The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

Originally posted by Druscilla
What do you think UNKNOWN means?

You're the one taking the extra step into non-objective speculation in some wacky tabacky circular reasoning that makes you feel like there's some possibility for aliens.

It's either identified, or, it's UNKNOWN until identified.
Period.... Accepting UNKNOWN as the value of the totality of all potential answers is vastly more open minded than speculating on some cute little idea like aliens.

You're ignoring some crucial facts, Druscilla. Or perhaps you're not aware of them?

As applied to UFOs by the U.S. Air Force and early researchers, the word and classification 'unknown' had a more specific meaning, one quite distinct from its general, everyday usage. In the official Air Force reports (such as Blue Book Special Report 14) and in the writings of the most prominent early investigators, 'unknown' meant (paraphrasing) 'STILL unknown after all conventional explanations have been ruled out by those qualified and competent to do that ruling out.'

In other words, despite what many skeptics would have people believe, an 'unknown' point of light sitting stationary in or slowly moving across the night sky would not be considered an 'unknown', even though the light's source was truly and technically unknown. Those kinds of vague, 'Insufficient Information' reports had their own classification, and were certainly not discussed alongside the many truly intriguing, high strangeness / high-credibility sightings.

The widespread misunderstanding of the above key point mirrors the ignorance regarding the original use and definition of the military acronym 'UFO'. A UFO was an object or phenomenon that could be classified as 'unknown' in the above sense. (Unknown even after significant investigation, when sufficient information to rule out conventional explanations was available.)

So yes, it needs to be understood that 'unknown', 'unidentified' and 'UFO' are not synonymous with 'extraterrestrial', but it also needs to be understood that those terms have historically held much more significance than their literal definitions imply. I think it's fair to say that the word 'Inexplicable' better captures what has really been meant, and it's not hard to list cases that demonstrate this.

This is all UFOs-101 material, by the way, so I'm surprised you're not aware of it. ??? (A reasonable assumption.... My thought is that if you were, I doubt we'd be seeing flippant remarks about "some cute little idea like aliens". Because the alien hypothesis is very much in play, perhaps even the "least implausible" of them all, as James McDonald would often say.)

Originally posted by maximumprecision
The only reason you're a sceptic is because is not allowing you to achieve anything. Why do you need proof if you already have it?
How many people are reading and discussing this topic?
Need i say more

You do need to say more....

Lol you suggest I lack intelligence and logic, and you base this on saying something is real because people talk about it? Really?

There IS a good point here that you hit on, and that point is after 6000 years of what we could say is modern humans, with the ability to communicate with the written language, all we have is pictures that whether they are cave drawings or video/camera are all based on personal interpretation and eye witness reports....over 6000 years of only this. One would think that we could advance a little more past the "talking about it" stage after 6000 years of only talking about it if there were truly aliens among us.

Originally posted by maximumprecision
Since when did providing you with information become the worlds number one emergency. You clearly have zero respect for the individuals trying to bring forth evidence and i doubt you have any respect for your own self. You should be ashamed of yourself. How dare you ask questions regarding a topic if the answers or evidence are not to be provided to you specifically. You know what i'm talking about. You're just not smart enough.

My point is that skeptics want a level of proof that non-skeptics don't need for them to believe in something as factual. It is about that simple.....

I'm not demanding proof of anything, and I can "what if" with the best of them, but when does "if" turn something into a fact?

Originally posted by ImpactoR

Even the best cases cannot convince me there are aliens but they are enough to remain open for possibilities, do you understand??

I will let you know I've been taught critical thinking a lot, as well as staying neutral and objective, many if you lack it.

I would suggest by your statements above you are a skeptic... If a person doesn't stay neutral and objective they are no longer a skeptic....

Oh and how is that with accepting possibility of aliens SOMEWHERE in the universe? What makes you think there are aliens? So aliens absolutely cannot have come here BUT You Believe Alien Beings Exist Somewhere In The Universe

When one looks at the possibilities, the chances of aliens ever finding us is slim to none, so unless they been here the whole time I do not put much credence in them ever finding us. If they been here the whole time, as in manipulated local life form to make us, then we also have nothing to suggest this has happen or that they are here, so once again I don't see this as the case either.

