Do you think linking UFOs with the paranormal is healthy for either discussion?

[eburacum45]

@RadioActiveRich

In fact its pretty easy to prove the government has lied where UFO sightings are concerned. But just because I ask you a question and you lie doesn’t mean that I automatically know the truth.

There is a great difference between lying and making a mistake.

Are the witnesses lying if they mistakenly think they have seen an alien spacecraft? No.
Are the various governments of the world lying if they say there is not enough evidence to investigate these reports? No.

The US government is not the only government involved in these investigations, (such as they are). The UK appointed Nick Pope to investigate UFO reports on behalf of the War Office; he became a staunch believer in the phenomenon, but he denies that there has been any cover-up.

Pope also has failed to discover any good evidence of the existence of UFOs of alien origin, but that is quite another matter.

[eburacum45]

Let’s say for the sake of your question that those same people were shooting at ghosts or reacting to what they thought were spirits. I’d study those incidents as well and I don’t believe in such things. So, its more about finding the truth than proving that UFOs or ghosts or whatever exist. The phenomena is real.

I agree with this; the UFO (or rather the UAP) phenomenon is real, and the fact that Unidentified Aerial Phenomena exist and are sometimes seen by pilots in flight can be seen as a potential hazard - if a pilot sees something unidentified while landing, taking off or performing some other high-risk manouevre there could be a real danger to all concerned. That is why I support efforts to study these phenomena.

However most of the serious study supports the idea that these phenomena are merely misperceptions. Increasing use of navigational aides and computer-assisted flying seems to reduce the reliance on human perception, making the risk from UAPs smaller.

[Czarcasm]

@RadioActiveRich

I didn’t say they were good evidence of UFOs. I said there were credible reports or some reports by more credible people.

Speaking of “credible people”:

@RadioActiveRich

Again, you have not read on the subject. I only started three weeks ago for an article I was working on and I can tell you there IS hard evidence and there is expert eyewitness accounts from people who not only have nothing to gain, but who sacrifice their reputations (or worse) to tell what they’ve seen.

[RadioActiveRich]

@Czarcasm

Speaking of “credible people”:

This is the problem with your using UFO interchangeably with alien visitations. My question was about UFOs. My response here was about alien visitations.

I never said there was strong evidence of alien visitations. I said there are credible people reporting unidentified flying objects.

You’ve taken a thoroughly argumentative tone within a conversation you obviously are not enjoying at all. So, how about we “debate” as the forum title suggests or agree to just not slap each other around over a disagreement that is more your perception than anything else?

[eburacum45]

The truth is that UFO witnesses are (almost certainly) all misperceiving mundane phenomena as extraordinary phenomena; this makes their observations fall into a similar class of phenomena as the observations of ghosts and seaserpents. Any theory of perception or psychology that explains why people see (or report) UFOs would also have relevance in explaining why people see (or report) ghosts and seamonsters.

[Musicat]

@RadioActiveRich

This is the problem with your using UFO interchangeably with alien visitations. My question was about UFOs. My response here was about alien visitations.

I never said there was strong evidence of alien visitations. I said there are credible people reporting unidentified flying objects.

Let’s start with the basics, and something we all can agree upon.

There is no question there are credible people reporting seeing unidentified shit in the sky.

Notice I didn’t say objects. We don’t know if they are objects. They could be illusions, lights, reflections, bugs, birds, hoaxes, balloons, planes, or spaceships, only some of which are objects.

They may be unidentified by the claimant, but identifiable by others.

They may be aliens, which is what many people assume, but which is the least likely of all explanations.

No, there are no credible people reporting unidentified flying objects, just visions of something they say they can’t identify. And people have been doing that for as long as humans have been humans.

[Human_Action]

@RadioActiveRich

I fine with people studying whatever they want to. I can’t say paranormal phenomena shouldn’t be studied. My point as simply stated as I can is that the types of reports and sightings I find interesting remain interesting even if you completely rule out alien UFOs or even eliminate the possibility that any “object” is there at all. The reports I’m speaking of involve the discharge of weapons, military forces in sensitive roles, and people of “respectability” who we should probably care if they’re suffering from hallucinations, delusions, or whatever else the cause might be. Let’s say for the sake of your question that those same people were shooting at ghosts or reacting to what they thought were spirits. I’d study those incidents as well and I don’t believe in such things. So, its more about finding the truth than proving that UFOs or ghosts or whatever exist. The phenomena is real. The question remains is it a psychosis, alien visitation, or something secret yet not nefarious in any way (or a bunch of other possibilities). I just don’t think ANY of the discussion is served by mixing topics. I think cases should be studied for exactly what they are without any assumptions. In my opinion, just linking the topics requires some pretty big assumptions. Hope I answered your question.

Eh, kinda. Let me rephrase: if you were made the director of a large, multi-billion dollar effort to study UFOs, what sort of study would you undertake?

I’m not asking you to design an experiment or anything, I just fail to see what can be studied in the accounts you’ve described, other than reading witness statements, interviewing witnesses, and visiting or photographing the location of the supposed sighting.

How might you discern whether psychosis, alien visitation, or something secret yet not nefarious is behind a given sighting?

[Voyager]

@RadioActiveRich

Appreciate the recommendation, but how does knowing that a particular UFO case is fraudulent (or EVERY case for that matter) make the conversation about that healthier if we’re lumping it in with an entire OTHER phenomena? My question speaks specifically to the health of the two conversations. Many here seem not to want to engage in either and that’s fine, but very much beside the point. If evidence and finding of fact brings about an intelligent and truthful end, wouldn’t it make sense to simplify the encounter rather than mix it up with something that I see as entirely unrelated?

It in no way says that any given experience is fraudulent. However the strongest argument for UFOs as something real, as you say, is the presence of credible witnesses. Many of the witnesses of the airships were as credible as UFO witnesses, respected members of their communities, with no reason to lie. But they were mistaken in any case.
I started reading about UFOs almost 50 years ago, and wanted to believe. But the lack of physical evidence, the changing of sightings with changing popular culture, has convinced me that they do not represent aliens, time travelers, or people from inside the earth. This is a case where one really can’t prove a negative, so we need some hard evidence to make up for the absurd proposal that aliens from immensely far away are playing games with us. If they wanted to contact us, they would. If they wanted us to not know they are here, they can observe from a distance. We have drones - think how small their sensor platforms could be!