The One True Method

[trainedobserver]

You don't have to be an aeronautical engineer to figure out that what I saw was no aircraft or that no aircraft can perform what this object did. It's just that simple. This thing was a glowing ball of light. No wings, no fuselage, no tail section, no visible means of propulsion. I'd seen it ( or rather we had seen it ) more than once over the course of the evening doing precise maneuvers that make a natural explanation extremely unlikely. In the morning it rose up out of the forest, hovered momentarily, and instantly accelerated north from my position covering a distance of over 25 Km in about 1 second, leaving a glowing trail of light in its wake. I was able to determine its proximity using landmarks of known distance, and when it made its departure, it was light enough outside to see the surrounding landscape and I was standing outside looking directly across the valley at it. What earthly technology can possibly explain that back in 1975 ... or even now for that matter ... or even theoretically in the next 20-50 years? By all means please explain it to me if you can.

Well, I envy your sighting.

However, other than your visual observations of this object you know absolutely nothing about it. I understand that you are convinced otherwise. I have spoken to others who have experienced such things. Some have also insisted on making similar unsupportable assertions about what the object was aside from it having some type of appearance and exhibiting a behavior.

I would put to you that it is irrational to assume anything about what you saw other than you observed something for which you have no reference.

 

[Randall]

Well, I envy your sighting.

However, other than your visual observations of this object you know absolutely nothing about it. I understand that you are convinced otherwise. I have spoken to others who have experienced such things. Some have also insisted on making similar unsupportable assertions about what the object was aside from it having some type of appearance and exhibiting a behavior. I would put to you that it is irrational to assume anything about what you saw other than you observed something for which you have no reference.

On the contrary, we can use reason to draw very rational conclusions about our firsthand experiences. First of all, no reference is required to be able to describe things we've never seen before. Secondly, we have the intellectual capacity to compare those observations with known natural and manmade things. When an exhaustive comparison is done and no match can be found for anything we know exists, and that same object also appears well beyond our technological grasp, we then have logical reason to call what we observed something alien. To be clear, this does not necessitate ET.

 

[trainedobserver]

It all gets back to, "What do we know about any given subject and how was that knowledge produced?"

On the subject of Unidentified Flying Objects and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, "What do we know about of their point of origin or manufacturer based on observation of their visual and behavioral characteristics?"

Answer: Absolutely nothing.

It occurs to me that we have had this conversation before. It appears that you are searching for a way to justify your belief in alien visitation that was triggered by your experience.

Many people attempt is to use arguments from ignorance (It wasn't ours. -when the knowledge of what is ours is incomplete.) and incredulity (It couldn't possibly be ours. -something cannot be imaged to be true.) when they talk about UFOs. Those arguments just don't hold water though.

I think there is a possibility that alien life from other worlds (or if you are more comfortable with "others from somewhere else") has visited the Earth in the past and may be doing so now. I say that because we know there are other worlds and that there might be life on some of them. However, I don't think that possibility can or should be used as a basis for a belief about UFOs and UAPs.

 

[Randall]

It all gets back to, "What do we know about any given subject and how was that knowledge produced?"

On the subject of Unidentified Flying Objects and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, "What do we know about of their point of origin or manufacturer based on observation of their visual and behavioral characteristics?"

Answer: Absolutely nothing.

It occurs to me that we have had this conversation before. It appears that you are searching for a way to justify your belief in alien visitation that was triggered by your experience. Many people attempt is to use arguments from ignorance (It wasn't ours. -when the knowledge of what is ours is incomplete.) and incredulity (It couldn't possibly be ours. -something cannot be imaged to be true.) when they talk about UFOs. Those arguments just don't hold water though. I think there is a possibility that alien life from other worlds (or if you are more comfortable with "others from somewhere else") has visited the Earth in the past and may be doing so now. I say that because we know there are other worlds and that there might be life on some of them. However, I don't think that possibility can or should be used as a basis for a belief about UFOs and UAPs.