Just the idea of a bunch of intelligent aliens running around the universe is not very conclusive when we look at life on our own planet. Life was not capable to form until about 9 billion years ago as the universe finally started to moved into the state it is roughly today. The first 5 plus billion years the universe was converting hydrogen into the other natural elements we see today.

Looking at earth's 4.5 billon years (half the age of the converted universe we see today) trillions of different life forms have been created, come and gone... In all that time one life form with the intelligence and physical ability (Opposable thumbs) to build has come about...not good odds

The other part is life in general has a good chance of surviving, but life as a species has an extremely short period of existence. If we are not wiped out in the next 2 million years we will still not be human anymore, but something evolved just like if we look at our ape like ancestors of two million years ago. That evolved state does not suggest some super human condition either. We can see even today the average human cannot live a week on their own, and this will only get worst and could mean we end up extinct. In any case I don't see billion year old civilizations out there among us.

Life is ever changing, ever coming and going, and that is not a good formula for the idea that there are some ancient advance space fairing races traveling around the universe.

reply to post by xszawe


No, there is no such thing as logical trickery per each individual skeptic.

An example would be 'that UFO was mabye a meteor rapidly drifting across the midnight sky.'

Did they stop to think for a second that this large ball of orange-white light was hovering below the tree tops and a group of college students cruising down the highway had one hour of missing time while the light was seen by a rancher looking out suspiciously because the night before he had found some mutilated cattle? Oh because the story of events under conscious, hypnosis, and lie dectector were the same? Because they believe in the government??

No. They wouldn't think of anything real that has happened because they don;t care about anything real. They would rather live in a illusionalry world, a made up fantasy with having the absrud ego to deny everything happening around them that they do no wish to believe in. Pitiful, ignorant people. And I hope my conception is a dream and there wouldn't be another soul ready to talk about something so stupid and obviously obnoxious to our family as the world ending, absolute fools are acting more drunk than off of absolute vodka.

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


In referring back to these holy books, papers, and reports dealing with the UFO subject printed circa 50s-70s, you're so often citing, referencing, or simply mentioning as gospel, you're more than welcome to maintain a 1950s perspective based on the then cutting edge understanding of how the universe worked way back 40+ years ago.

Suffice to say, some time has passed.
There've been developments in technologies and even means for conducting investigations to avoid cross contamination of witnesses, and other such.

What may have been gospel then, isn't necessarily a certainty today.
Cite them as you will, but, a certain degree of dusting off, reviewing, accounting for, and updating to excise now outdated and even antique interrogation of the subject needs be had.

Thus; "cute little ideas like aliens" still applies.

After how many decades of pursuing that cute little idea of aliens has there been any confirming non-ambiguous data to indicate aliens that couldn't also be applicable to any other reasonably UNKNOWN possibly even natural phenomenon?

Ball lightning, for instance, has been researched for use as an EMP weapon.
Weaponizing Ball lightning
Could ball lightning be accountable for so-called "high-strangeness" as it applies to anything else related to electromagnetism? Airplane, or other electronic technology power systems shutting down? Electrochemical/Neurological disturbance eliciting hallucinations, blackouts and loss of time (stopping watches)? Magnetizing metallic structures in vicinity?
Granted, that's just an example and certainly doesn't cover all cases, but, I'm being brief.

Additionally, phenomenon like Earth Lights caused by naturally occurring Piezoelectric stresses in strata material around fault lines, volcanoes and other areas of geological activity were at the time of many of the materials you seem fond of making citation, unknown.

A number of advances in Psychology have additionally changed perspectives in regard to detecting deception, detection and definition of mental conditions, even on to protocols for, as mentioned above, conducting an investigation.

We've been to the moon, and sent probes to Mars, Venus, and a number other bodies where we've found no life, or signs of life other than hopefuls, but, nothing to the extent of men-from-Mars, or any similar that may very well have occupied the minds of the then ignorant researchers and investigators of the day as a possibility.

