Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Cuddles]

The original thread was getting rather long and slowing things down (as the actress said to the bishop), so here's part 2 for all your UFO evidence needs.

Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Stray Cat]

And just for anyone who hasn't been following the previous UFO Research and Evidence thread. Here's a quick summary of the valid evidence presented so far:












































That's about it for now.

 

[23_Tauri]

Cuddles, are we allowed to follow on from where we left off? If so, I would like to offer the following:

Yes, if it has any imaginable shape or any imaginable performance characteristics, it can be imagined to be an alien space ship...



... or something.

or even any unimaginable shape or unimaginable performance characteristics, because as we have been knowledgably informed by Mr J Randall Murphy, the craft are so much further advanced that they have complete impunity. I think what he means is that they behave with impunity. This would mean they can do whatever they want without fear of retribution. So with a free rein they can shapeshift in mid-flight, don cloaking devices and generally behaving in unimaginable ways!

 

[GeeMack]

The original thread was getting rather long and slowing things down (as the actress said to the bishop), so here's part 2 for all your UFO evidence needs.

Posted By: Cuddles

Thanks. Maybe we should start out with a summary of the thousands of posts in the previous thread.

• The total objective evidence presented so far supporting the claim that some UFOs are alien craft is exactly none.
  
  
• Of all the things ever seen which were initially unidentified but eventually identified as a particular thing, exactly zero of them turned out to be alien craft.
  
  
• And the term "UFO" means "unidentified flying object", not "alien craft" as some have so persistently and wrongly argued.

On at least those points I'm sure we can all agree.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Perhaps this thread could start with a list of questions which the ufologists haven't answered yet:

uf, with the sufficiency of evidence for UFOs ( witches ), do you believe in UFOs ( witches ), YES or NO?

lo, what is one case that is similar to the 1952 Washington DC one so that we may see that you aren't engaging in the fallacy of special pleading.

og, with the sufficiency of evidence pointing to the J Randall Murphy VolksUFO ( firefly ) Hoax, do you now admit to your perpetration of it?

fol, do you still maintain that the word "sufficient" is objective and that what is sufficient for one person will then be sufficient for another?

oogy, can you link to the Battelle study where it was confirmed that any UFOs ( witches ) were Alien Space Ships?

flog, can you falsify your own J Randall Murphy null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​

wikiology, how did you eliminate witches as an explanation for any UFO case?

 

[AdMan]

Thanks. Maybe we should start out with a summary of the thousands of posts in the previous thread.

• The total objective evidence presented so far supporting the claim that some UFOs are alien craft is exactly none.
  
  
• Of all the things ever seen which were initially unidentified but eventually identified as a particular thing, exactly zero of them turned out to be alien craft.
  
  
• And the term "UFO" means "unidentified flying object", not "alien craft" as some have so persistently and wrongly argued.

On at least those points I'm sure we can all agree.

We can also agree that "unknown" when referring to an object simply means "not known", not "alien", despite one poster's continual attempts at arguing by redefinition.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

I think that is giving them too much credit...

 

[Belgian thought]

The original thread was getting rather long and slowing things down (as the actress said to the bishop), so here's part 2 for all your UFO evidence needs.

Posted By: Cuddles

Not fair, just as it was almost getting nearly interesting...

 

[Akhenaten]

I wonder if we'll find out how witches were eliminated as a possible explanation for the Windermere Fireflies Episode ( campfire story ).

 

[remirol]

I suspect this will be used as an excuse to bail out on the thread completely.

 

[Akhenaten]

I suspect this will be used as an excuse to bail out on the thread completely.

I'm not one to question your judgement in these matters, but this one displays unusual tenacity.

Is there some small wager that we might make?

 

[Pixel42]

As ufology said he relied on notifications to tell him of posts on the old thread he'll presumably remain blissfully unaware that this thread even exists.

 

[Stray Cat]

As ufology said he relied on notifications to tell him of posts on the old thread he'll presumably remain blissfully unaware that this thread even exists.

