Why is sciforums traffic so low now?

[Bells]

Clearly you are lying again. I can refer you to the 18 videos I all got from Youtube as well as texted articles from Wikipedia that are documented multiple witnessed accounts of ufo encounters. Anyone here can confirm this by looking at the "Why is the govt hiding ufos" thread.

And for pretty much each one, explanations are provided for what caused the phenomenon that people believe are UFO's/aliens.

Which brings me to another point. People report seeing lights in the sky, etc, and your immediate response is aliens without any proof whatsoever that it is aliens. And that's what I have been trying to get through to you. You have, to date, failed to prove that aliens exist, let alone prove that aliens are visiting our fair planet. You are taking people seeing lights and automatically jumping to "aliens". In doing so, you completely ignore and refuse to even acknowledge that it could be something else. So I am telling you once again, and this is your final chance MR, you have to be able to prove that it is aliens. To do that will require you to actually research before you post. Not post misrepresentations and fake videos and images. I honestly cannot understand why you find this so problematic. If you are going to claim that something is "fact", then you need to be able to prove it is "fact" irrefutably. You have yet to do so. You always fail to account for what else it could be. You go from 'ooh lights in sky' to 'aliens' in the next step. This is not acceptable.

You're claiming the videos are faked? Prove it then. Show that they're faked accounts made up by people for whatever reasons, or show that they are misperceptions of mundane causes.

You mean like the video you posted about an 'even't' and the video had several long minutes of the opening scene of the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind.. tried to claim that the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind was a re-enactment of this event, even though it was clearly not? This is the crap you are peddling here. And it isn't acceptable. At all.

If you're going to make claims about my evidence, you need to support them with some facts. It isn't my job to debunk the evidence for you. And you certainly don't get to make up shit about the accounts and pass that off as expert debunkery.

It is your job to critically assess what you post and it is absolutely your job to make sure you aren't posting fakes and lies and claiming it as fact, and then arguing to hell and back when the fakery is exposed because you refuse to accept that it is fake, until you are left with no other choice but to accept and then simply go on and start a new thread about the same subject of UFO's..

And those of us who do debunk the rubbish you try and pass off as fact, do provide evidence.

Not that you'd know how to do that anyway. Like with the Iraq airforce sighting of 1976, where you responded with a clip from a skeptic website about Phillip Klass's "explanation" of it being the planet Jupiter. Then you left that thread never to be heard from since. Or like how you supposedly debunked the Levelland ufo sightings as ball lightning by cherry picking out one paragraph from the Wikipedia article hoping noone would read down further where two scientists dismissed that explanation because there was no thunderstorm that night. When I posted the actual account of those sightings, showing how they could never have been ball lightning, you mod hatted and infracted me in order to win the argument.

The warnings I gave you were for posting "woo" in the science sub-forum. You do understand that, yes?

As for the Levelland UFO sighting, I provided you with both sides stating that what you claimed as fact were wrong. To wit, UFO researchers who looked at the actual evidence don't buy it was a UFO. And there were thunderstorms earlier in the day, which I had provided in what I linked to you.

But hey, it's better to cherrypick and misrepresent everything because you seem to believe you are on a mission to 'enlighten' people to believe as you believe...

So don't dare tell me about what evidence is and how to objectively analyze it. You are the last person here to preach that sermon. Your record of confirmation bias, outright lies, and abuse of moderator power speaks louder than any of your long-winded lectures about the spurious "scientific method."

The rules are clear, MR. You either abide by them or face moderation. That choice is entirely yours. You have been told, repeatedly, that you need to support your claims of 'fact' with actual evidence and you have failed to do so. If you are going to claim something is fact, then you have to be able to eliminate everything else to come to the conclusion that it is 'fact'. You aren't doing that.

And that is what I am asking you to do.

And abuse of power.. That's laughable. Especially considering the sheer amount of times I batted for you in the back room. I won't be doing that any further, rest assured.

Also, this site respects the scientific method. If you have an issue with that, then again, start a blog or posts your stories about UFO's on a site that does not require you to use critical thinking or analysis or to provide actual evidence. The rules are clear. Either abide by them or face moderation.

