UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
GeeMack said:
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.)
Click to expand...



GeeMack,

When it comes to UFOs, it is unfair to automatically label people as liars or hoaxers simply because they don't have the proof you'll accept.
 
ufology said:
GeeMack,

When it comes to UFOs, it is unfair to automatically label people as liars or hoaxers simply because they don't have the proof you'll accept.
Click to expand...
But they'll still insist on people accepting their claims, without proof because...? :boggled:
 
ufology said:
GeeMack,

When it comes to UFOs, it is unfair to automatically label people as liars or hoaxers simply because they don't have the proof you'll accept.
Click to expand...
False dichotomy; lying and hoaxing are not the only explanations. There is also being honestly mistaken.
 
Agatha said:
False dichotomy; lying and hoaxing are not the only explanations. There is also being honestly mistaken.
Click to expand...

And relying on memory alone, when human memory is demonstrably susceptible to subtle changes and revisions. Without intending to lie, a witness can report things that he or she simply did not truly experience as he or she believes. And no, I am not saying this happens 100% of the time, but it does happen often enough to cast some doubt on claims supported only by memories and no other evidence.
 
Spektator said:
And relying on memory alone, when human memory is demonstrably susceptible to subtle changes and revisions. Without intending to lie, a witness can report things that he or she simply did not truly experience as he or she believes. And no, I am not saying this happens 100% of the time, but it does happen often enough to cast some doubt on claims supported only by memories and no other evidence.
Click to expand...

And something of the sort is likely afoot when your recollections are of levitation, talking rabbits and extraterrestrial visitations. The alternative is to take absurdity at face value.
 
Hey, we gotta believe in Ozzy too, right? Here's his sighting report:

Yeah, fairies wear boots and you gotta believe me
Yeah I saw it, I saw it, I tell you no lies
Yeah Fairies wear boots and you gotta believe me
I saw it, I saw it with my own two eyes

He says he saw it all! With his own two eyes and he ain't telling a lie!
Will the small skeptic cabal dare to deny this too?
 
ufology said:
GeeMack,

When it comes to UFOs, it is unfair to automatically label people as liars or hoaxers simply because they don't have the proof you'll accept.
Click to expand...

And now you're moving the goalposts. Nobody said it was material proof of hoaxing, but it is evidence of hoaxing.

We have much evidence of your hoaxing right here. Numerous independent witnesses who state that you hoaxed your alleged sighting and corroborating evidence in the form of your own posts showing how your story has changed over time in response to the numerous inconsistencies.

Stop moving the goalposts in wanting irrefutable proof of hoaxing. It is unfair to label people as unfair simply because they don't have the proof you'll accept.
 
ufology said:
When it comes to UFOs, it is unfair to automatically label people as liars or hoaxers simply because they don't have the proof you'll accept.
Click to expand...


Only when it comes to UFOs? Why the special pleading just for UFOs?

What about people who present videos and plaster castings claiming they're proof of bigfoot?

What about people who claim apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary?

What about homeopaths who claim they can stop illnesses with magic water that has "memorized" a cure?

What about the guy down at the bar who swears he hooked a marlin in the local lake, but the giant bugger got away?

What about when Räel says he's an alien from another planet?


ufology said:
When it comes to UFOs, it is unfair to automatically label people as liars or hoaxers simply because they don't have the proof you'll accept.
Click to expand...


That's not how it happened, and you know it. There are plenty of other reasons besides your total lack of evidence that has led some of us to conclude that your "sighting" story is a hoax and/or lie. If it were merely a case of you not presenting the evidence, we'd simply have told you "you don't have evidence," exactly as we did before you ever got into the details of your UFO story.

You argued that anecdotes are evidence, that your story was evidence for itself. You swore up and down that you know for a fact exactly what you saw, and your memory of the event was far better than average because it was a traumatic, formative experience in your life and therefore cannot have been misremembered.

So we encouraged you to tell your story. You freely presented it in all the minute detail you figured would lend it credence. When we pressed you for information that might help verify the account, you initially refused to provide any location info or corroboration from your friends who'd allegedly been there and witnessed this life-changing event. Of course you still won't provide any witness verification, but after a lot of cajoling you finally gave the location.

Upon examination, just about every verifiable detail turned out to be physically impossible, inconsistent with the geography of the locale, or contradictory to other details of the story. Everything from the distance, altitude, size and behavior of the "object," to the height of the surrounding mountains and trees, to the atmospheric conditions and visibility you reported, right on down to the rock album that was playing on the phonograph, were all totally inconsistent. When we pointed out discrepancies in the details, you swore up and down we were wrong, that it happened exactly as you told it. When we pointed out that the details differed wildly from the ones given on your website, you began the waffling.

So little by little you revised details of the story here and there to account for the discrepancies, but each revision introduced even more new discrepancies. So you waffled around some more and changed the story again, tweaking and re-tooling, adding details here and there. When we pointed out that you were changing your story to conform to challenges in exactly the same way that liars do, you bristled at the suggestion. You argued that the story has never changed, but arrogantly thanked us for helping you to "clarify" it for the next retelling.

That exchange—which is all on record right here in this thread—is the reason why we have reached the conclusion that your UFO story is nothing more than a hoax or lie that you concocted to gain attention from creduloids on the Internet. Not to even mention all the other ridiculous fantasies you present in your bio on that website of yours.


You really ought to consider discontinuing this argument. It's not a good look for you, and it's certainly not helping your credibility on the Internet.

http://www.google.com/search?q="j+randall+murphy"&pbx=1&oq="j+randall+murphy"
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since people come to JREF of their own free will how are we foisting anything on anybody?

If absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence then what would be evidence of absence? Seems like that trite phrase is just another way to make others try to prove a negative.
 
ufology said:
John Albert,

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

What? He discussed your statement in the context of this discussion. Which context would you like him to have used?
 
ufology said:
GeeMack,

When it comes to UFOs, it is unfair to automatically label people as liars or hoaxers simply because they don't have the proof you'll accept.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are a liar or a "hoaxer". However, why would you think you could come to a forum like this and expect people to say "OH! Great! You saw aliens! Case closed!". Seems a little naive to me.
 
Stray Cat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wonder if we could call tangible and testable evidence extraordinary evidence.
 
Paul2 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Paul,

In your opinion how long can a memory reside in the average healthy brain before people no longer actually remember what they think they do? A few hours ... days ... years ... how long Paul? Where do you draw the line for you personally? Do you not have any clear memories from your childhood ... young adulthood ... or even as an adult? Or are all your memories suspect and you just aren't really sure of anything?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom