Debunkers....roll up...roll up....

[marduk]

I'm also curious why someone would think it was utter rubbish? Because of the people involved, the methodology employed, or because the data was too little or too poor in quality to reach even an apprehensive conclusion?

Because it would be like the Pope calling up Hawking to say that he has proof God exists because of some miracle.

Even if someone looked at it carefully, it would take a grant to do so, permission from a University likely, and the first thing that fell apart under scrutiny would be the death knell to the whole thing.

Again, to the community this phenomena doesn't exist and those that report it are some combination of stupid, misinformed, or fools for believing their own eyes.

I'm not justifying their position. But trying to change it without some very dramatic and unassailable evidence would likely be a fool's errand.

 

[Constance]

I was thinking more in the line of how documents, whether they have provenance or not, are often riddled with either perspectives, supposed facts and determinations that may in fact not be accurate at all but are used nonetheless to advance ufology and define its directions. Whether or not this is a sound academic approach seems to be constantly disregarded. it would not surprise me in the least to see a ufologist treat the UFO Encyclopaedia, the Condign Report, MJ12 and the Project Aquarius document as equal statements.

What surprises me is that you and several others here do not seem able (or perhaps willing) to distinguish the wheat from the chaff within the field of books and other resources published under the general subject heading of ufos. "Ufologist" is consequently a term of contempt in your vocabulary, which in my opinion is unjustified.

 

[Constance]

Because it would be like the Pope calling up Hawking to say that he has proof God exists because of some miracle.

Even if someone looked at it carefully, it would take a grant to do so, permission from a University likely, and the first thing that fell apart under scrutiny would be the death knell to the whole thing.

Again, to the community this phenomena doesn't exist and those that report it are some combination of stupid, misinformed, or fools for believing their own eyes.

I'm not justifying their position. But trying to change it without some very dramatic and unassailable evidence would likely be a fool's errand.

You might see it differently if you read these two papers:

James McDonald, "Science in Default: Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations" at
Science in Default - Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations - James E. McDonald -1969

Bruce Maccabee, "Still in Default" at
Stardrive.org - - STILL IN DEFAULT- - By Bruce S. Maccabee, Ph.D.

 

[marduk]

I don't.

Individual cases only serve to highlight the general rule.

 

[Burnt State]

What surprises me is that you and several others here do not seem able (or perhaps willing) to distinguish the wheat from the chaff within the field of books and other resources published under the general subject heading of ufos. "Ufologist" is consequently a term of contempt in your vocabulary, which in my opinion is unjustified.

I believe that those distinctions may in fact exist, but as far as there being any agreed upon collection of serious ufologists vs. the chancers - that distinction is still up in the air...

No one in the diversity of the ufologcal audience can agree upon what is science, fact or history. It's a loose, fragmented assemblage with little by way of confirmation of commonly held beliefs or theories.

And I don't have contempt for those who adopt the name, 'ufologst' and work diligently and critically to advance the field. But on the whole, the spectrum of ufology, and the mechanism by which it continues to fail in gaining traction or building upon past expertise, is the history of the field IMHO.

No one has yet to really build or categorize a true history of findings past Vallée, and there is no currnt recognizable real leader or expert in the field, is there? Just a lot of guesses, theories and interesting ideas. Some are sound, or at least possible, while others are simply ridiculous.

 

[marduk]

Here's the deal as far as I'm concerned.

Governments and the scientific establishment had their opportunity to meet this phenomena head-on 50 or 60 years ago.

They failed to do so in any meaningful way.

Seeking information, validation, or credibility from these factions would be like running on a hamster wheel and saying "look at me!"

Let's not forget that both democracy and science started with people having enough of the opposite of both.

 

[boomerang]

Whatever this phenomenon is, it troubles people of most persuasions if that person, or institution, has taken the thought and effort to review its history. I think this is also true of most close-in witnesses whether they are read on the subject or not. A very unscientific opinion: something about the UFO/UAP phenomenon is emotionally loaded all out of proportion with the degree and quality of its physical proof or overt societal impact. It's almost as if something is pre-wired in the human mind to recognize this is as a real but separate and frightening category of experience.

You know the alien 'gray' bumper stickers and T-shirts that dot the land? Nothing comparable exists in any other field of the so-called paranormal or esoteric. Unless one counts organized religion and even here the UFO has earned the label "demon". I will leave that debate for others. But this alone should tell us something.