Bullshit they don't. Some of my threads generate 20 plus pages in a matter of a week.

That thing about quality vs quantity applies here. If you consider flaming, personal abuse, etc to be content, then sure, your content is prolific in that regard.

And if you are too lazy to respond to reports for flaming and insulting, then you should consider another job. That's your job as moderator. To moderate.

And I do. Which appears to be a huge problem for you.

And it is NOT my job to prove a video or piece of text isn't faked or made up.

There's a line in the rules that clearly state, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with it.

That's the kind of crazy assed paranoid claim that I'll leave you to support.

You seem to believe that you are on this quest, to convince us of your beliefs, to drag us to enlightenment, even if you have to do it while we kick and scream in protest. If your posts are found to be fraudulent, you'll face moderation. If you are passing fake crap as "fact" and if you fail to support your arguments with actual evidence which includes being able to support your claim of the "fact" by discounting everything else it could be with evidence, you'll face moderation in some form. This is something we all abide by when posting here. Why do you believe you should be treated differently or given special treatment is beyond me.

Which you will never do because there is no massive conspiracy of ufologists just making up accounts and creating fake documentaries of ufo encounters.

Riiigghhhttt.. Like when you posted the pictures of UFO's, claimed they were aliens and then ran when it was pointed out that the images were fake and that there is a phone app that adds UFO's to what image or video one is taking or making? You have already let slip that all you care about is that it sounds authentic, even when it is clearly a hoax.

Krash661 probably summed your issues best:

MR, i do not have a problem with you exploring such thoughts-- in my opinion, you are on a " right path " but you need to, simply, be able to decipher between the shiit from reality. from what i have seen from you is simply this, that you need to work on.

UFO's are a very real and recurrent phenomenon, and have been for over 70 years now. Noone is making up shit.

You mean it became a recurrent phenomenon right around the time movies about aliens and flying saucers first started appearing in theaters?

I may even post a new thread on Australian ufo hotspots--places near you where people have witnessed ufos for many years. Would you like that? I'll even provide you with directions on how to get to them. Imagine having your whole worldview changed for you in one clear moonless night.

MR, I have seen many things in the night sky in the bush here, for which there are no explanation. But I am not jumping up and down demanding they are aliens. They are simply unidentified. Understand the difference? I am not declaring it as fact that they are aliens because I have no proof that they are aliens. You take reports of lights in the sky and immediately determine they have to be aliens and you claim that it is 'fact' that they are aliens. And you have no proof that they are aliens. You refuse to consider they could be something else because to do so would be to acknowledge that they aren't aliens.

 

[Magical Realist]

And for pretty much each one, explanations are provided for what caused the phenomenon that people believe are UFO's/aliens.

No..you're lying again. Nobody offered any alternative explanations for the 18 accounts I posted. I was there. I remember. Some speculation, like that egg shaped silver craft hundreds saw in Australia was maybe a helicopter. lol! But no..nobody debunked shit.

Which brings me to another point. People report seeing lights in the sky, etc, and your immediate response is aliens without any proof whatsoever that it is aliens. And that's what I have been trying to get through to you. You have, to date, failed to prove that aliens exist, let alone prove that aliens are visitingour fair planet. You are taking people seeing lights and automatically jumping to "aliens"

Another lie, which in fact I corrected you on already. I have NOT claimed they are aliens. I have only claimed they are intelligent beings operating craft that are beyond our technology. Period. End of story. They could be interdimensionals. They could be time travelers. They could be a species that lives under the oceans. Many possibilities see? No claims they are necessarily aliens.

You mean like the video you posted about an 'even't' and the video had several long minutes of the opening scene of the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind.. tried to claim that the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind was a re-enactment of this event, even though it was clearly not? This is the crap you are peddling here. And it isn't acceptable. At all.

Uh no. I mean the local news segment on this story that initiallly showed a scene of Close Encounters and then went on to describe the account of the Levelland sightings. I'm guessing you didn't even watch the whole video. Hence your persistant lie that it was somehow a fake. Tell me, when you are caught lying as you so often are, why don't you apologize? Normal people would. What's wrong with acting normal for you?

