The Decline of Ufology: Decades of Fraud, Frustration and Failure?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

The problem isn't with people like Hynek and Friedman, it's with everyone else. I'm sure you've noticed how many of the witness testimonies that come from credible sources (mainly government and military) only occur after they've retired. Maybe it's just my incorrect perception, though. Maybe everyone's actually really accepting if you say you've seen a UFO and won't immediately label you as crazy, or label you as crazy if you say that "No, it wasn't swamp gas reflecting off of Venus."
And the fact that we don't have an explanation doesn't make you think more should be done to investigate the phenomena? Once again, I'm not saying aliens, but whatever it is that's causing some of these events implies a fundamental lack of knowledge on our part.

Strictly speaking, no evidence is irrefutable. I could refute gravity, for instance, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. There are people out there who'll be sticking their fingers into their ears singing "lalalala" until a UFO destroys their house.
I understand the demand for 'physical' evidence but I just can't see it happening. The closest things I can think of off the top of my head are genuine crop circles (whose proponents are dismissed as loons) and angel hair, which I don't now too much about.

Gravity is a natural law which governs the falling of UFOs onto houses.

Crop circle proponents are dismissed because they rely solely on the pseudoscientific ramblings of loons to support their personal beliefs.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
There are people out there who'll be sticking their fingers into their ears singing "lalalala" until a UFO destroys their house.

Except no UFO has ever destroyed anyone's house. Or left any physical evidence remotely close to damage of that nature. It's not that all people wondering about evidence don't want to hear it. Some of us are just wondering why there isn't any significant evidence after all this time.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

The problem isn't with people like Hynek and Friedman, it's with everyone else. I'm sure you've noticed how many of the witness testimonies that come from credible sources (mainly government and military) only occur after they've retired. Maybe it's just my incorrect perception, though. Maybe everyone's actually really accepting if you say you've seen a UFO and won't immediately label you as crazy, or label you as crazy if you say that "No, it wasn't swamp gas reflecting off of Venus."

What's the relevance with them only coming forward after they retire? They ultimately tell the same story as they would when the event happened. Evidence isn't being withheld because of the fear of losing their job. Hynek or Friedman may investigate a claim like this and come to an opinion and belief that the story is true and alien. That doesn't make it anymore of a fact. Neither does a witnesses position of authority. It's still an unresolved question. I don't think many question witnesses seeing objects they can't identify, it's the direct connection to alien that's the issue. Is it a possibility? Sure.. Can it be argued as a fact? No.

And the fact that we don't have an explanation doesn't make you think more should be done to investigate the phenomena?

I'm making the point that there have been people that have taken a serious scientific look into UFOs and aliens for decades. This is an on-going effort to this day. As far as investigating UFOs, if we had every scientist on the job studying the phenomena, would there be a definitive answer? I doubt it. With all of the physical claims over the years and if this was factually happening, evidence would most likely come from an average citizen and scientific intervention after they provide that evidence. It hasn't happened.

There are people out there who'll be sticking their fingers into their ears singing "lalalala" until a UFO destroys their house.

This is an example of yet another go-to argument by those who believe. Our requirements are way too high and unattainable. It's those with the thousands of claims of on-Earth interactions and abductions with alien beings that have set themselves up for this evidence. Irrefutable evidence of aliens piloting UFOs in the sky? That would be a difficult and unreasonable request. Evidence of alien life crashing their spacecraft on Earth, evidence of alien life landing their spacecraft in a field, evidence of alien life abducting humans performing various medical experiments are not unreasonable requests. For these physical occurrences, physical evidence is expected.

I understand the demand for 'physical' evidence but I just can't see it happening. The closest things I can think of off the top of my head are genuine crop circles (whose proponents are dismissed as loons) and angel hair, which I don't now too much about.

I believe crop circles are probably one of the weakest forms of evidence for alien involvement. These can be and are created by humans.

a reply to: draknoir2

Gravity is a natural law which governs the falling of UFOs onto houses.

Crop circle proponents are dismissed because they rely solely on the pseudoscientific ramblings of loons to support their personal beliefs.

But it's not irrefutable. The phenomenon (gravity in this case) exists, like UFOs, but the cause of it? The evidence isn't absolute, unless there's something I'm unaware of. Actually, do we even properly understand gravity yet?

