Critical Thinking and the UFO Hypothesis I: Confusing the Issues

Originally posted by schuyler
A fairly elementary point suitable for UFO 101. Hundreds of people have made the same point for years on this site, albeit with fewer words. Indeed, one could claim your entire post is a straw man argument in itself. You have to claim skeptics assume aliens before you can make your argument. That's an assumption and you provide no evidence, no examples to support your case.

In fact, I can't say I know of anyone who has used this convoluted logic to debunk UFOs. There are plenty of skeptics who will say, "That's not a UFO." and suggest alternatives. In that kind of assertion, aliens aren't even brought up. And plenty of people must point out that "UFOs don't imply aliens," rather the opposite of your assertion. In other words, there may be UFOs that have nothing to do with aliens. That's a perfectly reasonable assertion without discounting the possibility that UFOs MIGHT be associated with aliens.

Your argument doesn't have much merit at this stage. I think you need to examine what it is you are trying to claim here.

I'd take issue with that given the acceptance of "Earthlights" via triboluminescence proved that, the sceptics of the 1940s through to the 70s were absolutely wrong in their assertion that all UFO sightings could be put down to "misidentification or the mental state, at the given time" of the witness. it is now pretty widely accepted as a scientific fact that, where there are fault lines and there is movement of the said fault lines, that there are often commensurate "UFO" sightings that seem, at first glance, to exhibit the classic signs of an unknown object under some form of "control".

Therefore, the basic tenet of the sceptical stance prior to the late 1970s was that "There is absolutely nothing to see here outside of misidentified already known phenomena or, only the weak minded and gullible see UFOs". That stance was wholly wrong and it's an amusing irony that, today, sceptics will wheel out triboluminescence with worldly weary tone when the truth is, they had absolutely no hand in its' discovery and actually if anything, acted to delay its' recognition as a genuine natural phenomena .

Originally posted by Sinny
I knew this thread would be yours

Gonna linksy this one because I loved your two well written posts:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I actually think if the said object really is Unidentified, that classes as "alien* of some sort anayway.

It doednt actumatically mean little green men, I know this as all three daylight sighting I've had are clearly unmanned vechical/probes.

So as to what intelligence they were under still still open for debate.

I think you'll find because this thread subject requires thought, and lacks pretty picures, it may go largely unnoticed.

I've noticed on ATS serious alternative views on the alien matter go undiscussed, maybe people don't like to face the actual reality of the matter?

Hey Sinny, thanks for your comments.

The reason that I want to make clear that the UFO Hypothesis and the Alien Hypothesis are distinct, is that I feel that people are "jumping the gun" when automatically tying in aliens with UFOs, whether they be a skeptic or a proponent. For anyone new to the UFO Hypothesis, they should be wary of arguments that involve aliens, as it tends to unnecessarily complicate things.

This is not to say that aliens can't be controlling UFOs, only that, in order to demonstrate the UFO Hypothesis, any recourse to the idea of aliens is unnecessary, which actually speaks to the strength of the data.

I actually think that, for independent reasons, that not all UFOs are man-made.

Originally posted by Brighter

In order to speak intelligently and have a meaningful discussion about any issue, you must first define your main concepts.

One problem is that newcomers to these fields are not clear on their definitions, and problems thus arise.

I will define the UFO Hypothesis as follows:

     The UFO Hypothesis: There exists a class of aerial objects exhibiting almost unbelievable            flight characteristics.

A similar but distinct issue exists regarding the presence of aliens on our planet. Let's refer to this as the Alien Hypothesis.

     The Alien Hypothesis: There exists on this planet an alien presence.

It should be clear the the UFO Hypothesis and the Alien Hypothesis are distinct. In other words, the existence of UFOs has nothing necessarily to do with the existence of aliens.

Defining and agreeing upon these two concepts is very important I agree. I think I see what your main point is here but I am not sure what you mean by UFO Hypothesis? I never heard that expression. To me UFO is a term used for something that defies mundane explanation. Also it seems to me that you may be confusing the Alien Hypothesis with the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis or ETH? The ETH proposes that some UFOs are alien craft.

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by Brighter

In order to speak intelligently and have a meaningful discussion about any issue, you must first define your main concepts.

One problem is that newcomers to these fields are not clear on their definitions, and problems thus arise.

I will define the UFO Hypothesis as follows:

     The UFO Hypothesis: There exists a class of aerial objects exhibiting almost unbelievable            flight characteristics.