The universe is vast, and though there very well may be intelligent life somewhere else in the universe, we've now zero indication of any means for any other intelligence to come visiting other than proposed warp drive (possible, but unproven), Einstein-Rosen Bridges (yet unproven), or some other highly speculative extremely exotic Science fiction imagining.
We've no confirming evidence travel over the distances necessary is possible, at least not in the sense of being economically, or biologically practical.
(please don't confused the term "economically" with anything so terrestrial as money)

Thus, we have, "cute little ideas like aliens".

Keeping perspective in proper UNKNOWN is the most objective and sensible approach, unless there's confirming evidence indicating a plausible direction for hypothesis and pursuit of inquiry.

reply to post by Druscilla


Druscilla, here's a single, simple question for you:
Do you think the topic of UFOs has been objectively and competently studied by mainstream science?

If you say yes, then we need to discuss the Condon Report, at a minimum. (And I'd be happy to.)

If you say no, then ... what's the BASIS of your apparent belief that there can be nothing 'alien' behind some portion the phenomenon?

(Since the alien thing is silly to you, I'm assuming you think it's basically impossible, not just that it's simply unproven.)

Most people find it hard to defend a belief WRT a given topic if not familiar with its history. And you've indicated, here and in other threads, that you don't own a single UFO book, that you're not familiar with or interested in the "old" UFO material you're here denying, and so on. I find your willing ignorance in this area to be a little odd, given that 'belief without evidence and understanding' is the very thing you chastise others for here in these forums.

Facts are facts and history is history, and neither of those, upon close examination, support your apparent conclusion that the ETH is silly. It is an unproven hypothesis, sure, but in what other context does 'unproven' mean there's 'no evidence in support of'? I can't think of any.

Also, I think you misunderstood something -- I was simply saying that you don't get to redefine how 'unidentified' or 'unknown' have been used in the official UFO history. The various actors have explained how they've used the terms. Make yourself aware of such information, or ignore it; it doesn't really affect me, but I do see you often reminding others that "knowledge is power".

So, back to the top .... I've asked you one question. It's a tough one, and I suppose I don't really expect a reply from you. I've noticed you tend to disappear when these kinds of things come up. Still, perhaps even having to consider how you'd reply might highlight for you (or anyone holding similar views) the fundamental problems with that position. ???

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets


To apply objectively to a phenomenon that is almost entirely subjective would seen difficult if not impossible. It's a perceptual phenomenon studied by people who don't understand how people perceive. A psychological phenomenon studied by people who don't understand the complexities of psychology. So if someone "sees" a metallic object with all kinds of geometric patterns while they are under a lot of stress, then that is what it must be! At the crux of every case is someone's subjective perception.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Druscilla, here's a single, simple question for you:
Do you think the topic of UFOs has been objectively and competently studied by mainstream science?

...

If you say no, then ... what's the BASIS of your apparent belief that there can be nothing 'alien' behind some portion the phenomenon?

(Since the alien thing is silly to you, I'm assuming you think it's basically impossible, not just that it's simply unproven.)

No, I don't think Mainstream Science, of any era, has studied the topic of UFOs to any real degree of competence.

Further, I don't think main-stream science CAN study the phenomenon to any degree of competence, not due to lack of facility, or lack of objectivity, but due to lack of reliable unambiguous data.

Sure, there's data applicable to the phenomenon, but, the data applicable is often misleadingly spurious, non-uniform, unpredictable, and irreplicable among many qualities not least of which being there's nothing to poke at, or reliably observe.

The phenomenon remains thus a phenomenon, id est; UNKNOWN.

You misconstrue the label association of "silly" regarding aliens. It's not the idea of aliens that are silly or cute. It's not even anything to do with statistical probabilities based on what we think we know about the universe.

It's the utter lack of objectivity in pursuing such a cute little idea without confirming data to indicate any such thing is even a possibility that's silly.

I asked before, and again; Where's the unambiguous confirming data that indicates such a possibility that can't be attributed to any other possible (even unknown) phenomenon that gives cause for ETH in the first place?

if you're going to go hunting for the dog that pooped in your yard, where's the poop?
Rumors, speculation, and stories are mostly inadmissible other than for entertainment purposes.
If there is no poop, then, it doesn't say there isn't a dog. It does, however, say, looking for a dog when there is no poop is silly.

