What is evidence?

Eh tu, Xi...?

We all know what a plane is, MR.

I am sure we have all seen them in airports, flown on them ourselves, or at the very least, seen them flying overhead.

As for the beliefs in UFO's (which is, I might add, off topic and this discussion does not really belong in this thread), there are a variety of reasons why people believe in them, but most importantly, so that this post is not off topic, there are reasons and evidence that people will and do ignore evidence and at other times, see 'evidence' that isn't actually there. Then of course comes the fact that we will believe what we want to believe, regardless of what anyone else says.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, people of all levels of education like to believe in “weird things,” says Michael Shermer of the Skeptical Inquirer. Shermer wrote that people tend to seek or interpret evidence favorable to existing beliefs and ignore or misinterpret evidence unfavorable to those beliefs.

This is no more obvious than in the writings of “creationist scientists” who either reject or grossly misinterpret geological, biological and astronomical data to support their biblical-based belief in an 8,000 year-old universe.

This “confirmation bias” is in real science as well. The classic example is the 1903 discovery of “N-rays” a completely new form of radiation announced by Prosper-René Blondlot. At the time, dozens of other scientists confirmed the existence of N-rays in their own laboratories. But further tests showed that N-rays don’t exist at all.

How could so many scientists be wrong? They deceived themselves into thinking they were seeing something with their instruments that in fact was not there. This came on the heels of Wilhelm Rontgen’s discovery of X-rays and Paul Ulrich Villard’s discovery of gamma rays in the early 1900s. Apparently there was a predisposition to expecting that other invisible forms of radiation must permeate the universe.

Likewise, any two people can see a blob of light in the sky, one thinking it is the planet Venus and the other person predisposed to interpreting it as a space vehicle under alien control. Yes, airline pilots, and law enforcement office seen strange things in the heavens too. But this is outside of their sphere of expertise — especially when it comes to astronomical phenomena seen under unusual conditions.

Collectively, UFO stories are a sci-fi inspired projection of how we think space visitors would look and behave. Despite over 60 years of “sightings,” the purported scientific evidence is largely anecdotal and uncorroborated. The Mars Science Lab landing left more physical evidence strewn on the Red Planet than thousands of alleged flying saucers reported over the decades.

I’d say that UFO beliefs are fueled by a “secular theology” where people look for greater meaning to the universe and our relationship with it. The theme is that the aliens flying the UFOs pay attention to us, worry about our misdeeds (as evident in alleged sighting of UFOs hanging around nuclear power plants) and want to help raise us to a higher level of existence. This is simply a post-industrial age version of ages old stores of visitation by angels, demons, and other imaginary spirits.

A few of my colleagues dismiss the SETI searches as an unscientific experiment that border on theology. We imagine aliens that are intellectually made in our image: they are as curious as we are, they build lasers or radio telescopes like we do, and they are similarly motivated to devote time and resources simply to letting us know that they exist among the stars. This is hypothesis on top of hypothesis.

Also, people simply love to believe in weird things just because it’s fun. (As an example, simply listen to the audio track of the UFO sighting posted on the YouTube video shown above.) The staid, rational world described in physics, astronomy or biology 101 classes is a bore to most undergraduates.

This is exacerbated by the fact that students traditionally are taught what to think but not how to think, concludes Richard Walker and colleagues in a 2001 survey of 211 college students. One of the true/false questions was, “The government is hiding evidence of alien visitors at Area 51.” Walker’s conclusion: science knowledge is not an inoculation against accepting pseudoscientific gobbledygook.

What’s more, fun ideas sell. Simply go to you neighborhood bookstore. Pseudoscience topics from astrology to parapsychology fill a lot more shelves than hard-core science books.​

That's not really the best. In a scientific thread about "evidence", to suggest that no one needs to know your criteria, when you expect others to believe what you say, is bizarre to say the least.

You obviously do have a criteria, the question is, why won't you explain what it is?