A similar but distinct issue exists regarding the presence of aliens on our planet. Let's refer to this as the Alien Hypothesis.

     The Alien Hypothesis: There exists on this planet an alien presence.

It should be clear the the UFO Hypothesis and the Alien Hypothesis are distinct. In other words, the existence of UFOs has nothing necessarily to do with the existence of aliens.

Defining and agreeing upon these two concepts is very important I agree. I think I see what your main point is here but I am not sure what you mean by UFO Hypothesis? I never heard that expression. To me UFO is a term used for something that defies mundane explanation. Also it seems to me that you may be confusing the Alien Hypothesis with the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis or ETH? The ETH proposes that some UFOs are alien craft.

I think "UFO Hypothesis" is meant to denote the proposition that UFOs - objects bearing the characteristics described in the "unidentified" set of UFO reports - actually exist. In other words, people don't just claim they see 100-foot diameter disc-shaped objects hovering and silently taking off at incredible speeds; they actually do see them in some cases. The object is objectively there and actually exhibits the features attributed to it by the witness.

It would be contrasted, I guess, with the hypothesis that, whatever the witness (in this hypothetical scenario) thinks he saw, it must have been something other than what it appeared to be, and the 100-foot disc had no objective reality as a 100-foot disc.

Originally posted by Brighter

In order to speak intelligently and have a meaningful discussion about any issue, you must first define your main concepts.

One problem is that newcomers to these fields are not clear on their definitions, and problems thus arise.

I will define the UFO Hypothesis as follows:

     The UFO Hypothesis: There exists a class of aerial objects exhibiting almost unbelievable            flight characteristics.


A similar but distinct issue exists regarding the presence of aliens on our planet. Let's refer to this as the Alien Hypothesis.

     The Alien Hypothesis: There exists on this planet an alien presence.

It should be clear the the UFO Hypothesis and the Alien Hypothesis are distinct. In other words, the existence of UFOs has nothing necessarily to do with the existence of aliens.

I'm not sure about your logic here.

There is an object that exhibits unknown flight characteristics.
a. it's not alien
b. it's alien

"UFO Hypothesis" seems odd since we can all agree that something is unidentified in the first place and then we apply our various theories....it's a bird, balloon, reflection...whatever until one explaination fits. one hypothesis is that it's alien...

from wiki: "A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon."

...the UFO being the phenomenon....so saying "UFO hypothesis" is like saying "The Observed Phenomenon Explaination" or like "that thing there that we dont know what it is explaination" or "the explaination that it is unexplainable"

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Brighter

In order to speak intelligently and have a meaningful discussion about any issue, you must first define your main concepts.

One problem is that newcomers to these fields are not clear on their definitions, and problems thus arise.

I will define the UFO Hypothesis as follows:

     The UFO Hypothesis: There exists a class of aerial objects exhibiting almost unbelievable            flight characteristics.


A similar but distinct issue exists regarding the presence of aliens on our planet. Let's refer to this as the Alien Hypothesis.

     The Alien Hypothesis: There exists on this planet an alien presence.

It should be clear the the UFO Hypothesis and the Alien Hypothesis are distinct. In other words, the existence of UFOs has nothing necessarily to do with the existence of aliens.

I'm not sure about your logic here.

There is an object that exhibits unknown flight characteristics.
a. it's not alien
b. it's alien

"UFO Hypothesis" seems odd since we can all agree that something is unidentified in the first place and then we apply our various theories....it's a bird, balloon, reflection...whatever until one explaination fits. one hypothesis is that it's alien...

I think you're misunderstanding the OP's meaning, although I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong. The 'UFO Hypothesis' as it is being used in this thread specifically does not deal with "what" UFOs are, but rather "that" they are. Their actual nature and origin are not the salient points here, only their existence as real objects having certain characteristics. Neither a bird, a balloon nor a reflection is a UFO in this sense, even if it is unidentified. In a way, the UFOs the OP is talking about are identified - as members of a particular class of objects that exhibit certain characteristics. We don't know what, specifically, they are, other than to say they are objects that share a set of traits with other members of this class.

In trying to determine whether or not UFOs - as defined in this thread - actually exist, not merely by virtue of their being misidentified conventional objects, but as real objects actually possessing the physical characteristics attributed to them by witnesses, the question of their nature and origin (whether they are alien spacecraft, secret military craft or something else entirely) is a secondary consideration that is altogether irrelevant to the question of their existence or non-existence.