See, that's the problem. "These guys are loons, ignore them." Please elaborate on the pseudoscientific ramblings. If they're wrong, they're wrong. Don't dismiss them with a wave of thine hand.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

What's the relevance with them only coming forward after they retire? They ultimately tell the same story as they would when the event happened. Evidence isn't being withheld because of the fear of losing their job. Hynek or Friedman may investigate a claim like this and come to an opinion and belief that the story is true and alien. That doesn't make it anymore of a fact. Neither does a witnesses position of authority. It's still an unresolved question. I don't think many question witnesses seeing objects they can't identify, it's the direct connection to alien that's the issue. Is it a possibility? Sure.. Can it be argued as a fact? No.

The relevance is that there's a shame culture around the subject that ultimately makes it harder to study than it should be, as witnesses and information on events don't come forward until years and years after they actually occurred. Surely you can see the logic in that?
Of course the witness's position of authority doesn't make it a fact, no more than your existence is a fact, but it's relevant. The President of the United State's testimony would be considered more trustworthy than a taxi driver's, and certainly a lot more than mine.
Why is it the direct connection to aliens that's an issue? Because that's taboo? The witnesses can believe whatever they want as long as they give factual information. A lot of the time, they've come to the "aliens" conclusion because that's what the information seems to line up with, in their view.

I'm making the point that there have been people that have taken a serious scientific look into UFOs and aliens for decades. This is an on-going effort to this day. As far as investigating UFOs, if we had every scientist on the job studying the phenomena, would there be a definitive answer? I doubt it. With all of the physical claims over the years and if this was factually happening, evidence would most likely come from an average citizen and scientific intervention after they provide that evidence. It hasn't happened.

Point accepted, then. Maybe I was misinformed. It just seems to me that there's... What, maybe three trusted people investigating this? Four? Am I missing a lot of people?
You think there'd be at least twenty worldwide.
Nothing has come forward to our knowledge, that is. Even if physical evidence existed there wouldn't be much of it, though I'm not arguing it does exist and has been covered up. I'm merely saying that's a possibility.

This is an example of yet another go-to argument by those who believe. Our requirements are way too high and unattainable. It's those with the thousands of claims of on-Earth interactions and abductions with alien beings that have set themselves up for this evidence. Irrefutable evidence of aliens piloting UFOs in the sky? That would be a difficult and unreasonable request. Evidence of alien life crashing their spacecraft on Earth, evidence of alien life landing their spacecraft in a field, evidence of alien life abducting humans performing various medical experiments are not unreasonable requests. For these physical occurrences, physical evidence is expected.

I'm not saying your requirements are way too high. I am saying they're in all likelihood unattainable. Some people's probably are, though.
Yeah, they can go dig their graves or whatever. I'm just arguing for unbiased study of UFO phenomena, since we're either lacking a fundamental part of our laws of reality, or it's aleehnz. Maybe the government is hiding tech, or maybe it's really just swamp gas. My personal viewpoint aside, all the stigma irritates me because it hampers the truth, if indirectly.

I believe crop circles are probably one of the weakest forms of evidence for alien involvement. These can be and are created by humans.

Eh, that's your prerogative. I personally don't really think they're all that related, but they're still weird.
Lightning can be and has been created by humans. Does that mean it doesn't exist in nature?
At least we get some really cool artwork.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

False equivalence. Gravity can be predicted mathematically and proven physically with 100% repeatability. It is a singular physical law.

This is why so far it is irrefutable.

"UFO" is a broad term that includes everything from hypothetical Alien craft to errant party balloons. There is no singular law governing them to be refuted. Each case is unique. This is a common (fallacious) argument here - that there must be a single explanation that best fits all UFOs... ETH.

And as far as the loons go, we're talking one loon propped up by people with an agenda and passed off as a credible expert to true believers who in turn exclusively reference his claims. The New Agers wandering around a known man made crop circle experiencing their vibrations and frequencies are another matter.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I think widely seen cases like the Phoenix lights and the Belgium wave should have taught us there is unrealistic expectation for evidence. Whatever happened in those cases, I think most of us are surprised there isnt more photo evidence. And these are the exceptional cases, most dont have anywhere close to the number of witnesses.

Maybe one day we will get the kind of evidence they did for the giant squid, but how long did that take? and how many already accepted it existence based on the anecdotal evidence?

Until we get spoon fed some high rez clips of UFOs, were going to have to reason the best we can with the evidence on hand. Just look at them go into the minutia on some of Kevin Randles blog
link1
link2

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

The relevance is that there's a shame culture around the subject that ultimately makes it harder to study than it should be, as witnesses and information on events don't come forward until years and years after they actually occurred. Surely you can see the logic in that?

There is a "shame culture" that surrounds the subject. However, what more can be gleaned from a story told at the time, that can't years after the fact? Unless there's some type of evidence suppressed, it's still only a story told by a witness no matter if it was told in 1960 or 2015.