The excitement seems less today than previously, probably due to the extent to which most people's world views have been stretched and numbed by our interconnected world. Still, true believers and UFO scholars often display exaggerated affect by vociferous argument in lieu of real debate, frequently resulting in the kind of ad hominem stuff for which this field is well known. Otherwise disinterested people, and formal institutions of public importance, typically react with derision--the "laughter curtain" we know so well. Sometimes the laughter seems more self-comforting than real. Advocates often find themselves shut out of conversations when attempting to describe well documented cases that have led them to believe there really is something going on. But in my experience anyway, reactions are rarely as neutral as one would expect of something as abstract to most people as the UFO phenomenon.

IMO, science treats the subject like yesterday's garbage because it is powerless to analyze it. The same is largely true of American society in general, where what will not yield to science can't be and therefore isn't. And yet it persists.

 

[Burnt State]

Whatever this phenomenon is, it troubles people of most persuasions if that person, or institution, has taken the thought and effort to review its history. I think this is also true of most close-in witnesses whether they are read on the subject or not. A very unscientific opinion: something about the UFO/UAP phenomenon is emotionally loaded all out of proportion with the degree and quality of its physical proof or overt societal impact. It's almost as if something is pre-wired in the human mind to recognize this is as a real but separate and frightening category of experience.

You know the alien 'gray' bumper stickers and T-shirts that dot the land? Nothing comparable exists in any other field of the so-called paranormal or esoteric. Unless one counts organized religion and even here the UFO has earned the label "demon". I will leave that debate for others. But this alone should tell us something.

i really enjoy the whole of that post, boomerang. it's an intriguing thought that this experience is something that we are built for. that seems to lean towards a mac tonnies/vallee expression of comprehending the experience, as a part of us. there's also that continual echo of how somehow the UFO experience is playing some sort of specific role. in the roles we've seen so far there is terror and there is the trickster, and sometimes both are combined.

question: are we making a mountain out of a molehill? is the UFO experience something that we have collectively conjured up for ourselves, the way that people will see the face of jesus in some burnt toast, a cut tree limb or a shroud of turin? the rhythms of its impact on our collective curiosity seems to shift along with our own changing modes of communication and information distribution. the continual impact of repeated knowledge i.e. UFO's exist because Nat Geo is broadcasting them, maybe this creates a persistence of belief that anomalous experiences are simply coinciding with because of this cultural frontloading - a feedback of UFO's ensue?

question 2: what the hell's going on with all the conflicted perceptions and lack of perception of UFO events? as pointed out recently regarding pascagoula and falcon lake (two of my traditional favourites) there appears to be an odd lack of confirmation from those with the ability to see such things nearby. do they all exist differently for different observers?

question 3: as per Dale Spaur, this effect and impact on the witness, or the haunting of the witness, where other Demonic, poltergeist and other paranormal things start to happen to them i.e. you get a UFO following you around that your buddies named Floyd after your middle name like it's a Pooka, well this really deserves some thought. this whole decompensating of the UFO witness, transforming them, destroying their lives. that's a pretty tainted experience. why is seeing UFO's such a curse? it's like eating a bad mushroom.

 

[marduk]

Anything shocking can destabilize a fragile mind.

Anything that can bring on bullying and being ostracized can destroy anyone.

Our culture values compliance and conformity, even while it pretends to do the opposite.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I often frequent a forum dedicated to a particular band(music) -and every now and then the question of the UFO pops up on the site's message board. I'm surprised at how many (more than a few) people truely believe this phenom to be of demonic origin. One guy, during our back and forth on the subject, brings up Valley and Hynek's conclusions- claiming they both believe(d) it all to be demonic.. Now, demons as we understand "them" (fallen angels) to be.. What on earth would such entity's, need with high tech saucer craft? What need would they have of biological fluids from human abductee's, much less cattle mutes (assuming they may be responsible) Honestly, I'm not that familiar with Valley and Hynek's "conclusions" as to the source of the UFO. My understanding is that Valley has flirted with many different possible origins, never committing to one particular theory. (as any good ufo investigator should) The point of this post, I just can't wrap my head around the whole demonic ufo thing- Is there not some type of high profile think tank out there whom also believe this to be the case?
Demons, cruising earth's atmosphere, air space and oceans/rivers in saucers? Of all the possible theory's regarding these visitors, I find this the most rediculous. One might as well say, "ETH, Time travel, alternate dimension, all impossible. Must be demons.." Not much thought, and rather lazy to raise that flag.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Positing that UFO's are anything in particular, without physical evidence, is goofy -- even if that explanation is natural or seemingly practical.