It might help if the OP elaborated on his definition of UFO. Here's a post of his from another thread:

In general, UFO sightings vary in superficial respects, but they for the most part exhibit a common set of properties such as attaining unheard of speeds, making seemingly impossible turns, disappearing and appearing in another position, hovering in mid-air, and doing all of that while making no discernible sound.

There are many possible reasons a person might make a report of a sighting of an object that has these characteristics. Maybe they're doing it for a joke. Maybe they were hallucinating. The UFO Hypothesis says that some people make these reports because they actually did see an object that exhibited these characteristics and that the object they saw has an objective existence independent of their having seen it.

Originally posted by markymint
Very wise! I've skipped to the reply. Replies were mind-numbing. My question would be that what you say, seems to imply that even when you are happy in the knowledge of inexplicable movement of aerial phenomena, and when you are initially making judgements on its origin, and of course the first and most likely 'thought' would be aliens - yet that coming to terms and ideology behind the UFO still leads you to make "straw man" mistakes? It can take a while to learn new views, like organic origin, inter-dimensional, everything else... I agree with what you say, just need a bit more clarity on the acceptance side. It's clear what you're saying about those that show fundamental problems even in non-acceptance. Meh, does that make sense?

In all fairness, a forum is needed where there is no "doubt" of the existence of UFO's (not aliens). At least with that one notion abolished real critical thinking can begin.

edit on 31-7-2012 by markymint because: (no reason given)

Hi markymint, thank you for your reply.

I think I am saying something more basic than what you are understanding it as.

If you are constructing a case for the existence of UFOs, you do not need to talk about aliens (or interdimensional beings, etc.). The simple existence of UFOs, as just a class of crafts that exist, can be argued for with observational data alone. For that, you do not need to talk about aliens (or interdimensional beings, etc.). In the same way, if you were arguing for the existence of cars, you would not need to talk about the people that drive them. You could simply have gathered sufficient observational data of cars moving around. Speculating on who or what is driving them is unnecessary to prove the existence of the cars.

reply to post by Orkojoker


I follow the logic. For me its semantics. Lets take this case: JAL Flight 1628 Over Alaska


So the OP would say that the UFO Hypothesis would fit here...that there was an actual object there thats unidentified....what is described to be seen in the case is the "phenomenon" the "hypothesis" or explaination would be that it is a real physical object of an unexplainable and unknown origin.

What is the point of this thread? You give an example of a non-argument of absolutely no value to anyone and that almost no one has ever made in a public forum, and then assert that it is more representative of the kinds of arguments made by "skeptics" than by "believers". Well, I disagree with that assertion completely. I think taking a census to establish just who is more inclined to make arguments littered with egregious logical fallacies, is basically impossible. By the way, how do you tell the difference between people who are "serious" skeptics, and those who just dismiss the issue out of disinterest? I don't think the second group should be included in the census any more than the blind believer who believes because they want it to be true.

Also, the example you give is basically just someone telling us they aren't interested in ufos because they don't believe in alien visitation. It says nothing about why they disbelieve. It is implied that their interest in ufos would be derived from their perceived connection with alien visitation, but they deny the connection on the grounds that they don't believe in alien visitation. It is not an argument of any kind, it is only a statement of opinion. It tells us nothing about why they disbelieve in alien visitation. In fact they make no effort to make that clear to us. This is obviously a person who doesn't care about the subject so why are you counting their "argument" as representative of a serious UFO skeptic.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Brighter

In order to speak intelligently and have a meaningful discussion about any issue, you must first define your main concepts.

One problem is that newcomers to these fields are not clear on their definitions, and problems thus arise.

I will define the UFO Hypothesis as follows:

     The UFO Hypothesis: There exists a class of aerial objects exhibiting almost unbelievable            flight characteristics.


A similar but distinct issue exists regarding the presence of aliens on our planet. Let's refer to this as the Alien Hypothesis.

     The Alien Hypothesis: There exists on this planet an alien presence.

It should be clear the the UFO Hypothesis and the Alien Hypothesis are distinct. In other words, the existence of UFOs has nothing necessarily to do with the existence of aliens.

I'm not sure about your logic here.

There is an object that exhibits unknown flight characteristics.
a. it's not alien
b. it's alien

"UFO Hypothesis" seems odd since we can all agree that something is unidentified in the first place and then we apply our various theories....it's a bird, balloon, reflection...whatever until one explaination fits. one hypothesis is that it's alien...

from wiki: "A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon."