I seem to remember some mention of him having a website of some kind.
Couldn't someone contact him through that to let him know?

Otherwise it's going to get awful quiet around here and I'll have to infest some of the other subforums .

 

[Akhenaten]

As ufology said he relied on notifications to tell him of posts on the old thread he'll presumably remain blissfully unaware that this thread even exists.

​

You're bloody well right you know. What a hilarious thought.

 

[Akhenaten]

I seem to remember some mention of him having a website of some kind.
Couldn't someone contact him through that to let him know?

Otherwise it's going to get awful quiet around here and I'll have to infest some of the other subforums .

Win/Win

 

[Astrophotographer]

I have a proposal for this thread in order to put it back on track. That is to examine the evidence that UFOs are something other than misperceptions and hoaxes. The OP is long gone and we really don't have somebody who can be the proponent that is "informed" about these various UFO cases.
It might be interesting to look at some UFO cases as a group of skeptics. We could select one that has not been hacked away at (Roswell, Rendlesham, New Zealand, etc) and then take a look at the evidence as presented by UFOlogists in various locations. I sort of did this privately with the RB-47 case that was recently put in my skeptical newsletter SUNlite. Quite a few of us were able to gather all the pertinent information and follow the leads on that one and I felt it was productive. Anyway, it beats going over the same tired ground and there are a lot of sharp people here that might solve (or at least provide potential solutions) some of these "best" cases that are out there. I could then summarize the information in my newsletter for readers, who are not in this forum (of course, I would give credit to those who propose solutions/uncover information).
If people are interested in this, I can start with a few cases that I am aware of that really have not been looked carefully at by skeptics. Once we exhaust the discussion on a case, we can then draw a conclusion and move along. Thoughts?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have a proposal for this thread in order to put it back on track. That is to examine the evidence that UFOs are something other than misperceptions and hoaxes. The OP is long gone and we really don't have somebody who can be the proponent that is "informed" about these various UFO cases.
It might be interesting to look at some UFO cases as a group of skeptics. We could select one that has not been hacked away at (Roswell, Rendlesham, New Zealand, etc) and then take a look at the evidence as presented by UFOlogists in various locations. I sort of did this privately with the RB-47 case that was recently put in my skeptical newsletter SUNlite. Quite a few of us were able to gather all the pertinent information and follow the leads on that one and I felt it was productive. Anyway, it beats going over the same tired ground and there are a lot of sharp people here that might solve (or at least provide potential solutions) some of these "best" cases that are out there. I could then summarize the information in my newsletter for readers, who are not in this forum (of course, I would give credit to those who propose solutions/uncover information).
If people are interested in this, I can start with a few cases that I am aware of that really have not been looked carefully at by skeptics. Once we exhaust the discussion on a case, we can then draw a conclusion and move along. Thoughts?

That would be a refreshing change of pace. Mind you, it won't have the same comedy appeal that we've been enjoying of late.

 

[Marcus]

We can also agree that "unknown" when referring to an object simply means "not known", not "alien", despite one poster's continual attempts at arguing by redefinition.

Rramjet had that same affliction, I suppose it's the Believers way of shoehorning aliens in through the back door by definition. It's clear that they're actually witches.

 

[Akhenaten]

If people are interested in this, I can start with a few cases that I am aware of that really have not been looked carefully at by skeptics. Once we exhaust the discussion on a case, we can then draw a conclusion and move along. Thoughts?

I'm in.​

That would be a refreshing change of pace. Mind you, it won't have the same comedy appeal that we've been enjoying of late.

I believe that we, the toxic elements of antipragmatic skepticism, owe it to ourselves to prove that we are sufficient to this task.

 

[AdMan]

Rramjet had that same affliction, I suppose it's the Believers way of shoehorning aliens in through the back door by definition. It's clear that they're actually witches.

Yes, of course. A synonym for witchcraft is magic, a synonym for magical is otherwordly, and, you guessed it, a synonym for otherwordly is alien. You can go in the other direction too, if you like.

Ufology can't argue with that logic, since we used the same method he has been pushing.