For example, several weeks ago, my ex husband and I were down at my parents house on the coast. We were chatting outside, with the folk's neighbours, no lights were on, no electrical light interference and we were sitting outside and chatting in the dark and watching the nocturnal wildlife of the bush area the folks live in when one of the neighbours asked us to look up. Being in a bush area, there aren't many street lights or electrical lights in general to interfere with star gazing. We looked up and after a few seconds, noticed a flash of light, but not a bright flash, it looked like it was a large tube(ish) or rounded type shaped, with light green lights and it looked like it was tumbling in place, like the shape itself was moving, but it was stationary in place. In that part of the coast, it isn't abnormal to see weird lights in the sky. The light wasn't moving, it was stationary, so we knew it couldn't have been the ISS, which when that flies over, looks like a bright star moving very very fast. It was too big to be a stationary satellite. So what else could it have been? About 8 of us saw it. It was like that for about 20 minutes, before it stopped.

So what could it have been?

a) Weather balloon (given its shape and size, it could very well have been).
b) Rocket booster of some sort tumbling.
c) Drone
d) Helicopter flying stationary at a very high altitude.
e) Low orbit satellite reflecting the last rays of the setting sun.
f) A planet, and the pollution was doing weird things to its light in the atmosphere.
g) A reflection off ice crystals in the upper atmosphere, of lights either on the ground or in the sky itself.

This was just off the top of our heads as we tried to discuss what it was.

We joked about aliens, because well, who wouldn't. But there is a large criteria of things we would need to go through first, to eliminate every other possibility before saying it truly was unknown and unexplained.

And I think that is what a lot of issues people have with UFO believers. They are not listing their criteria, or what possibilities they are eliminating before they come to the conclusion that it is a UFO of alien origin.

In that regard, we do need to know what your criteria is. If you want to convince people, not listing what you have eliminated, and not explaining why or how you have come to that conclusion, is not helpful and it is certainly unscientific.

If you look at a scientific research paper, they do list their criteria. They don't just list the results and say 'go and develop your own criteria for the research and study the field yourself'. They are required to go through and methodically explain and provide everything.

So the question of UFO's and aliens.. No one can say. But thus far, no one has ever been able to eliminate all possibilities properly before coming to the conclusion that it is alien. And until they are able to do that, they will not be taken seriously and they will be questioned. And the reason for that is simple. UFO believers are such firm believers that they fall prey to their own desire to prove the existence of UFO's that they either fake the evidence or misrepresent what they are taking blurry photos of or filming strangely, to push their own beliefs. Or they become gullible and buy into every crackpot theory that presents itself before them. They stop eliminating all the possibilities of what it could be and jump right to 'aliens'. People will believe what they want to believe and people who so firmly believe in UFO's or other paranormal phenomena will ignore all rational thought and jump directly to what they want it to be, because that is what they believe.

It's not just that the evidence they are providing is often dodgy, but a lot of the time, they have posted their conclusion of what they want it to be and believe it is, without actually eliminating anything of what else it could have rationally been first.

 

What you are providing is not eliminating anything else it could be.

And neither are you.

Which is distinctly problematic.

There is no methodology to explain how you or the person who posted the video, for example, went from seeing a light in the sky to determining that it is a UFO of alien origin.

How can you know it is not mundane, when you have completely failed to account and eliminate that it is not something mundane?

You are literally going from point A, and going straight to point E, while skipping everything else in-between. In other words, you are failing to account for and then discount everything else before reaching your conclusion.

The best evidence is able to stand up to scrutiny and is able to categorically explain itself and in the process, clearly eliminate any other mundane explanations.

What you are providing as evidence does not do this.

Well firstly, you need to be able to prove that it is a UFO of alien origin.

To do that, you have to be able to eliminate all of the mundane things it could be. You do not do that and what you provide as evidence does not do that. Hence the problem.

What you are doing instead is to skip the process that should be involved in eliminating everything else and you go straight to the conclusion of what you believe it is. And that's the kicker. You believe. As a result of that belief, you refuse to acknowledge that it could be something else, something more mundane.