I don't believe aliens (or demons, apparently) visit this planet in spacecraft (or… hellcraft?). I don't believe it because there isn't enough physical data to suggest it's happening. However, there is just as much physical data to suggest it's plasma, swamp gas, hallucination or any other thing someone just kind of decided to make up.

You can't investigate the unknowable. The very idea is nonsense. UFO's are unknowable. I say that, evidenced by the fact that we don't actually know anything about them after decades, or possibly centuries of experiencing them, and by the fact that the concept of the UFO is untestable and immeasurable in any scientific context.

People have been trying to take relevant scientists and professionals to "reliable" UFO spots since such spots became popular in the late 70's and early 80's. As of yet, no location is actually capable of producing UFO phenomena with any level of reliability. For that reason, the phenomena itself can't be tested or measured by any type of legitimate standard.

If you can't reliably observe something, you can't legitimately study it. If you can't study it, you can't know it.

Postulating on the condition or state of being of UFO's, in any direction, is absurdity. The best you can do is offer circumstantial reasoning regarding what UFO's probably aren't -- it's equally meaningful.

All we have are stories and the rare physical item that, per the storyteller's secondhand word, is supposed to be evidence that the story actually happened. However, without that evidence leading to objective, reliable, measurable observations, it's not really evidence, at all -- it's just another part of the story. Without falsifiable evidence, the stories don't become science, they become folklore.

In that way, attempting to explain how UFO's are some type of rare plasma event is just as valid and sensible as attempting to explain how UFO's are craft, from space, piloted by beings from other words or attempting to explain that UFO's are what you see when a unicorn has a dream about you. These explanations are attempts at solving a puzzle for which nobody has any pieces, but have seen one or two at a distance, once, maybe.

 

[Randall]

Positing that UFO's are anything in particular, without physical evidence, is goofy -- even if that explanation is natural or seemingly practical ...

The above is a rather weak opinion. On the other hand, the fact is that the stimulus response is a scientifically valid means by which humans can detect physical objects at a distance. Therefore we know with certainty that the possession of physical evidence isn't necessary in order to make a reasonably accurate assessment of a sensory experience. Therefore, since some UFO reports include descriptions of alien craft based on sensory experience, not only is it entirely possible that alien craft have been observed, the sheer number of such reports makes it unreasonable not to believe that such craft have been observed.

... If you can't reliably observe something, you can't legitimately study it. If you can't study it, you can't know it.

Simply because one hasn't reliably observed a UFO themselves doesn't mean other people haven't. It is entirely possible that other people have observed UFOs reliably enough to know they were looking at an alien craft. If one has never had such an experience, then one has sufficient cause to remain skeptical of other people's claims, but labeling them all "goofy" isn't fair.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

We've had that discussion. There is a difference between data, evidence and proof. Paranormal investigators have difficulty finding the lines. I call things "goofy" when they don't really make any sense.

There is a lot of data someone can reference regarding UFO stories. There is no evidence. Evidence leads to a more profound understanding of an event or a phenomenon. None of the data contained within or related to UFO stories has done that -- it's not serving the function of evidence.

Even if we pretended that these types of things worked like police work or courtroom scene, as Paranormal researchers like to pretend, we've still got no legitimate evidence -- we just have data. In these types of scenarios, again, evidence leads to a more profound understanding of an event. You find a piece of physical data that is suggestive of an idea; in this case, let's say a red hair at a crime scene. That isn't evidence that the suspect is redheaded, but it is a piece of data that is suggestive of the fact that someone has been at the scene, at some point, with red hair. We now have a hypothesis, but we don't have evidence of the solution to that hypothesis until we have a new set of data. That new set of data would come from collecting a group of individuals linked to the scene by other data and testing their hair samples against the one we found. If you have a match, then you have evidence that the matching suspect was at the crime scene, but not evidence that they committed the crime. When you have enough data points functioning as evidence, you eventually build a proof -- a proof being nothing more than a reasonably objective interpretation of the evidence data.