As for the Levelland UFO sighting, I provided you with both sides stating that what you claimed as fact were wrong. To wit, UFO researchers who looked at the actual evidence don't buy it was a UFO. And there were thunderstorms earlier in the day, which I had provided in what I linked to you.

Ball lightning was offered as an explanation by the superficial Air Force investigation that lasted only 3 days. That was debunked by both the investigating scientists James MacDonald and Allen Hynek. And the quoted account clearly showed by the size of the objects and their effects on 15 automobiles that it could not be ball lightning. So you lie again. It never stops for you does it?

It is your job to critically assess what you post and it is absolutely your job to make
sure you aren't posting fakes and lies and claiming it as fact, and then arguing to hell and back when the fakery is exposed because you refuse to accept that it is fake, until you are left with no other choice but to accept and then simply go on and start a new thread about the same subject of UFO's..

And those of us who do debunk the rubbish you try and pass off as fact, do provide evidence

Everything I post is well vetted by many others who have investigated these cases over the decades and I always post my sources. If you claim they aren't real, then you have to support that with evidence. You make a claim, you have to support it. That's basic debating 101. Go study up on it and then come back and threaten me some more with your dumbass treehouse rules. Because frankly, seeing how often you lie and distort everything I post on this subject, I don't really feel like doing a thing you say. In fact you can count on it. I can totally ignore you and your lies and misinformation. You and your buddy Kittamaru. I will PM James R on this too when needed. Capiche?

Riiigghhhttt.. Like when you posted the pictures of UFO's, claimed they were aliens and then ran when it was pointed out that the images were fake and that there is a phone app that adds UFO's to what image or video one is taking or making? You have already let slip that all you care about is that it sounds authentic, even when it is clearly a hoax.

Seriously? Again? You don't remember me pointing out this lie to you earlier? That I in fact admitted it was photoshopped when Baldee showed me some pics. Your claim that I ran off is also a lie, and a perplexing one, seeing not even you can determine my state when I'm not posting on line. Do you interpret all non-responses in a certain amount of time as running off? Is there a time limit I have to meet to avoid being accused of running off? Now..I'm logging off to watch TV. Is this running off too? If I start another thread tomorrow will this be your evidence of me running off? Who gives a shit right? Not me.

Oh..and one more lie, which you repeat at the very end of your tedious lying rant:

You take reports of lights in the sky and immediately determine they have to be aliens
and you claim that it is 'fact' that they are aliens. And you have no proof that they are aliens. You refuse to consider they could be something else because to do so would be to acknowledge that they aren't aliens.

Can you figure out why this is another lie? Can you remember? Think real hard now..lol!

Aside to James R: So what do the rules say about mods who lie and make up shit about you all the time? Is this acceptable behavior? What recourse do we have for this sort of abuse and misrepresentation? Can it be reported?

 

[Yazata]

MR - do you even hear yourself? "Even if every UFO were proven to be something mundane, there is no guarantee that one might appear tomorrow"... what does that even mean?

He's referring to the problem of induction. If we imagine that every ufo report up till now has been positively debunked, that still wouldn't be evidence upon which we could construct a deductive argument that all ufo sightings are bullshit. The very next ufo sighting might indeed be an alien spaceship. The example usually used in elementary logic and 'critical thinking' classes is swans. If every swan in our experience has been white, the conclusion that all swans are white only holds up until we are confronted with our first black swan. Hence the phrase 'black swan' leaking into the general vocabulary, meaning a major unforeseen event that wasn't included in our initial expectations.

Hopefully you can see the difficulties that the problem of induction raises for "scientific method". Science operates in terms of general principles and universally quantified statements (for all x...). So if we aren't in a position to individually examine every x, and aren't logically justified in drawing universal conclusions about all x's from examination of a few of them (even if they represent all of the x's encountered in our experience), then none of science's lawlike generalizations would seem to have any deductive force. Testing and verifying those generalizations with additional observations in the stereotypical hypothesis-testing model of scientific method doesn't really address the difficulty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, that is true.

