Fila wrote:

zulumoose wrote:Nothing, not even a body, should be considered proof.

Interesting. So why place such high demands on UFO witnesses?
What are they meant to do?

We all complain about this lack of PROOF.., so what can be done about it?

Oh boy, your thinking is so muddled.

"So why place such high demands on UFO witnesses?"
Who is placing what demands on witnesses?
Witnesses report what they believe they have seen, to the best of their ability, end of story.

"What are they meant to do?"
Nothing. They can report to whoever they wish to or not, it's entirely up to them.

"We all complain about this lack of PROOF"
No, we don't.
What rational people do is simply note the absence of testable supporting evidence, and the proliferation of wild claims and hoaxes. Whether any of the claims/stories etc peak their interest is quite subjective.

zulumoose wrote:Oh boy, your thinking is so muddled.

Okay, I'll go with that. I'm all muddled up and not thinking right. So don't ridicule me. Help me out.

zulumoose wrote:Who is placing what demands on witnesses?
Witnesses report what they believe they have seen, to the best of their ability, end of story.

If you read this thread.., you will see that everyone is. Its a pretty well known thing.., not sure why your unaware of this all of a sudden just for this specific question.

Mr Zulu "Nothing, not even a body, should be considered proof" moose.

zulumoose wrote:Nothing. They can report to whoever they wish to or not, it's entirely up to them.

What are they meant to do.., in regards to acquiring better EVIDENCE?
Please don't avoid this question.

zulumoose wrote:No, we don't.

LOL, I reckon if you picked a number between 1 and 7, and went to that page in this thread.., press Ctrl + F and search for "proof".., you'd find someone saying something about needing proof.

zulumoose wrote:What rational people do is simply note the absence of testable supporting evidence

1) What forms of evidence do you expect a witnesses to gather? 80 years of UFO witnesses. Even by today's standards. What do you expect from them? (including yourself in this hypothetical situation).
a) Images and statements
b) Alien DNA or technology
c) Data from scientific instruments (see OP for examples)

2) From your answer above.., which are "testable"?

What are they meant to do.., in regards to acquiring better EVIDENCE?

They are not MEANT to do anything.

LOL, I reckon if you picked a number between 1 and 7, and went to that page in this thread.., press Ctrl + F and search for "proof".., you'd find someone saying something about needing proof.

I picked 6, the only mention was in a quote of one of your posts.

1) What forms of evidence do you expect a witnesses to gather?

I don't expect anything, can't you get over that attitude?
I'm not going to try jumping over your hurdles.

People see weird shit every day, their explanations tend to correspond to whatever wild beliefs they are exposed to.
Until science fiction movies were popular, aliens were not a likely claim.
I suspect the relationship is more than mere correlation.

Fila wrote:

zulumoose wrote:Nothing. They can report to whoever they wish to or not, it's entirely up to them.

What are they meant to do.., in regards to acquiring better EVIDENCE?
Please don't avoid this question.

If there are any examples that are claimed "better evidence" than others, then these can be offered as examples of what to look for. It's not up to me to decide what is better or worse evidence of UFOs, since I make no claims that UFOs exist. If all the evidence is of the same quality, fuck it. Unless you have some examples, there aren't any examples of what anyone is "meant" to look for. This criterion of "better evidence" is entirely up to the UFO community to establish, but I don't think there will be any such examples forthcoming. Surprise me.

Fila wrote:Okay.., so.., witness testimony.., and images.., aren't PROOF.
They are forms of EVIDENCE.

Nope. Testimony is anecdote, and images are inconclusive, unless you re-define evidence. What you want are better images, but not images so good that fraud or hoax can be detected.

Fila wrote:If you saw a UFO right now.., all you could provide are images and statements.

If I saw a "UFO", I'd call it something else. "A pretty light in the sky", "a refraction in the atmosphere". I'd certainly check the sun angle before I concluded it was an alien spaceship. I can't tell you how much I would love there to be alien spaceships cruising around our atmosphere, but my wishes don't weigh very much.

Fila wrote:The only way to gather enough EVIDENCE to PROVE ufos are being seen.., is via the scientific method and expensive equipment and time.

Well, then they know just what they have to do. Still, you'd have to be assuming that better evidence is possible, which is the same as assuming UFOs really exist.

LucidFlight wrote:

Thommo wrote:It's a pretty weird set of questions in the first place. It seems to imply there's a station where "the scientists" sit around doing nothing until they are dispatched to investigate an incident. Like firemen or the police.

But in the same way firemen will turn up at the report of a fire, or police at the report of a crime, you're only going to get a geologist turn up if there's a report of some interesting rocks, or an entomologist if there's a report of some interesting bugs. Who would actually "study" reports of aliens? And why? As someone said, if there were aliens or alien corpses that people could see, touch, interact with and experiment on, then you'd get all sorts of biologists interested and involved. But there aren't.

[sniperoo...]

(My bold.)

Ahem, ahe-eh-ehm...

Well there is them, I suppose.

Fila wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

Fila wrote:
But therein lies the paradox. It appears that in order to research or study UFOs.., I first need proof.
But to gather proof.., I need to conduct field studies. But to do that.., I need proof. But....., (and around it goes)

All you need to study UFOs are UFOs. As Arthur C. Clarke said; If you've never seen a UFO you can't be very observant.
Be prepared for a fuckton of tedium and disappointment.

I disagree.
All you need in order to observe a UFO.., is a UFO.

But in order to scientifically study and confirm UFOs.., expensive equipment.., time and knowledge of correct procedures is required.