I don't think it's accurate to say that we know absolutely nothing. Knowledge is made up of information and we have accumulated quite a bit of information. From that information it is reasonable to conclude that some of the mystery craft observed aren't the product of nature or our familiar global civilization, therefore they are alien to our civilization and therefore they can accurately be called UFOs ( alien craft ). This is a considerable finding in its own right whether or not we know where UFOs originate or how they are made.

 

[trainedobserver]

From that information it is reasonable to conclude that some of the mystery craft observed aren't the product of nature or our familiar global civilization, therefore they are alien to our civilization and therefore they can accurately be called UFOs ( alien craft ). This is a considerable finding in its own right whether or not we know where UFOs originate or how they are made.

I strongly disagree for reasons I have already beat to death, rolled over, and beat on some more. It is not "a finding" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Randall]

I strongly disagree for reasons I have already beat to death, rolled over, and beat on some more. It is not "a finding" by any stretch of the imagination.

First, I don't see any reasons that you have "beat to death", only a repetition of opinions that haven't fully addressed the examples or the counterexamples given to your position. Secondly, your declaration that there are no findings concluding that UFOs ( alien craft ) are real also doesn't stand up. A finding is simply a piece of information obtained from an investigation. It may be scientific or official or completely informal. Here are findings ( in short quotes ) of some people who participated in official studies, some of them accomplished scientists.

• Dr J Allen Hynek,Phd, Former scientist with Project Bluebook: "For the government to continue to maintain that UFOs are non-existent in the face of the documents already released and of other cogent evidence presented in this book is puerile and, in a sense, an insult to the American people".
• General Benjamin Chidlaw,Air Defense Command: "We have stacks of reports about flying saucers.We take them seriously when you consider we have lost many men and planes trying to intercept them".
• Admiral Delamer S Fahmey, Former Head US Navy, Guided Missile Programme: "Reliable reports indicate there are objects coming into our atmosphere at very high speeds and controlled by thinking intelligences".
• Air Chief Marshal Lord Dowding, Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Air Force Fighter Command: More than 10,000 sightings have been reported, the majority of which cannot be accounted for by any scientific explanation... I am convinced that these objects do exist and that they are not manufactured by any nation on Earth." "I can therefore see no alternative to accepting the theory that they come from some extraterrestrial source."
• Dr. Herman Oberth (The father of modern rockerty): "There is no doubt in my mind that these objects are interplanetary craft of some sort. I and my colleagues are confident that they do not originate in our solar system."
• Project Signs initial Estimate of the Situation with respect to UFOs concluded that they were extraterrestrial.
• Commander of the Air Materiel Command, Lieutenant General Nathan Twining:

a ) The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious. ​

b ) There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as a man-made aircraft. ​

c ) The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and action which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely."​

So more than one official and at least one official investigation concluded ( found ) that UFOs are real, and are ET ( which makes them alien ). If you are disputing that the above findings are not real, please explain. If you are simply denying that the above qualify as findings, then you are ignoring the reality that they are findings, rather than findings you just don't agree with.

 

[trainedobserver]

Just to be clear.

I do not deny that people see Unidentified Flying Objects and that some of those may be manufactured objects. I never have.

I do however disagree, and very strongly, that anyone has positively identified them as being from some other planet or piloted by some other species of intelligent life.

Could some UFOs be from another planet? Yes. Do I possess any knowledge about them that would prove to be a foundation for a belief that they indeed are from another world? No, I do not.

Nothing you have mentioned is a scientific finding, discovery, or anything of the sort. They are speculations at best, not having a falsifiable hypothesis among them, much less factual evidence that could be considered a discovery, a finding, or an actionable conclusion.

I understand and share your frustration. However, when the dust settles I have to admit to myself that I do not know what they are, where they come from, or what they are doing and furthermore I do not see any evidence that anyone else does either. It is a mystery that defies my understanding.