It is? I think that's just a slogan thrown around on internet discussion boards. Absence of evidence can be excellent evidence of absence, provided that we have strong reason to believe that evidence of x should be present whenever x is. I'm not convinced that we have that in the ufo case.

However, absence of evidence against is also not evidence for something. By definition, all you have is conjecture and theory. As a result, there is insufficient evidence to claim any extraordinary facts...

Has anyone established that there's an 'absence of evidence'? Wouldn't that claim be an example of Opthiolite's second aggravation from the 'what is evidence' thread? In reality, there is plenty of evidence, thousands of sightings, but no evidence that satisfies you (or me, for that matter). The constantly repeated (false) claim that there is no evidence is what motivates MR to constantly post evidence, which gets him flamed.

Now, say it with me - "I don't know what that thing was"... c'mon, it's not a hard phrase!

Don't condescend.

I agree that an agnostic position is the best position to take on anomalous phenomena such as these. We don't really know enough to say conclusively that any ufo sighting really is an alien spaceship. And equally, we don't know enough to say conclusively that none of them are. Notice that this new agnosticism needs to be adopted by MR's critics as much as by MR. We don't actually know that theories that ufos are alien spaceships, or time travelers, or space-animals, or extradimensional visitors, or something else completely unexpected, are bullshit in every instance. That's just seems to be some people's assumption, apparently based on their faith in their own preexisting worldview.

About all we can do is look closely at the sighting reports in hopes of puzzling out what they tell us. I agree with JamesR that we probably should spend more time examining each one, instead of immediately jumping to conclusions about it. But I also want to say that there's nothing wrong with MR bringing the reports to our attention. If that's out of line, then why have a forum devoted to ufos at all? Presumably the forum has a higher purpose than to just be a clubhouse for debunkers to congratulate each other on their imagined intellectual superiority. That seems to be the demand at the moment.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Perty simple realy... much like the example James R (an others) has set... when you feel the need... respectfully debunk a ghost/monster/ufo pic/video/story to you'r satisfaction... then move on.!!!

 

[Magical Realist]

MR - do you even hear yourself? "Even if every UFO were proven to be something mundane, there is no guarantee that one might appear tomorrow"... what does that even mean?

He's referring to the problem of induction.

I actually meant "there is no guarantee that one might NOT appear tomorrow". Thanks Yazata for seeing that's what I meant. This is why proof against ufos is impossible. You can never be certain one might pop up after you've debunked every sighting that's ever been. We're talking proving the non-existence of a phenomenon we hardly can identify and which is very mysterious. Which occurs repeatedly all over the world. I read yesterday that a ufo is sighted every 6 seconds. There is a real phenomenon here that we need to take seriously. Debunk to your heart's content skeptics. That's good. We need to eliminate the mundane. But don't deny the occassional otherwordly craft when you come across one either.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/viewpage/newer/0.htm

 

[sweetpea]

Don't condescend.

I agree that an agnostic position is the best position to take on anomalous phenomena such as these. We don't really know enough to say conclusively that any ufo sighting really is an alien spaceship. And equally, we don't know enough to say conclusively that none of them are. Notice that this new agnosticism needs to be adopted by MR's critics as much as by MR.

Yazata, You seem to go out of context here.
You seem to forget who Kitts is talking to when she says ''I don't know what that thing was''.

Every one knows if the next ufo sighting is proven to be a alien spacecraft, then I'm sure Kitts along with most will go along that it is a genuine alien visitor, why, because the proof will be there. so I don't think Kitts is being condescending.

Until then, you have MR saying the proof is already here in his/hers numerous OP's. That is the person Kitts is talking to, context.
And, your bold part. ''And equally, we don't know enough to say conclusively that none of them are.'' Hence the need for PROOF on these matters.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yazata, You seem to go out of context here.
You seem to forget who Kitts is talking to when she says ''I don't know what that thing was''.

Every one knows if the next ufo sighting is proven to be a alien spacecraft, then I'm sure Kitts along with most will go along that it is a genuine alien visitor, why, because the proof will be there. so I don't think Kitts is being condescending.

