Major UFO experiences are specific to the observer

[Eburacum]

Well, you are all certainly free to interpret the event any way you'd like. I can just give the best accounting I can.

Indeed, but I hope that I have successfully demonstrated to you that at least one part of your account is in error, since the Moon is considerably smaller than a dime held at arms' length, and you also say the 'orbs' were each smaller than the Moon. That makes them considerably smaller than a dime. But this is a common error, repeated in many places on the 'net.

I may have mentioned that I have at least five fairly convincing UFO/UAP sightings in my long life, and I've managed to explain all of them in my own mind; a different observer may have come to different conclusions about any of them. Especially the alien that entered my room, which I am fairly sure was sleep paralysis. I also note that any or all of my 'explanations' for these events could be wrong, but that is true about almost anything.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Indeed, but I hope that I have successfully demonstrated to you that at least one part of your account is in error, since the Moon is considerably smaller than a dime held at arms' length, and you also say the 'orbs' were each smaller than the Moon. That makes them considerably smaller than a dime. But this is a common error, repeated in many places on the 'net.

I may have mentioned that I have at least five fairly convincing UFO/UAP sightings in my long life, and I've managed to explain all of them in my own mind; a different observer may have come to different conclusions about any of them. Especially the alien that entered my room, which I am fairly sure was sleep paralysis. I also note that any or all of my 'explanations' for these events could be wrong, but that is true about almost anything.

Your experiences have no bearing. Moon is a silly trick I could have looked up. I told you to look at illustrations. You all have indeed taught me a lot.
On a different note, I've enjoyed interacting with you, Eburacum, all these years. Take care and I hope you get to see a real UFO one day.

 

[John J.]

[replying to @Eburacum ] Take care and I hope you get to see a real UFO one day.

I think this arguably brings us back to the thread title, "Major UFO experiences are specific to the observer".

What do you (Todd) mean by a "real UFO"?
If in this context a real UFO is an exotic artefact of non-human origin or a visible phenomenon under non-human control, no "real" UFOs have been shown to exist, ever, although clearly some people are convinced that they have seen real UFOs.

This might be the downside of something being "undebunkable" (which I sort of equate with unfalsifiable), it is also indemonstrable. No testable evidence means that we are left with subjective accounts which cannot be tested.
This doesn't mean that the witnessed event wasn't accurately reported, or even that the witness was mistaken in their conclusions, just that we have no way of assessing this except by considering what is already known about similar reports.
None have been shown to be proof of ETI craft or other exotic phenomena.

So how do we decide which reports might be of "real" UFOs (using the above definition)? I guess many Metabunk threads address this.
Anecdotal reports and beliefs/ confidence of claimants are objectively (not necessarily subjectively) insufficient, they are not a sensible basis for changing how we view the universe or what should be printed in science textbooks. Many mainstream books about astronomy, spaceflight etc. discuss the possibility of extraterrestrial life, but I feel it would be a retrograde step if authors felt obliged to mention (e.g.) Antonio Villas Boas' account, or Kelly-Hopkinsville, as possible evidence of alien life along with, say, discussion of spectroscopy of planetary atmospheres, SETI and the Drake equation.

It seems the assessment of a UFO being "real" is a subjective matter of opinion -belief- and isn't dependent on testable or replicable evidence.
It is beyond doubt that many people believe that they have seen exotic flying craft/ phenomena and that they're certain their experiences can't be explained by any theories that don't involve non-human intelligence. I am sure Barney and Betty Hill believed their UFO was real.

Many equally credible people have witnessed ghosts, Bigfoot, chupacabras and been visited by figures from their religious traditions. In the past, many others attested to fairies, witches. Belief in the latter appears to have been widespread. But magic isn't real, so witches (in the historical sense) didn't exist (whether some people believed themselves to be witches is a different issue). Yet people were put to death because accounts of supernatural phenomena, and anecdotes connecting almost certainly unconnected events, were accepted as evidence and believed. Conviction that something is real is not evidence that it is, even if others share that conviction.

Major UFO experiences might be specific to the observer. How that observer interprets their sighting, and what they believe as a result, might also be subjective.
There is no testable, convincing evidence that anyone has ever seen a "real" UFO, though some people believe they have.

Stating that real UFOs exist to be seen, and implying those who don't see (or see but don't believe in) them are cursed, seems more faith- than evidence-based.

 

[Smythe Bacchus]

I think I understand how believers can view skeptics as being biased and narrow-minded. The sticking points are the scope of hypotheses, what possibilities could be plausible, and how testimonies should be considered.

Believers want to connect as much testimonies together as possible, whether they are from different times and locations, even years apart. Every testimony (no matter how dubious or flimsy) is a dot that could be joined to another dot. To do otherwise, is to discard potential evidence in their view. Skeptics consider that as speculation that is more like constructing a "sci-fi narrative" of choice, rather than an investigation.

Skeptics prioritise known phenomena based on plausibility. Believers view this approach as exclusionary, and closing the door to "otherworldly" possibilities.

Believers recognize that elimination of more plausible "worldly" phenomena first (which is what skepticism requires) is nigh on impossible, when there is little evidence to study. They view this as a logical trap laid by skeptics, who are not acting in good faith.

Skeptics argue that unknown simply means unknown, which cannot prove anything at all (let alone that something is otherworldly).

Believers argue that just because something could have a "worldly" explanation, doesn't automatically exclude it from an "otherworldly" explanation.

Skeptics focus on what is the most plausible and provable. Believers just want to believe, which doesn't require a fully formed scientific theory or detailed evidence behind it. This does not exclude skeptics from having their own speculative theories and beliefs.

The two groups are speaking two different languages, which is not a problem as long as both sides understand each other. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

 

[Todd Feinman]

You don't practice good science here. Even AARO and Sean Kirkpatrick were looking through NUFORC reports looking for corroborative evidence. I've watched the pareidoliac fits around the Calvine photo and it reminds me of the nonsense around the McMinnville UFO, or the Heflin UFO. You can't find an exact match, strings, etc. but you will keep on looking. You are sure based on swinging Occam's Razor around that anything beyond the paradigm just couldn't be. I think some of you even thought that posed photo from Life magazine by the wires was from the Trents.. You ignore all eyewitness testimony as unreliable, even where corroborated. You don't pay attention; Ann didn't even know my first sighting was connected to McMinnville. I've heard a lot of unscientific stuff come out of skeptics over the many years I've been interacting with you.
Eburacum once stated that no real UFO pictures will ever be taken because they don't exist! That's not science, it's a step beyond confirmation bias. You all seem to conflate "believers" and "witnesses" who aren't necessarily claiming things are aliens, just anomalous. You judge the entire phenomenon based on lousy cell phone footage and walk away arrogantly convinced you have debunked the entire phenomenon.
One of the reasons I am most critical of you is the injuries you do to science, daily. With the obvious negative bias, and few constructive solutions. You'd rather ridicule than learn, and that is too bad. I'd never hire you as my attorney, NorCal Dave!
I enjoy watching Anton Petrov on YouTube; seems like scientists get things wrong, a lot.
Here on this forum. I think Fritzkquzerk has the most scientific approach of the lot of you. Really.

I think you folks want things to be in the LIZ. When they come out, they must be hoaxes, or witnesses mistaken.