More specific to this, If I said I saw you somewhere, that's a type of data providing circumstantial evidence of you having been in that place (i.e., no direct evidence of your presence, just my belief). If we then went to that location and inexplicably tested it for radiation, that wouldn't be evidence that you're radioactive or that you caused the radiation in the area (we just have the same circumstantial data). If 50 more people made the same claim, and the same set of tests were carried out, we still don't have legitimate evidence that you are radioactive, we have evidence that radioactivity is present throughout a localized area, for one reason or another. Until we find you and test you for radioactivity, we don't have evidence -- we have data that is vaguely suggestive of a circumstantial conclusion.

Pieces of data collected in relation to varied UFO sightings are not only all over the map in regards to what they might suggest, but they're suggesting those things into an abyss. Without the ability to observe a UFO, test it for radioactivity, reliably observe it causing burning damage to solid matter, or even see what's inside of one, the data collected at the scene of a UFO sighting is powerless and meaningless. It doesn't direct an honest observer in any direction. In other words, evidence goes somewhere -- it has a function and a purpose -- data is just a piece of information.

All you're describing is data. Data without the ability to aid in the understanding of an as-of-yet untestable, unknowable phenomenon. You can't use any of the data that exists on UFO's as evidence for anything, unless it can be tested against the claim for which it is supposed to be evidence. We've got data and we've got hunches; we don't have evidence.

UFO's are a thing people see. That's a fact. It's evidence that there are strange things in the sky. That's as far as we're able to get.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

And, let me be clear, here. I am not asserting that UFO's don't exist. There is a lot of evidence that UFO's are a legitimate phenomenon. I'm saying anyone claiming to know anything about their nature, outside of what they think they remember they look like, is goofy. They're goofy because they don't know the difference between data and evidence, and as a result have difficulty making coherent arguments regarding their beliefs about the phenomenon. Maybe that's impolite; I can live with it.

Someone can't know they're looking at an alien craft unless they know what an alien craft looks like, which nobody here does. As UFO's are generally unlike any craft that the observers have ever seen, it's bizarre that anyone decided that they were craft in the first place, let alone the craft of a civilization the observer has no knowledge of. Further, they may have a hunch that what they saw was a craft, at all, because they also believe they saw windows and lights; however, there's no evidence that what they saw actually were windows and lights (as opposed to eyes and luminescent organs, for example). The data we have is that they saw what they believed to be windows and lights. But, that data can't be taken any further, and is thus evidence of nothing. It's not helping to show that something exists, it's not functioning as a proof, it's just a piece of functionless data, until it can be tested against source data (of which there is none).

EDIT:

Let's keep in mind, here, that the only reference any living person has regarding what an alien craft would look like are comic books and movies. Nobody can know the thing in the sky they saw was alien simply because it looked very much like the machine they saw in a fiction narrative written by Earth people.

 

[Randall]

We've had that discussion. There is a difference between data, evidence and proof.

OK, I guess we're having it again then.

Paranormal investigators have difficulty finding the lines. I call things "goofy" when they don't really make any sense.

Paranormal investigators aren't the only ones who might have difficulty with the concepts of data, evidence, and proof. On your use of the word "goofy", are you saying that you're not using the word "goofy" as an informal insult against paranormal investigators in general, but simply as an indicator that much of the rationale you have been presented with doesn't make sense to you? If so, then that puts your opinion in a different light.

There is a lot of data someone can reference regarding UFO stories. There is no evidence.

There is plenty of evidence. Just not of the type that some people are willing to recognize as such. Consider the definition from Encarta:

ev·i·dence [évvid’ns] noun
1. sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion
2. proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime
3. statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry​

Given the above definition, there are plenty of "statements by witnesses", and there are also "signs" of the "existence or truth" of various phenomena ( e.g. radar reports of UFOs ). By these independent definitions, your statement that there is no evidence is simply untrue. You might have better luck being more specific e.g. "There is no publicly available scientifically valid material evidence". That would be fair. It would also be a position that is about as far down the playing field as the goalposts can be moved without going entirely out of bounds.