...the UFO being the phenomenon....so saying "UFO hypothesis" is like saying "The Observed Phenomenon Explaination" or like "that thing there that we dont know what it is explaination" or "the explaination that it is unexplainable"

edit on 31-7-2012 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

Orkojoker explained it perfectly.

But looking back at the original post, I now see where the confusion is. I originally said:

The UFO Hypothesis: There exists a class of aerial objects exhibiting almost unbelievable flight characteristics.

Whereas I should have said:

The UFO Hypothesis: There exists a class of aerial craft exhibiting almost unbelievable flight characteristics.

I would define UFOs as:

UFOs: A class of aerial craft exhibiting almost unbelievable flight characteristics.

The hypothesis is that these craft exist, as opposed to being hallucinations, birds, space junk, etc., and in particular that the observational data is explained by the fact that these craft exist. That is why to say that they exist is an hypothesis - it is one possible explanation for the observational data.

And to get back to the original point, the existence of such craft is distinct from who or what is piloting them. As a result, if you were to invoke the implausibility or even the non-existence of aliens (which of course you would have to argue for on independent grounds), that would have no bearing on an argument for the mere existence of such craft, as the existence of such craft could be proven on the basis of the observational data alone. In the same way, the existence of cars could be proven on the observational data alone, without recourse to who or what is driving them.

What you are basically saying is that a UFO is defined as something that NO ONE can identify. Which none of us could possibly know for a fact. That pretty much makes the declaration of UFO a matter of pure opinion.

And then you could say that a UFO could NEVER be called an alien spacecraft because then it would be identified.

Basically UFO says nothing about anything beyond the state of our current level of knowledge.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Orkojoker

 

I follow the logic. For me its semantics. Lets take this case: JAL Flight 1628 Over Alaska


So the OP would say that the UFO Hypothesis would fit here...that there was an actual object there thats unidentified....what is described to be seen in the case is the "phenomenon" the "hypothesis" or explaination would be that it is a real physical object of an unexplainable and unknown origin.

Yes, that's generally correct.

Your whole argument itself is a straw-man because you are lumping skeptics together and stating that these kinds of arguments from them are common, when in fact they are not.

It is the believers side that assumes UFOs are actually aliens, to such a degree that UFO barely even means "Unidentified Flying Object" anymore, but is more or less synonymous with "Alien Spacecraft". Skeptics are constantly needing to point this fact out. The only time I have seen skeptics arguing against the aerial phenomena being aliens is when it is clear the believers are arguing from the position that the unidentified object is alien in origin in the first place.

It is nevertheless reasonable to provide arguments against the UFOs-As-Aliens hypothesis, because it at the very least means we should consider aliens as very unlikely visitors, and exhaust all other possibilities before even thinking about claiming UFOs as alien-craft. Aliens is but one explanation for UFO phenomena, and if skeptics are able to make the case that this explanation is incredibly unlikely, then we have made progress.

As for your initial statement that UFO's display "almost unbelievable" properties, that is completely vague and subjective - essentially meaningless drivel. If that is your attempt to prevent the muddying of the waters, you better get back to the drawing board.

Originally posted by humphreysjim

It is the believers side that assumes UFOs are actually aliens, to such a degree that UFO barely even means "Unidentified Flying Object" anymore, but is more or less synonymous with "Alien Spacecraft". Skeptics are constantly needing to point this fact out.

This is unquestionably true, and I think it sums up the problem quite well. What is left out of this analysis is that "skeptics" - in my experience, anyway - tend to imply that because UFOs are not necessarily alien spacecraft there is nothing of significance to discuss, when in fact that is a total misrepresentation. The existence of UFOs, as defined in this thread, is of extreme significance regardless of their origin, and their reality indicates an enormous blind spot in our understanding of the universe and how it works.

While UFOs may not be intelligently-controlled, manufactured objects whose behavior defies our current understanding of physics, they certainly give the appearance of being such, and are actually indistinguishable from such.

reply to post by Brighter


Brighter, I think you need to be clear whether you wish to have a philosophical or scientific discussion on the subject.

reply to post by humphreysjim


Both myself and others have already addressed many of your concerns in the discussion above.

"Your whole argument itself is a straw-man because you are lumping skeptics together and stating that these kinds of arguments from them are common, when in fact they are not."