If you want to get into word of mouth anecdotes, eye witness reports, stories, abduction accounts, and all the human-factor data, that data set has been reliably and predictably replicated in the lab with subjects where anyone can successfully be given "space alien abduction/contact" experiences.

Is there a chance that some maybe, possibly, hopefully even just one of the space alien abduction/encounters is not entirely an internally personally subjective psychological experience?
Maybe?
Sure, but, there's yet any data to indicate anything of that sort.
If you've any unambiguous reliably replicable data, there's many an inquiring mind that would love to see such confirming and confirmable data.
Until then, aliens, at least on the human contact side, has a prodigiously weighty sampling of data indicating internally subjective personal experiences resulting from entirely psychological processes.

In that respect 'aliens' exist without the requirement for UFOs.
So far, UFOs exist soundly as a phenomenon, as an unknown, quite readily independent their own without the requirement for aliens.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

To apply objectively to a phenomenon that is almost entirely subjective would seen difficult if not impossible. It's a perceptual phenomenon studied by people who don't understand how people perceive. A psychological phenomenon studied by people who don't understand the complexities of psychology. So if someone "sees" a metallic object with all kinds of geometric patterns while they are under a lot of stress, then that is what it must be! At the crux of every case is someone's subjective perception.

Well, hold on a second. You need to first provide sufficient evidence that this entire phenomenon is subjective. That's a pretty hefty conclusion that you need to present a case for.

And I can already tell you that it's going to run into quite possibly insurmountable problems for a number of reasons.

The first is that with the multiple radar / air visual cases, the 'subjective' hypothesis has been ruled out - multiple corroborating radars aren't 'misperceiving' what the pilot is also reporting. The second is that the misperception tack is highly questionable with trace evidence cases, with cases involving physiological effects, or cases involving multiple witnesses, or any combination thereof.

Now, any theory worth it's salt will be able to easily explain such cases, as they represent a (the most?) significant characteristic of a good number of worthwhile UFO cases. In fact, it should be an absolute prerequisite that any candidate theory - at the very least - be able to elegantly explain these cases.

Yet the misperception argument is weakest with just those very cases! And the reason the misperception argument is weakest in those cases is for the simple fact that it presupposes that no physical, objective craft are involved. So whatever the theory that finally corresponds with the reality of this phenomenon eventually looks like, it's going to have to be based on the physical reality of these objects.

So in short, I don't really think that looking at this phenomenon in terms of perception (at least in the way you're implying) has much promise. And I do have a good familiarity with at least visual perception, going back to seminars I took in grad school, one of which was taught by one of the world's leading visual perception scholars, who was actually my primary advisor. I actually love the subject of perception in general. I just don't think it applies here. And I think the same can be said for the psychological hypothesis in general.

I think what we're dealing with is real, objective, novel, in a sense unprecedented, and that it will take a kind of Copernican shift to make complete sense of it.

Thanks for this thread. The thread topic speaks for itself. The logic of a ufo skeptic. And this thread houses many viewpoints of such logic

reply to post by Brighter


Ultimately, everything is subjective. Ultimately everything is perception. Weather or not these are natural phenomenon or actual aliens, you still have to contend with someone's subjective perception. In the cases where you have radar returns, you have confirmation that something is there unless there is some way to explain these as false returns. The complexity of perception is daunting and I defer to the experts in that field. I have yet to come across any expert that can adequately explain any of this either way.

I offer no theory but I question the conclusion that these are other worldly things. So I am not trying to prove or disprove anything. To say someone "hallucinated" what they saw is impossible to prove and anyone who would conclude that without anything to back that up should not be taken seriously either. But people do misperceive and do hallucinate and do have a complex psychology and so on. Im not saying that's what this is but that is what we have to go on. I don't fault anyone who looks at these "good" cases and concludes for themselves that these are "crafts" from other worlds or whatever. I do object to the discouragement of being able to examine this phenomenon for myself as I see fit.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Yeee man this isn't the 50s. People arn't sitting at their radios waiting to dismiss the latest report of alien contact.