And no, I do not want you to repost anything from the Fringe section in the science sub-forums. They do not belong in the science forum. Secondly, you also need to be aware that if you do post them here, then they will face scientific scrutiny and you will be required by the rules of this forum, to scientifically eliminate everything else and you will need to be able to support your contention that they are in fact alien aircraft. As such, no such evidence exists. The choice is entirely up to you. Because failure to provide said scientific evidence, which will mean that you need to eliminate everything else scientifically, will see you moderated.

No MR. I am here to address a point that has arisen in this thread. A point raised by you and which has concerned others on this site, because you are refusing to provide any form of criteria to support your contention and you have instead, demanded that people look things up for themselves, when you make an unscientific and unsupported claim.

At the very least, you do need to provide a criteria. You are refusing to do so. Why? There is no reason to refuse. It is a simple request and one that should be fairly easy for you to answer.

 

But that's the thing, you aren't actually doing that.

You go from 'light in the sky' to 'it's a UFO/aliens' without actually going through and eliminating anything that it could be. The videos you are posting also do not do this. You are not eliminating the mundane first. What you are doing is dismissing the mundane, because the mundane does not fit into what you personally believe. There is a vast difference. To eliminate the mundane would mean to acknowledge that it could be the mundane, and then investigating it to make sure that it is not the mundane before it can be eliminated. You aren't doing that. You refuse to even consider the possibility that it could be the mundane.

Remember when you posted this:

The Levelland Texas sighting in 1957 of course, is about a sighting that has been disputed by scientists.

But then you posted a video with that post, to allude that this happened in Levelland Texas in 1957. Your video was from the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (which happens to be one of my all time favourite movies. And when I say "all time", I mean all time in that my kids refuse to watch it with me because I can recite the words). Was this your evidence of the sighting in Levelland, Texas in 1957?

It's not that we don't look at what you are presenting. I think your issue is that we are looking at what you are presenting and we are looking at it scientifically and we are looking at everything it could be first, before making or coming to any conclusion. You are not doing that.

To suggest that breaking down something and trying to eliminate everything first, is to make uninformed and sweeping generalisations about "a field of research", when said field actually repeatedly fails to account for the mundane is disingenuous on your part. Nothing you have presented as evidence of anything, actually even attempts to eliminate anything else it could be. You post a video or photo of what you claim to be a UFO, without doing any research on it, without even attempting to eliminate what else it could be and then you get very angry and offended when anyone else actually tries to do the right thing, scientifically. Do you understand now?

This is a science forum and yes, we do have a UFO and Fringe sub-section. But posting a video or picture is not enough. You need to be able to explain and discount what it is not first and why and how. In short, you need to list your criteria of what makes a UFO in a picture or video, an alien craft and to do that, you need to be able to eliminate anything else it could be first, not to mention that you need to be able to prove that it is not fake. And you are not doing that.

So when you were asked to list your criteria before, you refused to do so and you are yet to do so, unless you are claiming that your saying it doesn't look mundane so it isn't mundane, is your criteria? If that is the case, then that appears to be the crux of your problem and why you have such difficulty in supporting your claims about UFO's or anything else 'paranormal'.

If you cannot prove that the video or image is not fake (and a lot of what you post is fake and/or is photoshopped) and if you cannot eliminate all that it could be with evidence to support that it isn't those things, then I'm afraid that what you are posting cannot be classified as "evidence" of anything.

And this is why you are kind of required to post your criteria. Because this:

Is not acceptable in a science forum. If you are claiming something is real or true, you need to post your criteria. It is on you to prove that it is real and/or true.

 

The opening sequence of the video you posted is from the Close Encounters of the Third Kind movie. Unless you are going to suggest that Richard Dreyfuss acted in the dramatization of what happened in Levelland (in a truck that is from the 1970's)?

The video you posted even advises that it was from that movie. And it then falsely claims that it was based on the Levelland UFO sighting.