Until then, you have MR saying the proof is already here in his/hers numerous OP's. That is the person Kitts is talking to, context.
And, your bold part. ''And equally, we don't know enough to say conclusively that none of them are.'' Hence the need for PROOF on these matters.

Yazata knows he is talking to me. He is saying don't be condescending towards me.

 

[krash661]

''And equally, we don't know enough to say conclusively that none of them are.'' Hence the need for PROOF on these matters.

the word " we " is what the issues are-- when used it implies society as a whole--which my not be the case, but there are some whom actually know. Just because the facade of society has not confirmed this with its feeble, low level mentalities that are a majority of society, does not mean there is not any proof.

 

[Magical Realist]

That thing about quality vs quantity applies here. If you consider flaming, personal abuse, etc to be content, then sure, your content is prolific in that regard.

So I'm responsible for my own flaming and being insulted now? Maybe you should lay the blame on the actual posters who do this instead of me, unless this is just further abusive scapegoating me for everything bad in this forum. We get it Bells. You need a whipping boy to take your frustrations out on. Frustrations about ufos existing, about your job, about the leaky pipe in your house, about having to moderate when you'd rather be watching Game of Thrones, etc. Just be aware that that is what you're doing. It's a pattern for you. And I'm not the enemy here. We're on the same side. We're both explorers of reality and followers of the truth wherever that may lead.

 

[Yazata]

Yazata, You seem to go out of context here.
You seem to forget who Kitts is talking to when she says ''I don't know what that thing was''.

MR had made what seemed to me to be a philosophically astute remark. Kittamaru acted like he didn't understand it, so I explained it a little. And given the almost-sacred status that Sciforums gives "the scientific method" as a general principle of sound cognition regarding any matter of fact, I pointed out some difficulties that induction creates for that idea as well.

Every one knows if the next ufo sighting is proven to be a alien spacecraft, then I'm sure Kitts along with most will go along that it is a genuine alien visitor, why, because the proof will be there.

If the next ufo sighting is in fact a sighting of an alien spaceship, then it will be a sighting of an alien spaceship regardless of what 'proof' is provided or what Kittamaru thinks. My point was that no amount of debunking of earlier ufo cases can eliminate the possibility that the next ufo sighting really will be an alien spaceship.

so I don't think Kitts is being condescending.

It sounded to me like he was talking to a child: "Now say it with me... c'mon, it's not a hard phrase".

Until then, you have MR saying the proof is already here in his/hers numerous OP's. That is the person Kitts is talking to, context.
And, your bold part. ''And equally, we don't know enough to say conclusively that none of them are.'' Hence the need for PROOF on these matters.

I don't think that it's realistic to expect proof in matters of fact like these. (By proof, I'm thinking in terms of formal deductive proofs.) What we need instead is persuasive and convincing argument. These arguments will need a logical structure, but it will likely be looser and more intuitive than a formal proof and its premises won't obviously be true or false but instead will have different degrees of likelihood or plausibility.

 

[Ophiolite]

I actually meant "there is no guarantee that one might NOT appear tomorrow". Thanks Yazata for seeing that's what I meant. This is why proof against ufos is impossible. You can never be certain one might pop up after you've debunked every sighting that's ever been.

That rather misses the point.
1. I do not think anyone here is declaring that we may not be visited in the future by alien* craft.
2. I hope no one is declaring that we may not have been visited in the past by alien craft.
3. What several of us are saying is that the evidence presented for recent visits by alien craft is decidedly poor quality.
4. Therefore, if we were visited tomorrow by alien craft it would not entitle you to say "I told you so."

 

[Yazata]

That rather misses the point.
1. I do not think anyone here is declaring that we may not be visited in the future by alien* craft.
2. I hope no one is declaring that we may not have been visited in the past by alien craft.
3. What several of us are saying is that the evidence presented for recent visits by alien craft is decidedly poor quality.
4. Therefore, if we were visited tomorrow by alien craft it would not entitle you to say "I told you so."

I agree with all of that.

I do think that our debunkers do veer perilously close to #2 though. A widely-held assumption around here seems to be that 'ufos are bullshit ("woo", "anti-science") and that's that'.

That being said, #3 is true, in my opinion.

