UFO claims.

[MotoH]

It seems like the UFO craze is mostly with civilized nations, and I have not seen much apart from crackpottery on an indigenous peoples claims for seeing UFOs.

My question being, since we see UFO claims nearly every day, and practically everyone has heard about, and has saw pictures of a "UFO." Does that make us more susceptible to claiming a UFO sighting when it is really just a natural occurrence?

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems like the UFO craze is mostly with civilized nations, and I have not seen much apart from crackpottery on an indigenous peoples claims for seeing UFOs.

Not sure what you mean by "civilized" nations. Assuming that you mean industrial or post-industrial nations, then your statement would be incorrect. Note also that you dismiss indigenous people's claims without any references. Crackpottery generally refers more to failed logic, pseudoscience [invalid methodology or assumptions], or faith-based beliefs, rather than claimed observations by a people. Some clarification here would help.

My question being, since we see UFO claims nearly every day, and practically everyone has heard about, and has saw pictures of a "UFO." Does that make us more susceptible to claiming a UFO sighting when it is really just a natural occurrence?

By definition, a UFO could be a natural phenomenon. Assuming that you mean flying saucers, or ET crafts, then of course any idea like this that is popular in the mind of the public can result in misinterpretations of real events.

If you mean to suggest that A implies B in all cases, good luck. UFO and even ET reports go back at least centuries. Even some stories from the Bible might be considered ET in nature. Consider for example, Ezekiel's Wheels.

[imiyakawa]

It seems like the UFO craze is mostly with civilized nations, and I have not seen much apart from crackpottery on an indigenous peoples claims for seeing UFOs.

My question being, since we see UFO claims nearly every day, and practically everyone has heard about, and has saw pictures of a "UFO." Does that make us more susceptible to claiming a UFO sighting when it is really just a natural occurrence?

I think what you're talking about is the psychological phenomenon of "availability heuristic".

I can say this only for myself, but I know that a certain % of these cases are not "crackpottery", as me and a group of friends all saw the same UFO, totally unexplainable by any known phenomenon. 0 feasible alternative explanations exist, so until more variables come my way I am happy to say that I probably saw an alien spaceship.

[MotoH]

What would make these "aliens" not want to talk with us water filled meat sacks? Couldn't they just tell the worlds governments to F off and go "here we are!" I mean they did come from lightyears away, it's not like we have greater technology than they do.

[imiyakawa]

If aliens are visiting earth, that is a very pertinent question. I think that we cannot assign P(they're not vising) or P(they're visiting) based on their lack of communication, as we cannot possibly assume their point of view which is most likely beyond our comprehension.

[DaveC426913]

If aliens are visiting earth, that is a very pertinent question. I think that we cannot assign P(they're not vising) or P(they're visiting) based on their lack of communication, as we cannot possibly assume their point of view which is most likely beyond our comprehension.

Totally agree.

It is folly to try to draw any conclusions based on our suppositions about an ET motives.

[Chimps]

There are more things in the sky in 'civilized nations' so it's hardly surprising.

I can look up and fail to identify all sorts of flying objects. It could be kites, weather balloons, jets, helicopters, satellites, blimps etc. I see things in the sky and so does my neighbour. He sees what I see and also can't identify it, but he chooses to believe he is seeing flying saucers from another world.

Obviously, the answer to your question is yes.

[DaveC426913]

There are more things in the sky in 'civilized nations' so it's hardly surprising.

I can look up and fail to identify all sorts of flying objects. It could be kites, weather balloons, jets, helicopters, satellites, blimps etc. I see things in the sky and so does my neighbour. He sees what I see and also can't identify it, but he chooses to believe he is seeing flying saucers from another world.

Obviously, the answer to your question is yes.
This entire argument is based on the premise that all sightings are misidentifications of known flying man-made objects.

In fact, you highlight the opposite problem: in a less developed country, genuine sightings of UFOs should be higher, since they will stand out against a stark landscape of empty sky. i.e. we should get a higher-than-average quality of reports since there's no background noise of bad reports.

[Chimps]

This entire argument is based on the premise that all sightings are misidentifications of known flying man-made objects.

In fact, you highlight the opposite problem: in a less developed country, genuine sightings of UFOs should be higher, since they will stand out against a stark landscape of empty sky. i.e. we should get a higher-than-average quality of reports since there's no background noise of bad reports.