Of course the witness's position of authority doesn't make it a fact, no more than your existence is a fact, but it's relevant. The President of the United State's testimony would be considered more trustworthy than a taxi driver's, and certainly a lot more than mine.

The President of the United States is subject to misidentification just as anyone else. Whether he's president or a man off the street carries no more weight if what is seen can't be identified. It still remains unidentified. As I said, the existence of objects that can't be identified isn't the issue.

Why is it the direct connection to aliens that's an issue? Because that's taboo? The witnesses can believe whatever they want as long as they give factual information. A lot of the time, they've come to the "aliens" conclusion because that's what the information seems to line up with, in their view.

It's an issue with people that speak with conviction that aliens are on Earth while never providing an ounce of evidence. We're shuffled off to a biased UFO website for "convincing evidence." A belief is turned into a basis for what's believed to be realistic arguments on this forum. I've seen so many members speak in favor of intelligent alien life on Earth and argue the point like it's a fact. It may be a fact in their world, it doesn't make it so in anyone else's. There's also a silly game played by some that hint they have these facts, but never reveal them.

I'm not saying your requirements are way too high. I am saying they're in all likelihood unattainable. Some people's probably are, though.
Yeah, they can go dig their graves or whatever. I'm just arguing for unbiased study of UFO phenomena, since we're either lacking a fundamental part of our laws of reality, or it's aleehnz. Maybe the government is hiding tech, or maybe it's really just swamp gas. My personal viewpoint aside, all the stigma irritates me because it hampers the truth, if indirectly.

A possibility isn't a fact and shouldn't be treated as one. An unbiased eye, while open minded, would still acknowledge there has not been overwhelming evidence of alien beings on Earth. And something as incredible as an alien species visiting Earth shouldn't be accepted without absolute evidence. Kinda or possibly could be alien is not enough.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

A possibility isn't a fact and shouldn't be treated as one. An unbiased eye, while open minded, would still acknowledge there has not been overwhelming evidence of alien beings on Earth. And something as incredible as an alien species visiting Earth shouldn't be accepted without absolute evidence. Kinda or possibly could be alien is not enough.

Actually, an unbiased eye could draw no other conclusion than aliens have indeed come to Earth. An unbiased eye would also see that their actions are clandestine, and that they are engaged in an operation that is wide-spread and ongoing.

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

A possibility isn't a fact and shouldn't be treated as one. An unbiased eye, while open minded, would still acknowledge there has not been overwhelming evidence of alien beings on Earth. And something as incredible as an alien species visiting Earth shouldn't be accepted without absolute evidence. Kinda or possibly could be alien is not enough.

Actually, an unbiased eye could draw no other conclusion than aliens have indeed come to Earth. An unbiased eye would also see that their actions are clandestine, and that they are engaged in an operation that is wide-spread and ongoing.

You're breaking character scud... Err, skeptic.

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

A possibility isn't a fact and shouldn't be treated as one. An unbiased eye, while open minded, would still acknowledge there has not been overwhelming evidence of alien beings on Earth. And something as incredible as an alien species visiting Earth shouldn't be accepted without absolute evidence. Kinda or possibly could be alien is not enough.

Actually, an unbiased eye could draw no other conclusion than aliens have indeed come to Earth. An unbiased eye would also see that their actions are clandestine, and that they are engaged in an operation that is wide-spread and ongoing.

Who decides what is unbiased? You?

I used to believe a lot of the tales about Ufos. Roswell, the Phoenix lights, that greys were abducting people on a mass scale, at one point I swallowed the mythology hook, line, and sinker. After a few years I have completely reappraised what I believe to be true, yet at one point I could have been considered a true believer. These days I am a lot more skeptical, but I do not deny there may be a phenomena which has not yet been identified. Whatever that may be, remains to be seen, but the amount of ridiculous tales propagated does nothing to help, and causes Ufology to be a laughing stock. Clowns like Greer with his Atacama alien (amongst other rubbish this charlatan pushes forth), the farce that was the Roswell slides, and that joker whose name I forget who videos alleged 'aliens' at his window (and was charged with possessing child porn I believe) only adds fuel to the fire.

An unbiased eye weighs up the evidence and does not go on tales and belief alone (cue the 'I know aliens have been here because I know' catchphrase).

a reply to: draknoir2

I guess I'll accept that because you're right, though I feel you either ignored or misunderstood what I was trying to say.

