Claim: UFO's May Be Stealth Aliens Living in Caves, on the Dark Side of the Moon or Alaska

The common argument is something like, if we entertain x, why not entertain leprechauns. But it is unreasonable to apply that argument generally, for all unproven hypotheses x.

You are on the good track, what you wrote is very different (and much more sensible) than what you wrote earlier:
The only argument about probability was to say that they think the probability that the cryptoterrestrial hypothesis is correct is very small, but non-zero.

But now don't try to shift the burden of proof:
If you could formulate this argument in a nuanced and more valid way, and then argue for an objective way to apply it in different circumstances, so that you can make a robust argument why we should not have the amount of epistemic humility required to entertain the hypothesis they present, that would be a useful result in response to the paper.
It's not 'us' who need to formulate any argument, it's the authors of the paper who need to decrease their amount of epistemic hubris and make a robust argument for why their hypothesis is true, instead of resorting to the fallacy 'you cannot demonstrate there are no aliens on Earth, so there are aliens'. Otherwise, I'm pretty much entitled to just respond with 'you cannot demonstrate there are no leprechauns, so there are leprechauns'.
 
Last edited:
Note, we ended up here because you proposed that the UFO phenomenon exists because people think it would be cool if aliens were here. I am not the only counter example to that assertion. It would be more productive to have a discussion about the veracity of that claim in my opinion than initiating a gang up on a witness despite the high likelihood that it would lead nowhere.
I think what you refer to as "the UFO phenomenon" is not monolithic; it has a good many possible causes for different sightings. Some have been proved to be quite conclusively mistaken identification, such as the Starlink deployments, and although those were mysterious when first spotted, they are familiar to most analysts by now. Some may have been ordinary things that showed up later on photos, but were unnoticed at the time. Some have been "bandwagon" phenomena from attention-seekers. And some are simply unidentified at this time.

It would be careless of any serious investigation to ignore known factors. If we ask questions, that is not a slur on your observational skills in any way, just due diligence on our part.
 
Many people here have already pre-dismissed it, along with every other reported sighting, by ruling definitively that it's a social or psychological phenomenon.

In fairness -and referring only to myself- I think there's some truth in that. Perhaps more along the line of "I don't accept any reported sighting that I know of at the moment as evidence of alien intelligence", mainly because (1) there is no convincing corroborative evidence,
(2) many high-profile sightings / accounts of meetings with aliens turn out to be hoaxes, misperceptions, etc. etc.
(3) perfectly decent and reliable people also report detailed encounters and communication with diverse people from religious history, notably Mary mother of Jesus but also figures from other religions. Such manifestations are almost always culturally specific.

If (3) reflects objectively true events- real-time communication with a sentient being who lived many years ago- it raises more questions, and is arguably more significant, than the existence of aliens.

There are numerous examples of sober, responsible people giving confident accounts of what they have witnessed/ experienced where it has later been shown they were objectively wrong. This can happen even in serious situations where the information provided might have a real impact on the life of the witness or others, e.g. investigations of serious crime, military situations, recollections of other important events.

I don't think this means witnesses of strange events, or people who recount demonstrably incorrect details of more mundane events, are lying, prone to misperceptions or even necessarily giving an account at odds with what they perceived at the time.

But we can't overlook that despite many thousands of reports of UFOs (and a smaller number of sightings of aliens), ghosts, psychic phenomena, large cryptids (Loch Ness monster, Yetis, Bigfoot, Chupacabra) etc. there isn't any real testable evidence for any of these things- just anecdotal accounts and the occasional blurry photo. (And bits of metal that turn out to be bits of metal from Earth/ parts from a small windmill. Exploited remains of deceased Nazca people. A leopard skull from a rug, etc. etc.)

We don't regard our own strange experiences or observations as anecdotal accounts, normally we have to rely on our own perceptions and memories (and we're usually right to do so). It's clear that people believe they see "weird shit".

However, a single person's experience, however truthfully recounted and however reliable a witness they might seem to be, is still one person's subjective experience and if shared it's anecdotal evidence.
By itself, it's not a sufficient reason to accept the experiencer's claim, especially if adopting that claim has real implications for our understanding of science and objective reality.
For instance, I think it would be wrong to teach young schoolchildren that because lots of people have seen UFOs, it's very likely that aliens are visiting Earth.
 
I think it would be wrong to teach young schoolchildren that because lots of people have seen UFOs, it's very likely that aliens are visiting Earth.
Ooh, yeah. I'd be quite annoyed if I came home and saw the babysitter just finishing up reading Leah Haley's 'Ceto's New Friends' to my kids [amongst other things she believes she was aboard a UFO that was shot down by the USG].
Cetos New Friends.jpg
Cetos New Friends beam.jpg
 
Ooh, yeah. I'd be quite annoyed if I came home and saw the babysitter just finishing up reading Leah Haley's 'Ceto's New Friends' to my kids
(I guess this is parenting advice, so take it or leave it.) Regarding another touchy subject (religion) my daughter and husband handled it quite well when my grandson was young by telling him "A lot of people believe that, but we don't. But it's not nice to laugh at other kids and make them feel bad."
 
I considered the possibility of an atmospheric phenomenon as a possible explanation for my sighting too. But there is no known atmospheric phenomenon that fits what I saw, and, if I am being honest with myself, an undiscovered atmospheric phenomenon also seems unlikely given the details of what happened, unless it were an artificially induced and controlled atmospheric phenomenon, or advanced form of electronic warfare. But I can't ignore the fact that the incident fits into a pattern of reported incidents, and many of these incidents are multiple credible witness events, from ordinary people, as well as staff at military bases, and some are corroborated by radar data. It would be foolish of me to dismiss the possibility that what I saw fits this pattern because it is based on the same phenomenon, or that some of what we are seeing actually are mass-full objects exhibiting extraordinary maneuvers as they would appear to be.

The problem any witness will always face, and this applies to any topic and not just UFOs, is that everyone else wasn't there....didn't see or experience the phenomenon...and so don't really know how accurate or reliable your account is. This is not to play down your experience...it is what one ought to expect. The same would apply to my own experience.

A classic example is the Phoenix lights. I wasn't there...I wish I had been. The problem is I don't know how reliable the witnesses actually are. I don't mean reliable in terms of truthfulness, but in terms of accurately reporting and interpreting what they've seen.

I mean...I know people who have confused Venus for a UFO. Frankly....some people I wouldn't trust to recognise the Sun in the sky. I've seen numerous cases where people have confused birds, lens flare, meteors, aircraft, Starlink, Venus, the Moon, and yes even the Sun, for a UFO. The average reliability of witnesses is very poor indeed !

With my sighting, I know that what I saw was something very unusual. But to everyone else I'm just another Joe Bloggs who might be as unreliable as the poor witnesses. Nobody can really assign themselves the status 'credible witness'. That can only come about like in a court case, where the witnesses story is cross examined and so on.
 
Back
Top