 

[exchemist]

I agree with all of that.

I do think that our debunkers do veer perilously close to #2 though. A widely-held assumption around here seems to be that 'ufos are bullshit ("woo", "anti-science") and that's that'.

That being said, #3 is true, in my opinion.

But a lot of the evidence for them is precisely that: woo and bullshit. As has been amply demonstrated in this forum recently. This makes it quite rational to be highly sceptical, and indeed impatient with, new low-quality claims from similarly unreliable sources.

 

[Magical Realist]

But a lot of the evidence for them is precisely that: woo and bullshit. As has been amply demonstrated in this forum recently. This makes it quite rational to be highly sceptical, and indeed impatient with, new low-quality claims from similarly unreliable sources.

Yep..all eyewitnesses of ufos are lying and full of shit. All photos are faked. It's the perfect out for not looking into an extensive field of worldwide research spanning 7 decades. Nobody wants their mind changed by looking at the actual evidence. That would be...well...unscientific! lol!

http://www.nicap.org/special.htm

 

[Yazata]

But a lot of the evidence for them is precisely that: woo and bullshit. As has been amply demonstrated in this forum recently. This makes it quite rational to be highly sceptical, and indeed impatient with, new low-quality claims from similarly unreliable sources.

If we are talking about evidence for and against, what's the nature of the evidence against them? What we see here on Sciforums (not the last word on anything, admittedly) are lots of people responding to ufo reports (and reports of other extraordinary things) by speculating about what they think alternative mundane explanations for those reports might be. There's rarely any convincing evidence provided for those alternative speculations.

So the rhetorical pattern seems to be that if anyone can imagine a mundane explanation for a report, even if there's no tangible evidence for the speculation, then that particular report has been conclusively debunked. (And according to some, all similar reports along with it.)

That's pretty weak in my opinion. It might not be totally hopeless though, if the speculative mundane possibility has a much higher a-priori likelihood of being true. But that's probably going to be hard to establish and nobody has really tried to take a shot at it.

 

[Magical Realist]

So the rhetorical pattern seems to be that if anyone can imagine a mundane explanation for a report, even if there's no tangible evidence for the speculation, then that particular report has been conclusively debunked. (And according to some, all similar reports along with it.)

It's a rhetorical trick both James and Sarkus perform. They claim since it's more likely that a mundane event happened than an extramundane event, then it is always the better explanation. This ofcourse assumes that the extramundane hardly ever occurs, which is an unfounded assumption. When I ask for evidence of the mundane explanation, they then claim they are only suggesting it as possibility, which exempts them from providing evidence for it. Who needs evidence for a possibility afterall? It's possible the account is all made up. It's possible it was a false memory. It's possible it was swamp gas. That's how they get out of supporting their so-called explanation. Which isn't really an explanation based on anything at all. It's just an imaginary scenario based on an assumed worldview where anomalous phenomena never can happen. It's dismissing evidence based on assumed probabilities--like never believing anyone who claims to have won the lottery because it's more likely they're lying or deranged than that they actually won.

 

[C C]

[...] So the rhetorical pattern seems to be that if anyone can imagine a mundane explanation for a report, even if there's no tangible evidence for the speculation, then that particular report has been conclusively debunked. (And according to some, all similar reports along with it.) That's pretty weak in my opinion. It might not be totally hopeless though, if the speculative mundane possibility has a much higher a-priori likelihood of being true. But that's probably going to be hard to establish and nobody has really tried to take a shot at it.

In the scientific culture beyond this forum, it probably has economic / efficiency kinship with what Steven Weinberg once expressed in regard to ideas like even astrology (below). Available time and priorities in regard to how limited funding should be used would compel devising these pre-conditional proscriptions of certain subject matter. So that serious investigators could be excused without loss of face for not bothering to research every particular "trivial sensationalism" that fell into a category of similar things / events. (A sorted set which might at least have had a few of its items in the past studied / kicked / tested in a first-hand manner, which resulted in mundane explanations.)