It's not a Straw Man Argument, because I never said, nor intended to say, that all skeptics make such arguments. Whether or not such arguments are common, well, I think you could argue that they are in one form or another. It's difficult to deny that the general attitude of "That UFO stuff is ridiculous! Of course aliens don't exist!" is one that is very widespread. And it's important to try to tease out from such a seemingly innocent statement, what the actual logical structure of the argument is supposed to look like, and why it is not a good argument. You have to realize that colloquial, off-hand remarks often betray deeply held opinions, and that such opinions are basically poorly expressed arguments. And this poor expression is often symptomatic of a more general lack of reflection on the underlying logical structure of one's own beliefs.

"It is the believers side that assumes UFOs are actually aliens, to such a degree that UFO barely even means "Unidentified Flying Object" anymore, but is more or less synonymous with "Alien Spacecraft". Skeptics are constantly needing to point this fact out. The only time I have seen skeptics arguing against the aerial phenomena being aliens is when it is clear the believers are arguing from the position that the unidentified object is alien in origin in the first place."

My posts above also indicate that I am well aware of how the weak UFO proponents will take the idea of aliens, and use that to argue for the existence of UFOs. This is not a straw man argument, but more akin to assuming the consequent, in addition to making an unproven conceptual connection between aliens and UFOs.

"It is nevertheless reasonable to provide arguments against the UFOs-As-Aliens hypothesis, because it at the very least means we should consider aliens as very unlikely visitors, and exhaust all other possibilities before even thinking about claiming UFOs as alien-craft."

I think you may have missed the entire point of my original post, which is that, when discussing the UFO Hypothesis, we should not even focus on arguments that involve aliens. Any proper argument for the UFO Hypothesis need not reference aliens at all, as the observational data alone is sufficient to construct the proper argument. In fact, your insistence on "provid[ing] arguments against the UFOs-As-Aliens hypothesis" is to precisely to commit the same exact straw man argument that I spent the entire first post trying to explain.

"Aliens is but one explanation for UFO phenomena, and if skeptics are able to make the case that this explanation is incredibly unlikely, then we have made progress."

But this is precisely not to make any progress, as all you have done is cut down a straw man. Although I suppose, in a very watered-down sense, you could count that as progress. This is not to mention the fact that, in order to even successfully make such an argument, you would have to provide an independent argument for the fact that aliens are not likely visiting us. But again, even if you could produce such an argument, all you would be doing is cutting down a straw man.

"As for your initial statement that UFO's display "almost unbelievable" properties, that is completely vague and subjective - essentially meaningless drivel. If that is your attempt to prevent the muddying of the waters, you better get back to the drawing board."

One, it was clearly intended as a working definition, and as such was sufficient to make the point that I wanted to make, which was to contrast the UFO Hypothesis with the Alien Hypothesis. Two, if you were to familiarize yourself with the better UFO cases, such a definition would be at least adequate. You would see that such aerial craft do perform such "almost unbelievable" maneuvers, such as attaining incredible speeds and stopping without decelerating, hovering, making 90 degree turns, simply disappearing and reappearing in a distant location and often doing so without making any discernible sound. I think anyone would agree that such properties qualify as "almost unbelievable".

Originally posted by humphreysjim
As for your initial statement that UFO's display "almost unbelievable" properties, that is completely vague and subjective - essentially meaningless drivel.

Here's a brief sampling of the kind of thing the OP is talking about, taken from investigated reports:

VIOLENT AND ERRATIC MANEUVERS

-"tacking and veering"
-"streaked...series of violent maneuvers."
-high speed, "zigzagged"
-hovered, bobbed around arcing back and forth, up and down
-climbed rapidly, stopped 10 seconds, dived, leveled off, moved away horizontally
-dove, leveled off, sharp left turn, climbed steeply and shot away
-erratic darting side to side, undulating course, circled.
-hovered, violent jerks up & down, rocked back & forth, darted away
-hovered 8 minutes, arced back & forth about 15º, returning to orignal position, slowly dropped out of sight
-two spun around each other rapidly, joined by two others, moved jerkily when moving slowly
-bobbed up & down, back & forth, maintained 3º separation
-one swooped down, hovered, zigzagged & shot away; second hovered, tilted up & shot away
-moved with regular jerks, visible one hour, satellite objects visible at one point
-discs moved in pairs, zigzagged
-hovered, darted erratically in various directions, up & down...
-rapid pulsation, square turns, sudden stops & bursts of speed
-moved erratically up & down, hovered 10 minutes...
-sped into area, hovered, bobbed around sky for several hours; tracked by radar, seen visually
-steady course, sudden reversal, violent zigzagging...
-hovered, vibrated up & down, side to side
-hovered 2 minutes, split into 2 parts which moved jerkily in opposite directions at high speed, came back together several times, then 3 parts...