Scientists study phenomena. Science already has models for how the universe works. The models have been acquired only because the phenomena under investigation contains constancy. Whatever has mass/solidity in this universe is reducible to fundamental Energy. If it is not, then it would have to be considered alien to this universe. If there were indeed phenomena not reducible to fundamental Energy, and therefore not yet inclusive within the scientific models of the universe, those phenomena would require constancy to be considered worthy of investigation. Anecdotal reports of unknown sightings - if there were really any substance to the claims - can be assumed to be of the same fundamental properties as all known substances in the universe. If any phenomenon were truly alien in its composition then whatever substance it possesses would necessarily have to be constant, otherwise there is no substance. Only substance, or whatever corresponds to substance, can be independently analysed. To posit any substance that is not reducible to the same fundamental principles upon which this universe has its basis, is easily dismissed without constancy... Explaining how any distinct substance could interact with the substance of this universe and yet not be of the same fundamental property/Energy, is what any such constancy would entail.

Edit: to parse sentence

Energy with a capital E, no less.

LucidFlight wrote:Energy with a capital E, no less.

Correct.

Fila wrote:
Interesting. So why place such high demands on UFO witnesses?

High demands compared to what?

zulumoose wrote:They are not MEANT to do anything.

Ok. What CAN they do...

zulumoose wrote:I picked 6, the only mention was in a quote of one of your posts.

Naw, too bad. That would have been cool if it worked first time hey, lol.
Anyway.., It's there in this thread alone. So my point still stands.

zulumoose wrote:I don't expect anything, can't you get over that attitude?
I'm not going to try jumping over your hurdles.

Thank you for your response.

zulumoose wrote:People see weird shit every day, their explanations tend to correspond to whatever wild beliefs they are exposed to.

The majority of credible reports don't contain the word alien. They call them UFOs.

zulumoose wrote:Until science fiction movies were popular, aliens were not a likely claim.
I suspect the relationship is more than mere correlation.

I disagree.
When was the first alien film created? When was the first sighting?

Cito di Pense wrote:If there are any examples that are claimed "better evidence" than others, then these can be offered as examples of what to look for.

You just don't know what it would be. That's ok. Thank you.

Cito di Pense wrote:It's not up to me to decide what is better or worse evidence of UFOs, since I make no claims that UFOs exist.

Woah, calm down. I'm not attacking you or forcing anything. Please relax.
I'm just asking.., seeing as you speak with such authority on the subject.., what YOU would consider.
Its okay if you don't know.., it means you are starting to see my point.
What evidence are we expecting witnesses to collect? (including yourself in a hypothetical situation).

Cito di Pense wrote:There aren't any examples of what anyone is "meant" to look for. This criterion of "better evidence" is entirely up to the UFO community to establish

Thank you for your answer.
Images, and statements are all witnesses can provide.

Cito di Pense wrote:Nope. Testimony is anecdote, and images are inconclusive, unless you re-define evidence.

You are the one redefining it would seem.
anecdote: a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
testimony: a formal written or spoken statement, especially one given in a court of law.

Images are used in science all the time (NASA? Weather? Photos of atoms? Electron microscope images?
In law, testimony and images are quite valued forms of evidence.

Cito di Pense wrote:If I saw a "UFO"... [snip]

So in short, if you saw a UFO right now.., all you could provide are images and statements.
Thank you.

Fila wrote:The only way to gather enough EVIDENCE to PROVE ufos are being seen.., is via the scientific method and expensive equipment and time.

Cito di Pense wrote:Still, you'd have to be assuming that better evidence is possible, which is the same as assuming UFOs really exist.

Its amazing that there's only 4 types of evidence.
Images and statements are PROOF. Just EVIDENCE.
We need better EVIDENCE., but there isn't any.
The next step up (alien body, ET craft) would be considered PROOF

Sendraks wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/21/what-is-behind-the-decline-in-ufo-sightings

Before I read the article, I'm going to speculate: Less Unidentified Flying Objects due to better identification?

Thommo wrote:

Sendraks wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/21/what-is-behind-the-decline-in-ufo-sightings

Before I read the article, I'm going to speculate: Less Unidentified Flying Objects due to better identification?

Pretty much. Plus nobody cares anymore.

Fila wrote:

zulumoose wrote:They are not MEANT to do anything.

Ok. What CAN they do...

Provide something more than just-so stories. Like, anything at all.

zulumoose wrote:I picked 6, the only mention was in a quote of one of your posts.

Naw, too bad. That would have been cool if it worked first time hey, lol.
Anyway.., It's there in this thread alone. So my point still stands.

You made a claim and it failed under scrutiny, so your point doesn't stand. I can see why you're so confused about all this

Sendraks wrote:

Fila wrote:
Interesting. So why place such high demands on UFO witnesses?

High demands compared to what?

Seriously, what are these high demands that are being placed on UFO witnesses, as compared to the witnesses of say, anything else? Never mind in comparison to the demands placed on scientists to justify their research and its findings.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

zulumoose wrote:I picked 6, the only mention was in a quote of one of your posts.

Naw, too bad. That would have been cool if it worked first time hey, lol.
Anyway.., It's there in this thread alone. So my point still stands.

You made a claim and it failed under scrutiny, so your point doesn't stand. I can see why you're so confused about all this

Amusingly there are 0 times in the whole thread where someone (other than Fila) said proof was required. The very few mentions of proof are either people using the phrase "burden of proof" in relation to evidence, or people responding to Fila's never-ending drivel about proof by saying that in fact it's not a matter of proof. A solid 90% of all uses of the word are Fila's.

So, either projection or trolling.

False dichotomy! Could be both!

Fallible wrote:False dichotomy! Could be both!

I used my "inclusive or" font, not my "exclusive or" font.