Steven Weinberg: "At any one moment one is presented with a wide variety of innovative ideas that might be followed up: Not only astrology and such, but many ideas much closer to the main stream of science, and others that are squarely within the scope of modern scientific research. It does no good to say that all these ideas must be thoroughly tested; there is simply no time... Even if I dropped everything else in my life, I could not begin to give all of these ideas a fair hearing."

 

[Magical Realist]

In the scientific culture beyond this forum, it probably has economic / efficiency kinship with what Steven Weinberg once expressed in regard to ideas like even astrology (below). Available time and priorities in regard to how limited funding should be used would compel devising these pre-conditional proscriptions of certain subject matter. So that serious investigators could be excused without loss of face for not bothering to research every particular "trivial sensationalism" that fell into a category of similar things / events. (A sorted set which might at least have had a few of its items in the past studied / kicked / tested in a first-hand manner, which resulted in mundane explanations.)

Steven Weinberg: "At any one moment one is presented with a wide variety of innovative ideas that might be followed up: Not only astrology and such, but many ideas much closer to the main stream of science, and others that are squarely within the scope of modern scientific research. It does no good to say that all these ideas must be thoroughly tested; there is simply no time... Even if I dropped everything else in my life, I could not begin to give all of these ideas a fair hearing."

Back in the day resources and time WERE spent to explore the ufo phenomenon thru Project Sign and Project Blue Book and such esteemed scientists as James MacDonald and J Allen Hynek. These scientists and several scientific panels reached conclusions that the ufo phenomenon was real and not caused by mundane factors, encouraging further study. Then the government suddenly pulled the plug on all this, and have done so to this day. Mainstream science since then , perhaps not coincidently, has simply parroted this attitude of their primary funders-in-chief.
============================================================
"Following the large U.S. surge in sightings in June and early July 1947, on July 9, 1947, United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) intelligence, in cooperation with the FBI,[5] began a formal investigation into selected sightings with characteristics that could not be immediately rationalized, which included Kenneth Arnold's and that of the United Airlines crew. The USAAF used "all of its top scientists" to determine whether "such a phenomenon could, in fact, occur." The research was "being conducted with the thought that the flying objects might be a celestial phenomenon," or that "they might be a foreign body mechanically devised and controlled."[43] Three weeks later in a preliminary defense estimate, the air force investigation decided that, "This 'flying saucer' situation is not all imaginary or seeing too much in some natural phenomenon. Something is really flying around."[44]

A further review by the intelligence and technical divisions of the Air Materiel Command at Wright Field reached the same conclusion. It reported that "the phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious," that there were objects in the shape of a disc, metallic in appearance, and as big as man-made aircraft. They were characterized by "extreme rates of climb [and] maneuverability," general lack of noise, absence of trail, occasional formation flying, and "evasive" behavior "when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar," suggesting a controlled craft. It was therefore recommended in late September 1947 that an official Air Force investigation be set up to investigate the phenomenon. It was also recommended that other government agencies should assist in the investigation.[note 4]

Project Sign
This led to the creation of the Air Force's Project Sign at the end of 1947, one of the earliest government studies to come to a secret extraterrestrial conclusion. In August 1948, Sign investigators wrote atop-secret intelligence estimate to that effect, but the Air Force Chief of Staff Hoyt Vandenberg ordered it destroyed. The existence of this suppressed report was revealed by several insiders who had read it, such as astronomer and USAF consultant J. Allen Hynek and Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt, the first head of the USAF's Project Blue Book.[45]

Another highly classified U.S. study was conducted by the CIA's Office of Scientific Investigation (OS/I) in the latter half of 1952 in response to orders from the National Security Council (NSC). This study concluded UFOs were real physical objects of potential threat to national security. One OS/I memo to the CIA Director (DCI) in December read:

"the reports of incidents convince us that there is something going on that must have immediate attention ... Sightings of unexplained objects at great altitudes and traveling at high speeds in the vicinity of major U.S. defense installations are of such a nature that they are not attributable to natural phenomena or any known types of aerial vehicles."