So many videos of ufos, with ufo skeptics agreeing that many are fake. Some are real but misinterprited, and others are just *unexplained* which is exactly what they are. UFOs. and they are far in the sky.
There are def aliens on this planet and outside of it, so sending a couple blips back is kinda mediocre unless they start blipping mores code for free energy. I don't have pictures i can't afford an HD camera atm. But even if i had one i would only use it for ufos, if i ever saw a creature (again) i would drop the camera. Intelligent life would not take to kindly to such disobedience. If i was one i wouldn't Plus i don't like getting violently abducted so its also another reason why i avoid it lol.

But people sitting at home in their cities who never see anything need to take a trip to the country/forest side. Get ur own experiences instead of bashing on others for proof. Many people on here are quacks. But like the ufo videos there are some legit people that exist. Keep ur chins up. And i liked your thought out post btw.

Originally posted by Druscilla

After how many decades of pursuing that cute little idea of aliens has there been any confirming non-ambiguous data to indicate aliens that couldn't also be applicable to any other reasonably UNKNOWN possibly even natural phenomenon?

Just speaking in terms of UFOs, I notice you always defer to some imaginary future state of science (psychology, physics, atmospheric science, etc.), in the following sense: "Well, one day we could find a scientific explanation that explains these away as natural phenomena, that doesn't involve having to posit any 'intelligent control'".

But there is no evidence to support such a belief, and it's essentially wishful thinking. Take psychology for example. How would it be possible - without fundamentally redefining the entire subject of psychology - for a psychological principle to explain how multiple witnesses see something that leaves physical trace evidence? You'd have to conveniently create the most absurd psychological phenomenon, involving nothing short of supernatural, super-human powers, that enables the subconscious collective imaginations of a group of humans to instantaneously materialize enormous physical objects, and then have them fly around while getting tracked on radar. If you find that more plausible than the non-superhuman-mental-powers version of that story, well then I think we'll just have to disagree.

And I know you're prone to such explanations. I recall from another thread that your best explanation for certain UFOs was their actually being flying wormholes. And just to let you know, as 'cute' an idea as wormholes are, science has zero observational evidence for the existence of wormholes, let alone flying wormholes within our own atmosphere with blinking lights that somehow reflect radar. In other words, you'd prefer a theory with zero observational basis to a theory with more than plenty of observational evidence (involving the physical existence of these craft). By your own stated standards of evidence, you're being irrational.

One could easily respond to similar proposals of explaining UFOs in terms of ball lightning or the piezoelectric effect. Neither of these phenomena can explain the evidence for UFOs in any reasonable fashion. The most obvious problem is that there is no evidence that either of these natural phenomena could explain the often highly detailed visual descriptions of these objects. What these people are often describing are clearly not examples of ball lightning, or 'earth lights'. Furthermore, there is zero evidence that either 'earth lights' or ball lightning can be tracked on radar, and as far as I know, lightning cannot. And even if it could, I'm sure it wouldn't show up on radar displaying properties consistent with a craft traveling within the speeds that they do. And there is also no evidence that 'earth lights' or ball lightning can be dull in color with a clearly defined outer structure that is indistinguishable from a constructed or manufactured object. To assume so is speculation, pure and simple.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person that for some reason consistently fails to realize that sometimes the best explanation is the simplest one. Instead of extremely exotic (impossible?) future psychological phenomenon, or some extremely exotic future discovery in physics (flying wormholes), theories for which we have zero evidence for, isn't the most simple explanation that these are just physical craft, a theory for which there is plenty of evidence?

Originally posted by Brighter

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person that for some reason consistently fails to realize that sometimes the best explanation is the simplest one. Instead of extremely exotic...

Same could be said of you.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Brighter

 

Ultimately, everything is subjective. Ultimately everything is perception. Weather or not these are natural phenomenon or actual aliens, you still have to contend with someone's subjective perception. In the cases where you have radar returns, you have confirmation that something is there unless there is some way to explain these as false returns. The complexity of perception is daunting and I defer to the experts in that field. I have yet to come across any expert that can adequately explain any of this either way.

