such things might actually help to confirm a null. To me this is perfectly okay to ask!

EDIT: Oh wait, by "assertion" in "you have not proven your assertion" do you mean assertion about the "no", as opposed to the one (where?) that it's an alien object?

 

[ufology]

What does the "no" really mean, then? What's so bad about asking for more information? You don't need to prove a conclusion to just ask for more information. So no "null" needs to be "overcome" to simply gain more information. From what I could tell, it looked like he was trying to seek out information that might even confirm the null. Nothin' wrong with that!

Provided this is the question you are referring to as being answered "no":

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7973033&postcount=39

See, he asked "Can anyone provide some follow-up on how the artifact might have actually came into his possession? DId he work at or have buddies at one of these fabricating plants? Were there any such plants near where he lived at the time?" Such things might actually help to confirm a null. To me this is perfectly okay to ask!

EDIT: Oh wait, by "assertion" do you mean assertion about the "no", not about UFOs?

mike,

Thanks ... glad to see someone is paying attention. It's all about context and sometimes I think the need for some of the posters here to stereotype and demonize everything I post blinds them to what I'm really saying.

 

[John Albert]

Provided this is the question you are referring to as being answered "no":

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7973033&postcount=39

See, he asked "Can anyone provide some follow-up on how the artifact might have actually came into his possession? DId he work at or have buddies at one of these fabricating plants? Were there any such plants near where he lived at the time?" Such things might actually help to confirm a null. To me this is perfectly okay to ask!

EDIT: Oh wait, by "assertion" do you mean assertion about the "no", not about UFOs?

mike,

Thanks ... glad to see someone is paying attention. It's all about context and sometimes I think the need for some of the posters here to stereotype and demonize everything I post blinds them to what I'm really saying.

You're right that it's all about context, and the operative context here that you're ignoring (once again) is the burden of proof regarding the claims about this artifact.

The burden of proof is not on the skeptics to investigate every aspect of this guy's life to find out where he lives or if he has friends who might work at a fabricating plant, in order to disprove the guy's claim that this hunk of metal is of extraterrestrial origin.

The burden of proof is on the guy making the claim to provide evidence that it's extraterrestrial, and apparently there's nothing so extraordinary about that object that in any way indicates it's not an ordinary piece of metal manufactured by normal humans.

So in other words, "no," it's not a reasonable request from a critical thinking perspective.

Ufology, I find it rather extraordinary that even after half a year of participation on these forums, you still appear not to have learned even the crude fundamentals of critical thinking.

 

[mike3]

You're right that it's all about context, and the operative context here that you're ignoring (once again) is the burden of proof of the claims about this artifact.

The burden of proof is not on the skeptics to investigate every aspect of this guy's life to find out where he lives or if he has friends who might work at a fabricating plant, in order to disprove the guy's claim that this hunk of metal is of extraterrestrial origin.

The burden of proof is on the guy making the claim to provide evidence that it's extraterrestrial, and apparently there's nothing so extraordinary about that object that in any way indicates it's not an ordinary piece of metal manufactured by normal humans.

So in other words, "no," it's not a reasonable request from a critical thinking perspective.

So then it's irrational to want to learn more to further elucidate the skeptical claim, right? I thought the irrational thing is to assert "you can't provide any more explanations so then my claim is right!", not merely to ask for more. What if one just wants knowledge?!?!?!?!?!?! Nothing irrational about that. Unless you're claiming the questions have the "drift" of "if you can't answer these then I'm right" -- but how do you know that? How do you distinguish a "drift" question from real curiosity? I'd like to know too (and I don't make any "alien" assertions about the thing!).

 

[mike3]

Another blatant falsehood. Don't you ever get tired of posting comments that simply aren't true?

He believes it to be true. Sheesh.

 

[John Albert]

So then it's irrational to want to learn more to further elucidate the skeptical claim, right?

It's irrational to expect the skeptics to do the in-depth investigative work of performing an exhaustive background check on some random guy, just to acquire proof that he's talking out of his ass with some tall tales that he's recovered a hunk of an alien spacecraft.

The burden of proof is on the guy making the claim to provide evidence that it is indeed the extraordinary thing he says it is. Skeptics have no responsibility to dig up evidence to besmirch the guy's character. His extraordinary claims can be safely dismissed with no further ado, until he produces extraordinary evidence to back them up, which is something I'm reasonably certain he'll never, ever do.

Another blatant falsehood. Don't you ever get tired of posting comments that simply aren't true?

He believes it to be true. Sheesh.

Yeah, and some high-level Scientologists believe that all humans are born with the psychic burden of the souls of alien slaves that were blown up by an atomic bomb in a volcano millions of years ago, by a super-alien overlord named Xenu.

Does that mean we should just take that on word alone, just because somebody's credulous to believe it? If we all had to constantly dig up evidence to refute every cockamamie belief dreamed up and promoted by every goofball in the world, we'd never have any time to do anything else. It's a waste of time, so in other words, just "NO."

Everybody's burden is to prove their own claims. Once they've been objectively proven at least once, then people can set about trying to either verify or falsify them. Until then, the burden of proof is on the claimant to demonstrate that they're true.

 

[wollery]

I was pointing out that the burden of proof lies firmly in the hands of the person making the claim.