Evidence leads to a more profound understanding of an event or a phenomenon. None of the data contained within or related to UFO stories has done that -- it's not serving the function of evidence.

It seems reasonable to suggest that one person's understanding may be more or less profound than another's. So I don't see how you can make a blanket determination about the level of profoundness for other people's understanding. Perhaps if you had the same understanding as someone else, you might find that it was very profound indeed.

Even if we pretended that these types of things worked like police work or courtroom scene, as Paranormal researchers like to pretend, we've still got no legitimate evidence -- we just have data ...

Already covered above.

Pieces of data collected in relation to varied UFO sightings are not only all over the map in regards to what they might suggest, but they're suggesting those things into an abyss. Without the ability to observe a UFO, test it for radioactivity, reliably observe it causing burning damage to solid matter, or even see what's inside of one, the data collected at the scene of a UFO sighting is powerless and meaningless.

Meaning is a subjective experience. It is entirely possible for scientifically valid material evidence sufficient to prove the reality of a UFO experience to a skeptic to be less meaningful than the experience itself.

It doesn't direct an honest observer in any direction. In other words, evidence goes somewhere -- it has a function and a purpose -- data is just a piece of information.
All you're describing is data. Data without the ability to aid in the understanding of an as-of-yet untestable, unknowable phenomenon. You can't use any of the data that exists on UFO's as evidence for anything, unless it can be tested against the claim for which it is supposed to be evidence. We've got data and we've got hunches; we don't have evidence.

You're describing your preference for a specific type of evidence rather than making a valid case that there is no evidence.

UFO's are a thing people see. That's a fact. It's evidence that there are strange things in the sky. That's as far as we're able to get.

Right. That is "evidence that there are strange things in the sky", and in the case of UFOs ( not to be confused with every object in every UFO report ), but those objects that are seen well enough for the witnesses and follow-up investigators to rule out mundane explanations, what we are left with is something alien, and when that object is clearly some sort of craft, then it's an alien craft. That is isn't as specific as we'd like it to be, but it's a lot farther along than simply saying the object observed could have been anything at all simply because we don't have all the details. For example, if we were to see an unmarked airplane we might just as easily say it's an unidentified airplane, but that in no way means that it hasn't been identified as an airplane.

 

[Burnt State]

Ah, the Prophet has been back less than half a day and already you two have found yourselves in the eternal dance of the spheres, like a binary star you two continue to flash out contradictory positions of the phenomenon.

Most salient point: we have no idea what an alien craft looks like & most of ufology is predicated upon loose assumptions and guess work. While there is a history of hard science that suggests everything from strange balls of light to metallic, craft there still has been confirmation of not much.

 

[marduk]

Saying something is unknowable because humanity has been bashing it's head into the same brick wall for 60 years is like saying we'll never know what the dark side of the moon looks like because humanity hasn't seen it for all of recorded history.

You know, until 60 years ago or so.

 

[PCarr]

Saying something is unknowable because humanity has been bashing it's head into the same brick wall for 60 years is like saying we'll never know what the dark side of the moon looks like because humanity hasn't seen it for all of recorded history.

You know, until 60 years ago or so.

<pedantic> far side, not dark side.</pedantic>
Damn you, Pink Floyd!

 

[marduk]

<pedantic> far side, not dark side.</pedantic>
Damn you, Pink Floyd!

heh. Did that one on purpose.

It was only renamed the "far side" after we went there.

I'm sure UFOs won't be called that when we know what they are, either.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

There is plenty of evidence. Just not of the type that some people are willing to recognize as such. Consider the definition from Encarta:

ev·i·dence [évvid’ns] noun
1. sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion
2. proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime
3. statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

Given the above definition, there are plenty of "statements by witnesses", and there are also "signs" of the "existence or truth" of various phenomena ( e.g. radar reports of UFOs ). By these independent definitions, your statement that there is no evidence is simply untrue.

Agree to disagree, I guess. We're not going to agree that someone saying something is legitimate evidence. Evidence can be corroborated.

We can corroborate elements of a story, like a burn mark on the ground. You can go to the place and say, "yep, there it is." That doesn't corroborate that a UFO made the mark, let alone anything about the nature of the UFO. It can't be corroborated because we don't know that UFO's actually do that, as we don't have one to observe. You're OK with that, science and I aren't.

That's kind of where that discussion ends.