I offer no theory but I question the conclusion that these are other worldly things. So I am not trying to prove or disprove anything. To say someone "hallucinated" what they saw is impossible to prove and anyone who would conclude that without anything to back that up should not be taken seriously either. But people do misperceive and do hallucinate and do have a complex psychology and so on. Im not saying that's what this is but that is what we have to go on. I don't fault anyone who looks at these "good" cases and concludes for themselves that these are "crafts" from other worlds or whatever. I do object to the discouragement of being able to examine this phenomenon for myself as I see fit.

I pretty much agree with most of what you're saying here.

I also sometimes question the idea that these are otherworldly things, but I think that's kind of jumping the gun. I am, however, absolutely convinced that many of these sightings represent the perception of real, objective craft. Who or what is controlling them is something I can't say with as much certainty.

I think you should continue to study the phenomenon in terms of psychology if you like. I would just be honest in terms of admitting when certain cases can be reasonably determined to be outside the domain of psychology. The desire to force-fit an explanation into one's preferred explanatory framework can be alluring.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by Brighter

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person that for some reason consistently fails to realize that sometimes the best explanation is the simplest one. Instead of extremely exotic...

Same could be said of you.

By all means, let's hear your reasonable, naturalistic explanation for the entirety of the UFO phenomenon. And understand that such an explanation should be able to elegantly and easily explain all facets - descriptive and physical - of the phenomenon. That's simply what a good theory does.

Originally posted by Brighter

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by Brighter

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person that for some reason consistently fails to realize that sometimes the best explanation is the simplest one. Instead of extremely exotic...

Same could be said of you.

By all means, let's hear your reasonable, naturalistic explanation for the entirety of the UFO phenomenon. And understand that such an explanation should be able to elegantly and easily explain all facets - descriptive and physical - of the phenomenon. That's simply what a good theory does.

You honestly believe there to be a singular, all-encompassing explanation for such a diverse phenomenon?



I'm beginning to see the problem here.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by Brighter

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by Brighter

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person that for some reason consistently fails to realize that sometimes the best explanation is the simplest one. Instead of extremely exotic...

Same could be said of you.

By all means, let's hear your reasonable, naturalistic explanation for the entirety of the UFO phenomenon. And understand that such an explanation should be able to elegantly and easily explain all facets - descriptive and physical - of the phenomenon. That's simply what a good theory does.

You honestly believe there to be a singular, all-encompassing explanation for such a diverse phenomenon?



I'm beginning to see the problem here.

Well let's just begin with the stronger UFO cases, for example the Japan Airlines 1628 case, or the majority of the cases classified as 'Unknown' according to the U.S. Air Force.

What's your naturalistic explanation that accounts for the majority of those?

In other words, what's your naturalistic explanation that accounts more elegantly for this data than the simple explanation that what they are seeing are actually physical, structured craft?

Originally posted by Brighter

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by Brighter

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by Brighter

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person that for some reason consistently fails to realize that sometimes the best explanation is the simplest one. Instead of extremely exotic...

Same could be said of you.

By all means, let's hear your reasonable, naturalistic explanation for the entirety of the UFO phenomenon. And understand that such an explanation should be able to elegantly and easily explain all facets - descriptive and physical - of the phenomenon.

You honestly believe there to be a singular, all-encompassing explanation for such a diverse phenomenon?



I'm beginning to see the problem here.

Well let's just begin with the stronger UFO cases, for example the Japan Airlines 1628 case, or the majority of the cases classified as 'Unknown' according to the U.S. Air Force.

What's your naturalistic explanation that accounts for the majority of those?

In other words, what's your naturalistic explanation that accounts more elegantly for this data than the simple explanation that what they are seeing are actually physical, structured craft?

I've got a better idea - let's stick to what you actually just said and my subsequent response.

"By all means, let's hear your reasonable, naturalistic explanation for the entirety of the UFO phenomenon. And understand that such an explanation should be able to elegantly and easily explain all facets - descriptive and physical - of the phenomenon."

I am neither inclined nor obligated to fabricate an explanation to meet your personal, arbitrary, and fallacious parameters.

Again I ask: Do you honestly believe there to be a singular, all-encompassing explanation for such a diverse phenomenon?