"UFO" is a broad term that includes everything from hypothetical Alien craft to errant party balloons. There is no singular law governing them to be refuted. Each case is unique. This is a common (fallacious) argument here - that there must be a single explanation that best fits all UFOs... ETH.

Yes, I agree you. Did I accidentally say or imply that all UFOs were caused by extraterrestrials? I (personally) believe that some exhibit characteristics that would be expected to have been observed with that condition, but it would actually be ridiculous for all sightings to be.

And as far as the loons go, we're talking one loon propped up by people with an agenda and passed off as a credible expert to true believers who in turn exclusively reference his claims. The New Agers wandering around a known man made crop circle experiencing their vibrations and frequencies are another matter.

You haven't given me:
Name
Hypothesis/explanation
Evidence for/against
Why it's wrong

I'm not really familiar with crop circles, so I'll need your help here as to why all these things are incorrect.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

I don't think high-rez clips will be enough. We'll need actual, live aliens, or fully intact and functional spacecraft.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

There is a "shame culture" that surrounds the subject. However, what more can be gleaned from a story told at the time, that can't years after the fact? Unless there's some type of evidence suppressed, it's still only a story told by a witness no matter if it was told in 1960 or 2015.

Ignoring the small chance of suppressed evidence because that would only exist in the supreme minority of cases if at all, the main benefits would be avoiding memory deterioration and being able to verify it more easily.

The President of the United States is subject to misidentification just as anyone else. Whether he's president or a man off the street carries no more weight if what is seen can't be identified. It still remains unidentified. As I said, the existence of objects that can't be identified isn't the issue.

Right, but the president's story would be more trusted. People wouldn't expect them to embellish it intentionally like a taxi driver might.

It's an issue with people that speak with conviction that aliens are on Earth while never providing an ounce of evidence. We're shuffled off to a biased UFO website for "convincing evidence." A belief is turned into a basis for what's believed to be realistic arguments on this forum. I've seen so many members speak in favor of intelligent alien life on Earth and argue the point like it's a fact. It may be a fact in their world, it doesn't make it so in anyone else's. There's also a silly game played by some that hint they have these facts, but never reveal them.

And yet people still humor the religious. You may want to reword one of your statements, though. While there may not be alien corpses, spacecraft, or physical artifacts there is most certainly more than an "ounce" of evidence. Leave the hoaxers and the fakers to their own game, some people just want the unbiased, reliable truth.

A possibility isn't a fact and shouldn't be treated as one. An unbiased eye, while open minded, would still acknowledge there has not been overwhelming evidence of alien beings on Earth. And something as incredible as an alien species visiting Earth shouldn't be accepted without absolute evidence. Kinda or possibly could be alien is not enough.

If there was overwhelming evidence then this discussion wouldn't exist. It shouldn't be accepted without 'overwhelming' evidence, not 'absolute'. Absolute evidence doesn't exist anywhere, for anything. That's a different discussion topic though, and ultimately pointless.
This issue, as I see it, is that we're never going to get overwhelming evidence as long as there are extremely powerful people who stand to benefit from that. Overwhelming evidence will only come in the form of insanely unlikely physical artifacts like a functioning spacecraft or something like a live alien, broadcast live on international TV, or a direct admission from a major world power that they have confirmed the existence of aliens. What would it take, in your mind? What constitutes overwhelming evidence?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: draknoir2
This issue, as I see it, is that we're never going to get overwhelming evidence as long as there are extremely powerful people who stand to benefit from that.
Overwhelming evidence will only come in the form of insanely unlikely physical artifacts like a functioning spacecraft or something like a live alien, broadcast live on international TV, or a direct admission from a major world power that they have confirmed the existence of aliens. What would it take, in your mind? What constitutes overwhelming evidence?

Ah, the classic UFO believer cop-out. Powerful people are hiding the "truth" about aliens, because that is what they do...

Any physical evidence that can be poked at in a lab, and shown that it is not natural or human made, should do the job. Yes, this would dismiss evidence that is indistinguishable from natural or human made stuff, but that is something you have to live with.

How about dropping the extrarterestrial bias and looking at UFOs as what they are, unidentified/unkonwn phenomena?

Aint gonna happen. Why? Entertainment. ET stories sell better!

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I understood that you weren't making the ETH connection. I was just stating that it's a common argument here at ATS made by otherwise intelligent people. Seems the smartest guys here, on both sides, are the most stubborn.

If any UFO has ever been explained then it's proof of more than one possible explanation (ETH), and a great many have. So far none have been proven to be alien craft - the most that can be said is that some have yet to be explained. Lack of an explanation is not evidence of ETH to any degree, strong, weak, or absolute.

a reply to: moebius

Ah, the classic UFO believer cop-out. Powerful people are hiding the "truth" about aliens, because that is what they do...