I refuse to believe something without a good enough reason. I have no reason to believe that UFOs are alien spacecraft. I might suspect that, I might wonder if that is not the case, but I recognize I do not have a reason to believe that is actually the case.

 

[Randall]

Just to be clear. I do not deny that people see Unidentified Flying Objects and that some of those may be manufactured objects. I never have ... I understand and share your frustration. However, when the dust settles I have to admit to myself that I do not know what they are, where they come from, or what they are doing and furthermore I do not see any evidence that anyone else does either. It is a mystery that defies my understanding ... I refuse to believe something without a good enough reason. I have no reason to believe that UFOs are alien spacecraft. I might suspect that, I might wonder if that is not the case, but I recognize I do not have a reason to believe that is actually the case.

Like you, I don't claim UFOs are necessarily spacecraft form another planet ( although that seems to make the most sense ), but I do claim they are real and alien to our familiar global civilization. Also I'd like you to know that I respect your skepticism and appreciate the way we've managed to keep our exchanges civil. You make a lot of good posts and are a valuable contributor here. Hopefully our exchanges will serve as an example to others that differing points of view can be discussed in a way that advances our understanding of things rather than simply polarizing views.

 

[mike]

WHAT WE KNOW AND WHAT WE DON’T KNOW
When asked if he had any concluding remarks, Dolan spoke about the need for proof in a field where so much must be taken on faith.
“We’re in a field,” he said, “where there are certain things we know and there are certain things we don’t know. And we always have to remember the difference.
“One thing that I can say we know,” he continued, “is that there is a genuine UFO phenomenon and that this phenomenon has engaged with the United States military for many years. We KNOW this is true because we have a certain number of released US documents that prove it. That prove we have been concerned about UFOs; that we have tried to intercept UFOs; and we have seen them – military personnel – visually and tracked them on radar. All of that and more. That is unarguable and you can take it to the bank.
“Much of the rest is guesswork. And it’s fair to guess. We have to guess. We have to create hypotheses. The only thing that I try to remind myself and others of is that when we’re creating a hypothesis, we need to distinguish that from known fact. We’ve got to be careful how we handle our evidence. I speculate as much as anyone at this point in the game. I’m very happy to speculate. I just want to make it clear to people who read what I have to say or listen to me, that when I come to a conclusion, A, it’s always a provisional conclusion, and B, it’s always based on what I consider to be evidence."

 

[trainedobserver]

...but I do claim they are real and alien to our familiar global civilization.

You are in effect saying that they are inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected and characterized by incongruity and contradiction. They are in a word anomalous and with that, I cannot disagree.

Also I'd like you to know that I respect your skepticism and appreciate the way we've managed to keep our exchanges civil. You make a lot of good posts and are a valuable contributor here. Hopefully our exchanges will serve as an example to others that differing points of view can be discussed in a way that advances our understanding of things rather than simply polarizing views.

I appreciate that and would say the same about you as well.

 

[Randall]

When I say science is fallible, I don't mean it isn't an excellent tool, only that decisions can been made based on a confidence in the science behind them that can turn out to be wrong. I don't know of any scientist who will claim that science is infallible, but if you hear of any, by all means let's hear them explain all the errors in the science of meteorology ( predicting the weather based on science ) or all the recalls on medicine or automobiles. There is simply no way anyone can claim that science always gets it right the first time around. It often takes multiple attempts based on trial and error and in some cases the discoveries are accidental.

Skeptics will counter that although science may not get it right the first time and does make mistakes, the process of science allows for a methodical improvement. That is true, but let's not forget that we are comparing science to firsthand experience and that when we experience something firsthand that turns out to be in error, we also use that experience as a reference for future behavior that allows us to self-correct ... we also learn from our mistakes. Last but not least, the observations made during the scientific method are often firsthand experiences in and of themselves. So the parallel between science and firsthand experience is not so far removed as the skeptics typically argue. Because of this, the information gained from both science and firsthand experience have value for determining what is reasonable to believe about the world around us.