The reality is vastly different. Close Encounters of the Third Kind was based on Spielberg's imagination:

The film's origins can be traced to director Steven Spielberg's youth, when he and his father watched a meteor shower in New Jersey.[4] As a teenager, Spielberg completed the full-length science fiction film Firelight. Many scenes from Firelight would be incorporated in Close Encounters on a shot-for-shot basis.[8] In 1970 he wrote a short story called Experiences about a lovers' lane in a Midwestern United States farming community and the "light show" a group of teenagers see in the night sky.[9] In late 1973, during post-production on The Sugarland Express, Spielberg developed a deal with Columbia Pictures for a science fiction film. 20th Century Fox previously turned down the offer.[9] Julia and Michael Phillips instantly signed on as producers.[10]

He first considered doing a documentary or a low-budget feature film about people who believed in UFOs. Spielberg decided "a film that depended on state of the art technology couldn't be made for $2.5 million."[9] Borrowing a phrase from the ending of The Thing from Another World, he retitled the film Watch the Skies, rewriting the premise concerning Project Blue Book and pitching the concept to Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz. Katz remembered "It had flying saucers from outer space landing on Robertson Boulevard [inWest Hollywood, California]. I go, 'Steve, that's the worst idea I ever heard."[9] Spielberg brought Paul Schrader to write the script in December 1973 with principal photography to begin in late-1974. However, Spielberg started work on Jaws in 1974, pushing Watch the Skies back.[9]
​

So the video you posted as evidence falsely attributed scenes from the movie and then falsely claimed it was based on the "real life incident" of Levelland UFO sighting. And you used this as evidence of the Levelland sighting.

Not only that, you are now saying that it was a dramatisation of what happened in Levelland.

The sad thing is that UFO enthusiasts have taken Spielberg's quote out of context about the movie and Government conspiracies, just as they have overblown his use of Hynek as a consultant (and brief appearance as an actor) on (and in) the movie. Spielberg advised he used him because he wanted that sort of Government conspiracy to come off credibly, that the whole phenomenon of sightings to have a bit more credibility.. The title of the movie itself comes from Hynek himself..

This is the sort of dodgy evidence you are trying to pass off on this forum. It isn't evidence at all. Aside from the fraudulent claims at the start of that video, for you to then falsely claim that it is a dramatisation of what happened in Levelland is ridiculous.

Hence the issue of what you are trying to pass off on this forum as "evidence". And it is why you were asked to post your criteria, because what you are currently trying to pass off as evidence is not evidence at all.

To not get bogged down with UFO's in the science subforum, I am just going to touch on your approach.

Firstly, you cannot prove that it wasn't any of those things because you a) refuse to do so, b) refuse to even acknowledge that it could have been something mundane..

Secondly, your approach to the subject of "evidence" is disingenuous. You have declared it isn't any of those things, without any evidence that it is not any of those things.

Thirdly, your criteria is not actually looking at any evidence. You are looking at videos and declaring that is evidence and this is your criteria? Break it down. Prove that it isn't anything mundane. State your criteria clearly. A video doesn't work well for you, as we saw in one example of what you posted. Declaring you are doing this in your own mind.. consider that we are not in your head. So we need to see actual proof and evidence. Your mind doesn't cut it.

Until you can do this clearly, you will have no credibility.

You haven't presented any actual scientific evidence. You've posted some dodgy videos and pictures of stuff and told us what that is, without anything at all to support your claim that this is what you are saying it is. As such, if you took the time to even look up what you were posting and doing some research, eliminating what it is not with evidence to support your claim that it is not "swamp gas", for example, then you might be taken more seriously. But you aren't doing that and when someone asks you to post your criteria, you refuse to do so and tell them to make up their own.

My criteria is to go through each one, make sure it's not a fake image, completely rule out that it is not something else. You aren't doing that at all. You are taking everything at face value.

As a result, you post dodgy pictures and videos, most of which are fake, and all of which can be explained.

That isn't evidence. And it certainly does not bear up to any form of scrutiny. Just because you believe it is so does not make it so.

 

What evidence?

You have yet to provide any.

And the science is being performed by MUFON and NUFORC? What science, exactly? By which scientists?

Robert Powell? He has a Bachelor in Chemistry.. He's in charge of the "Science Review Board" at NUFON... NUFON investigates UFO and is trying to have "UFOlogy" recognised in the media as being an actual science. Reports of sightings that Powell and his review board went over, include quotes from people and bizarre drawings and one photograph of what looks like a clay pigeon at a shooting range. This is the so called 'scientific' evidence you are relying upon? Surely you jest!