Lol...Ah, the classic denier cop out. I especially love the way you put quotations around the word "truth" about aliens. As if the was no such thing as the truth, right? As if nobody knows anything more than you do about aliens, right? Too funny.

The more I read these posts, the more I realize how the entire situation happened so smoothly and efficiently. Pomposity, fear, and foolishness are a bad mix.

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
Pomposity, fear, and foolishness are a bad mix.

Just speaking for myself I resent the constant accusation of "fear."

I used to believe in the ETH. I was really hoping we would make contact with aliens visiting the earth . I still think that would be very exciting.

It's just that after all these years I don't see real evidence this is happening and I additionally see a lot of delusion and fakery.

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone

Pomposity, fear, and foolishness are a bad mix.

So true, and it shines through no matter how many times one changes their screen name.

a reply to: moebius

Ah, the classic UFO believer cop-out. Powerful people are hiding the "truth" about aliens, because that is what they do...

UFO cover up is well documented, it doesnt prove what they are, but the infamous swamp gas explanation Hynek gave is just one of many.

One wouldnt really expect a high tech craft doing some recon would leave much evidence, perhaps all we will ever get is reports like in the Belgium wave.

a reply to: mirageman

The Decline of Ufology: Decades of Fraud, Frustration and Failure?

Just my personal viewpoint...

There's a lot more going on with this planet and our species than we are allowed to even consider.
Taking into consideration the size of the universe and our limited knowledge of it... to this point, anyway, our puny little civilization is simply like a nursery packed with rugrats peering out windows and giving names to everything they see before then awarding themselves with expertise.

Just a little over a century back, powered, heavier-than-air-flight was... impossible.
A century before that, steam-power was madness. Accelerating over 45 mph would see our skin fly from our bones!
Then there was the days when the earth was flat...

Imagine what we might know, if we survive, a century from now.
Imagine how we'll look back upon our time... with a grin and a guffaw.

Ufology will be part of this. Lights in the sky may be aliens or passing robots... or even space carp!
Toss out a line! Let's see what we can get for dinner!

We just don't know.

Unfortunately, we live in an age when we think we know... everything.

...

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
And yet people still humor the religious.

And religion is also based on belief and faith in people that tell stories. Especially by those that hold high positions in church that tell tales of god speaking directly to them. Healing and miracles are used as physical evidence of god. Pilgrimages by thousands to sites that witnesses claim the Virgin Mary appeared. Millions pray to an unseen force hoping for results or answers. You have more people believing in a god than believe in ET visiting Earth. The difference is god is said to be an invisible being, no real way to prove "its" existence. Extraterrestrials are said to be physical entities with physical craft and evidence should be reflecting that.

You may want to reword one of your statements, though. While there may not be alien corpses, spacecraft, or physical artifacts there is most certainly more than an "ounce" of evidence. Leave the hoaxers and the fakers to their own game, some people just want the unbiased, reliable truth.

Lead us to your version of "more than an ounce of evidence" that you believe shows aliens are here as a fact.

This issue, as I see it, is that we're never going to get overwhelming evidence as long as there are extremely powerful people who stand to benefit from that.

I understand believers have no choice but to fabricate excuses like this because you need something to explain away the lack of overwhelming evidence. But it's still funny that you can write it off so simply in your mind.

Overwhelming evidence will only come in the form of insanely unlikely physical artifacts like a functioning spacecraft or something like a live alien, broadcast live on international TV, or a direct admission from a major world power that they have confirmed the existence of aliens. What would it take, in your mind? What constitutes overwhelming evidence?

You're again swinging the pendulum way over to the ridiculous side to try and make your point- Only a functioning spacecraft or live alien will convince us. It's been discussed on this forum what would constitute overwhelming evidence. JadeStars post HERE is a great start. I say again as I have ad nauseam, with these physical encounters, anything tangible that can be scientifically and thoroughly examined by independent sources other than UFO/alien proponents with their own "experts." No need for an entire functioning spacecraft or a live alien. That's just more believer nonsense.

...or a direct admission from a major world power that they have confirmed the existence of aliens.

That again would be taking someone's word without evidence. Evidence is needed.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone

Pomposity, fear, and foolishness are a bad mix.

So true, and it shines through no matter how many times one changes their screen name.

Ahhhh... I should be paying attention more. It's like cutting the tail off a salamander. I think it's happening more than once in this thread. I recognize another distinct familiar whiff.