The matter was considered so urgent that OS/I drafted a memorandum from the DCI to the NSC proposing that the NSC establish an investigation of UFOs as a priority project throughout the intelligence and the defense research and development community. It also urged the DCI to establish an external research project of top-level scientists, now known as the Robertson Panel to analyze the problem of UFOs. The OS/I investigation was called off after the Robertson Panel's negative conclusions in January 1953.[46]

The Condon Committee

A public research effort conducted by the Condon Committee for the USAF, which arrived at a negative conclusion in 1968, marked the end of the U.S. government's official investigation of UFOs, though various government intelligence agencies continue unofficially to investigate or monitor the situation.[note 5]

Controversy has surrounded the Condon Report, both before and after it was released. It has been observed that the report was "harshly criticized by numerous scientists, particularly at the powerful AIAA ... [which] recommended moderate, but continuous scientific work on UFOs."[10] In an address to the AAAS, James E. McDonald stated that he believed science had failed to mount adequate studies of the problem and criticized the Condon Report and earlier studies by the USAF as scientifically deficient. He also questioned the basis for Condon's conclusions[47] and argued that the reports of UFOs have been "laughed out of scientific court."[9] J. Allen Hynek, an astronomer who worked as a USAF consultant from 1948, sharply criticized the Condon Committee Report and later wrote two nontechnical books that set forth the case for continuing to investigate UFO reports."=======https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object

 

[exchemist]

If we are talking about evidence for and against, what's the nature of the evidence against them? What we see here on Sciforums (not the last word on anything, admittedly) are lots of people responding to ufo reports (and reports of other extraordinary things) by speculating about what they think alternative mundane explanations for those reports might be. There's rarely any convincing evidence provided for those alternative speculations.

So the rhetorical pattern seems to be that if anyone can imagine a mundane explanation for a report, even if there's no tangible evidence for the speculation, then that particular report has been conclusively debunked. (And according to some, all similar reports along with it.)

That's pretty weak in my opinion. It might not be totally hopeless though, if the speculative mundane possibility has a much higher a-priori likelihood of being true. But that's probably going to be hard to establish and nobody has really tried to take a shot at it.

It's not a "rhetorical pattern", it's what Ophiolite said about decent quality evidence. The key word in my view is corroboration. Corroboration, from sources that can be agreed on as being reasonably objective, is what is always lacking. You know this as well as I do.

I will repeat once more what I have said many times on these forums, in many contexts. Nobody is morally obliged to listen to the ravings of every nutter on the street corner. We are all entitled to use filters to screen out what we think on balance is likely to be timewasting rubbish. Most evidence of supposed alien visitations and so forth is simply pisspoor and not worth spending serious time on. You know that as well as I do, too. So spare us the sanctimonious pretence that people here reacting to MR's dishonest nonsense (because that is what we are in practice discussing here) are all being closed-minded devotees of "scientism".

Given the lousy track record, it is up to proponents of alien visitations etc to come up with evidence that is serious, i.e. properly corroborated and which cannot be peremptorily dismissed. It would be wonderful if there were some. And in fact things like the SETI project show that science is quite open to this sort of thing in principle. But not on the basis of crap evidence.

 

[paddoboy]

It's not a "rhetorical pattern", it's what Ophiolite said about decent quality evidence. The key word in my view is corroboration. Corroboration, from sources that can be agreed on as being reasonably objective, is what is always lacking. You know this as well as I do.

I will repeat once more what I have said many times on these forums, in many contexts. Nobody is morally obliged to listen to the ravings of every nutter on the street corner. We are all entitled to use filters to screen out what we think on balance is likely to be timewasting rubbish. Most evidence of supposed alien visitations and so forth is simply pisspoor and not worth spending serious time on. You know that as well as I do, too. So spare us the sanctimonious pretence that people here reacting to MR's dishonest nonsense (because that is what we are in practice discussing here) are all being closed-minded devotees of "scientism".

Given the lousy track record, it is up to proponents of alien visitations etc to come up with evidence that is serious, i.e. properly corroborated and which cannot be peremptorily dismissed. It would be wonderful if there were some. And in fact things like the SETI project show that science is quite open to this sort of thing in principle. But not on the basis of crap evidence.

Great post!
Particularly the SETI project reference....Sorry I am unable to give it more "likes"