And you might think I am a glorified babysitter in a nerd treehouse and you might be correct. I see myself more as a janitor, one of the few of us who mop up the proverbial shit on this site. But the irony of your statement is that you are here, avidly posting in said "nerd treehouse", desperately trying to argue that your evidence passes muster. It does not. And this has been an ongoing issue with you. You may claim that you are not interested by what we have to say for what rubbish you post here, and that's fine. You can not care. But we are also within our rights to demand you post evidence and if you fail to do so and if you fail to support your argument, we are well within our rights to issue you with an infraction.

You can have looked at "evidence" for 14 years. And this may well have allowed or compelled you to believe that aliens are visiting Earth. You are yet to provide any of that compelling evidence here, however.

Having read your threads, I am fairly certain that the issue of ignorance on the matter does not stem from my end.

You should have let it slip by:

KAMC News asked Dr. Eric Bruning, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech, to take a look at the Levelland case files. He says the science in the report checks out, and that what's in the documents doesn't give him any reason to doubt the Air Force's interpretation of the incident as ball lightning.

"Ball lightning is characterized as a luminous ball of some sort. The size of a baseball, basketball, lasting a few seconds to maybe a minute in reports," Dr. Bruning explained. "The science that the Air Force used to understand this event back in 1957 is sound and consistent with everyone we did know and have since learned about ball lightning."

[Source]
​

And..

The Levelland sightings received national publicity, and were soon investigated by Project Blue Book. Started in 1947 as Project Sign, Project Blue Book was the official US Air Force research group assigned to investigate UFO reports. An Air Force sergeant was sent to Levelland, and spent seven hours in the city investigating the incident.[2] After interviewing three of the eyewitnesses - Saucedo, Wheeler, and Wright - and after learning that thunderstorms were present in the area earlier in the day, the Air Force investigator concluded that a severe electrical storm - most probably ball lightning or St. Elmo's fire - was the major cause for the sightings and reported auto failures.[2] According to UFO historian Curtis Peebles, "the Air Force found only three persons who had witnessed the 'blue light'...there was no uniform description of the object."[4] Additionally, Project Blue Book believed that "Saucedo's account could not be relied upon - he had only a grade school education and had no concept of direction and was conflicting in his answers...in view of the stormy weather conditions, an electrical phenomenon such as ball lightning or St. Elmo's fire seemed to be the most probable cause."[4] The engine failures mentioned by the eyewitnesses were blamed on "wet electrical circuits."[4]Donald H. Menzel a prominent UFO researcher of the era, agreed with the Air Force explanation: "members of civilian saucer groups complained that, since [the Air Force investigator] had spent only seven hours in the area, he had obviously not taken the problem seriously and could not have found the correct solution. Even seventy hours of labor, however, could not have produced a clearer picture...the evidence leads to an overwhelming probability: the fiery unknown at Levelland was ball lightning."[2] Menzel argued that "in Levelland on the night of November 2 conditions were ideal for the formation of ball lightning. For several days the area had been experiencing freak weather, and on the night in question had been visited by rain, thunderstorms and lightning."[2] Menzel admitted that "since ball lightning is short-lived and cannot be preserved as tangible evidence, its appearance on the night of November 2 can never be absolutely proved." However, he also argued that "only the saucer proponents could have converted so trivial a series of events - a few stalled automobiles, balls of flame in the sky at the end of the thunderstorm - into a national mystery."[2]
[Source]
​

Which all just further proves that you are unable to discount anything "mundane" before you present it as fact. Hence the issue with your posts and threads on these subjects. You believe, so you cannot conceivably think that it could be something else and you categorically discount any other explanation because to do so would force you to question your personal beliefs. Belief in something is not evidence that it exists. Ergo your belief that what you are posting is evidence of the paranormal, is not actual evidence that it exists or that what you are posting is even real.

It is also why you refuse to actually list your criteria. And it is also why your approach to "evidence" is so problematic.