source

Originally posted by Brighter
I think you may have missed the entire point of my original post, which is that, when discussing the UFO Hypothesis, we should not even focus on arguments that involve aliens. Any proper argument for the UFO Hypothesis need not reference aliens at all, as the observational data alone is sufficient to construct the proper argument. In fact, your insistence on "provid[ing] arguments against the UFOs-As-Aliens hypothesis" is to precisely to commit the same exact straw man argument that I spent the entire first post trying to explain.

Why not make mention of Aliens? Let's face it, you are talking about craft that possess "almost unbelievable" characteristics. Now, either they are being misidentified and they are not craft which is the position of most skeptics, or they are secret government craft, or they are alien in origin. What else? Inter-dimensional beings? I suppose there are a limited number of other possibilities, but there aren't many once you accept they are craft, which you want to do with your updated definition of the UFO hypothesis.

Aliens is the most popular alternative explanation on the side of the believers, so we have to give it some attention.

Originally posted by Brighter
But this is precisely not to make any progress, as all you have done is cut down a straw man. Although I suppose, in a very watered-down sense, you could count that as progress. This is not to mention the fact that, in order to even successfully make such an argument, you would have to provide an independent argument for the fact that aliens are not likely visiting us. But again, even if you could produce such an argument, all you would be doing is cutting down a straw man.

If you take the most popular believer explanation and show it to be incredibly unlikely, of course you have made progress. As the statement goes, once you remove the impossible what's left, however unlikely, must be true. This is not cutting down a straw man, it is refuting the explanation most often used by the other side.

You want to make out there are so many things these UFOs could be, but once you make the assumption, as you do, that they are craft, your options are actually very slim.

Aside from Aliens, what else could a craft displaying unbelievable characteristics be? I bet you cannot come up with too many possibilities, and all of them on the face of it are going to sound ridiculous.

That's why skeptics take the default position that they are probably not "crafts showing almost unbelievable characteristics", and seek out more mundane explanations.

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by humphreysjim
As for your initial statement that UFO's display "almost unbelievable" properties, that is completely vague and subjective - essentially meaningless drivel.

Here's a brief sampling of the kind of thing the OP is talking about, taken from investigated reports:

VIOLENT AND ERRATIC MANEUVERS

-"tacking and veering"
-"streaked...series of violent maneuvers."
-high speed, "zigzagged"
-hovered, bobbed around arcing back and forth, up and down
-climbed rapidly, stopped 10 seconds, dived, leveled off, moved away horizontally
-dove, leveled off, sharp left turn, climbed steeply and shot away
-erratic darting side to side, undulating course, circled.
-hovered, violent jerks up & down, rocked back & forth, darted away
-hovered 8 minutes, arced back & forth about 15º, returning to orignal position, slowly dropped out of sight
-two spun around each other rapidly, joined by two others, moved jerkily when moving slowly
-bobbed up & down, back & forth, maintained 3º separation
-one swooped down, hovered, zigzagged & shot away; second hovered, tilted up & shot away
-moved with regular jerks, visible one hour, satellite objects visible at one point
-discs moved in pairs, zigzagged
-hovered, darted erratically in various directions, up & down...
-rapid pulsation, square turns, sudden stops & bursts of speed
-moved erratically up & down, hovered 10 minutes...
-sped into area, hovered, bobbed around sky for several hours; tracked by radar, seen visually
-steady course, sudden reversal, violent zigzagging...
-hovered, vibrated up & down, side to side
-hovered 2 minutes, split into 2 parts which moved jerkily in opposite directions at high speed, came back together several times, then 3 parts...

source

And the assumption that this is a craft is based on what?

reply to post by eriktheawful

Therefore: all UFOs must be alien life.

This does not compute. UFOs as the OP states have only aliens as an hypothetical solution (among others, magic and religions being some of them). Reputable ufologists have never claimed that all UFOs are of alien origin in fact they state that only an very small percentage MAY be of alien origin.

Since some UFOs have been identified, it makes that proposition erroneous...

UFOs are much older than the alien hypothesis. There are historical records of UFOs (and UFOs like images) around the world.