In this instance someone is claiming that a piece of metal is extraterrestrial in origin. Now if the metal had properties that were unknown for any terrestrial metal then there would be grounds for further investigation. However, this particular piece of metal has properties that are utterly consistent with lots of other pieces of metal found here on Earth, produced under particular circumstances. In the absence of any evidence from the owner of this piece of metal to support his claim it may be summarily dismissed as either lie or delusion.

It is utterly unreasonable in these circumstances to ask anyone else to offer any evidence that would contradict his claims, since he has offered no evidence to support them. That would be shifting the burden of proof.

The response to a request for any additional information that might contradict this claim is therefore quite reasonably, "No". There is abslutely no need for any additional time or effort to be spent in addressing this claim.

 

[mike3]

It's irrational to expect the skeptics to do the in-depth investigative work of performing an exhaustive background check on some random guy, just to acquire proof that he's talking out of his ass with some tall tales that he's recovered a hunk of an alien spacecraft.

The burden of proof is on the guy making the claim to provide evidence that it is indeed the extraordinary thing he says it is. Skeptics have no responsibility to dig up evidence to besmirch the guy's character. His extraordinary claims can be safely dismissed with no further ado, until he produces extraordinary evidence to back them up, which is something I fell reliably certain he'll ever do.

So are you saying that because ufology was making claims about aliens, these questions are to be interpreted as a challenge (and thus irrational due to burden-of-proof considerations), and not simply as curiosity (which is okay)?

Yeah, and some high-level Scientologists believe all humans are burdened by the souls of alien slaves that were blown up by an atomic bomb in a volcano by a auper-alien overlord named Xenu.

Does that mean we should just take that on word alone, just because somebody's credulous to believe it? If we all had to constantly dig up evidence to disprove every cockamamie belief dreamed up and promoted by every goofball in the world, we'd never have any time to do anything else. It's a waste of time, so in other words, just "NO."

That comment was addressed to your claiming "Don't you ever get tired of posting comments that simply aren't true?" and so I was saying the answer to that is "no" because he doesn't believe they are false.

 

[mike3]

I was pointing out that the burden of proof lies firmly in the hands of the person making the claim.

In this instance someone is claiming that a piece of metal is extraterrestrial in origin. Now if the metal had properties that were unknown for any terrestrial metal then there would be grounds for further investigation. However, this particular piece of metal has properties that are utterly consistent with lots of other pieces of metal found here on Earth, produced under particular circumstances. In the absence of any evidence from the owner of this piece of metal to support his claim it may be summarily dismissed as either lie or delusion.

It is utterly unreasonable in these circumstances to ask anyone else to offer any evidence that would contradict his claims, since he has offered no evidence to support them. That would be shifting the burden of proof.

The response to a request for any additional information that might contradict this claim is therefore quite reasonably, "No". There is abslutely no need for any additional time or effort to be spent in addressing this claim.

So it's utterly unreasonable to be curious as to the answers? Or is it that these questions rung of challenges/debate attempts than just mere curiosity?

 

[John Albert]

So are you saying that because ufology was making claims about aliens, these questions are to be interpreted as a challenge (and thus irrational due to burden-of-proof considerations), and not simply as curiosity (which is okay)?

NO, I'm saying that because ufology was making claims about aliens (things which have never, ever been proven to exist, ever), it is his own responsibility to provide objective, verifiable evidence to support those claims. Otherwise, they can be reasonably dismissed as nonsense. The responsibility is not on the skeptics to disprove them.

That's how critical thinking works. It's how the process of science works, and it's the only reliable method humans have ever devised to date, for determining what is and what is not objectively true about reality.

That comment was addressed to your claiming "Don't you ever get tired of posting comments that simply aren't true?" and so I was saying the answer to that is "no" because he doesn't believe they are false.

What he believes is irrelevant to what is objectively true.

 

[ufology]

Another blatant falsehood ... Blah blah blah

GeeMack,

You never fail to misrepresent my position, leave out important details, and add your own bias. But lately your flavor is a off ... it's missing a certain flair ... I just can't quite put my finger on it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So it's utterly unreasonable to be curious as to the answers? Or is it that these questions rung of challenges/debate attempts than just mere curiosity?

I would suggest that the reasonable course of action would be for the person who has an interest in the origin of the metal to be the one who investigates the origin of the metal, while those who are satisfied that there's no reason to do so don't.

 

[mike3]

NO, I'm saying that because ufology was making claims about aliens (things which have never, ever been proven to exist, ever), it is his own responsibility to provide objective, verifiable evidence to support those claims. Otherwise, they can be reasonably dismissed as nonsense. The responsibility is not on the skeptics to disprove them.

That's how critical thinking works. It's how the process of science works, and it's the only reliable method humans have ever devised to date, for determining what is and what is not objectively true about reality.

But there's a difference between asking questions for understanding and curiosity, and asking questions for argument (i.e. "if you can't answer this, I'm right" -- and that is a fallacy due to burden-of-proof).

What he believes is irrelevant to what is objectively true.

Of course. It wasn't supposed to be relevant to that. It was just supposed to explain why he doesn't "get tired" as you said he does.

 

[ufology]

I would suggest that the reasonable course of action would be for the person who has an interest in the origin of the metal to be the one who investigates the origin of the metal, while those who are satisfied that there's no reason to do so don't.

I couldn't agree more, and since the skeptics take particular joy in debunking these claims it seemed logical that maybe one of them here either already knew of some further information or might be interested in exposing an actual hoax rather than simply sitting back and making excuses as to why they don't need to bother. But with the exceptions of skeptics like Astro and Lance, such is typical here.