The OPs question was regarding susceptibility to claiming a UFO sighting when it is might be a natural occurrence and that is the question to which I responded. I would appreciate if you could try to avoid taking my posts out of context because it can become tedious having to clarify things which should be obvious.

Anyway, your post is nonsense. Any unidentified object is obviously a 'genuine' UFO. If it's not a 'quality' UFO then presumably it is because it can be identified and therefore it is not a UFO at all.

[DaveC426913]

...avoid taking my posts out of context...
Out of context?? You might want to check out what that phrase means. You are using it inappropriately.

it can become tedious having to clarify things which should be obvious.
Yes, how silly that someone should have to spend time clarifying a comment they posted on the internet.

See technique #2 (http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/).

[DaveC426913]

Anyway, your post is nonsense. Any unidentified object is obviously a 'genuine' UFO. If it's not a 'quality' UFO then presumably it is because it can be identified and therefore it is not a UFO at all.I am not disagreeing with any of this. I am only distinguishing between mistaken reports (oftendue to observer ignorance) and genuine reports (a genuine UFO report does not mean it is an ET, it simply means it is difficult to explain away by conventional means).

The point is that, in a nation with relatively few objects in the sky, there is less "noise"; because of this, what UFO reports there are should actually be more genuine.

[bassplayer142]

This entire argument is based on the premise that all sightings are misidentifications of known flying man-made objects.

In fact, you highlight the opposite problem: in a less developed country, genuine sightings of UFOs should be higher, since they will stand out against a stark landscape of empty sky. i.e. we should get a higher-than-average quality of reports since there's no background noise of bad reports.

Even if they are higher, third world countries have nowhere to report them to. Half these people don't have electricity let alone a local news station with a motive for publicity.

[Ivan Seeking]

Even if they are higher, third world countries have nowhere to report them to. Half these people don't have electricity let alone a local news station with a motive for publicity.

So, even if accurate representations of facts, UFO stories would be indistinguisable from legends and myths.

[DaveC426913]

So, even if accurate representations of facts, UFO stories would be indistinguisable from legends and myths.

No, not quite. Legends and myths are by definition from the past. It's not legend or myth if the witness is still around to interview.

[Ivan Seeking]

No, not quite. Legends and myths are by definition from the past. It's not legend or myth if the witness is still around to interview.

I was alluding more to the many historical accounts found in societies all over the world. As for modern eyewitness accounts, those have little to no weight unless they come with corroborating evidence in the form of photos, and or RADAR tracks, and or official radio communications between airborn observers and ground stations, and or trace physical evidence. And even then it doesn't prove anything.

It is also noteworthy that many countries not typically associated with UFO fame have released their own official UFO files from military sources. The last time I checked, probably a dozen countries had released such files.

[Anticitizen]

It seems like the UFO craze is mostly with civilized nations, and I have not seen much apart from crackpottery on an indigenous peoples claims for seeing UFOs.

My question being, since we see UFO claims nearly every day, and practically everyone has heard about, and has saw pictures of a "UFO." Does that make us more susceptible to claiming a UFO sighting when it is really just a natural occurrence?

You might be interested in a short story by William Gibson called 'The Gernsback Continuum'.

[Dembadon]

It seems like the UFO craze is mostly with civilized nations, and I have not seen much apart from crackpottery on an indigenous peoples claims for seeing UFOs.

There are many factors at play here:

-How much exposure do you get to indigenous people?
-How often are indigenous people's claims covered by media to which you have access?
-How accurate is such coverage by said media?
-What is lost and/or distorted in translation?
-What claims are we not hearing from indigenous people?

My question being, since we see UFO claims nearly every day, and practically everyone has heard about, and has saw pictures of a "UFO." Does that make us more susceptible to claiming a UFO sighting when it is really just a natural occurrence?

I believe this is based purely on the individual. Some people make an effort to think critically while others do not.

Here is an alternate point of view to consider; what about those who have decided that UFOs (when they are considered to be alien) cannot possibly exist? Instead of asking "what are the data," they simply deny the claim right off the bat. This type of person may also see UFO claims everyday.

[Max Faust]

Isn't the primary characteristic of a UFO that it's unidentified?

As somebody said, a statement is either tautology or conjecture, so it seems we are dealing with A) something unidentified which is airborne, and B) a wish, or a need, to "explain" either the phenomenon itself or the psychology which caused the observation to happen. In both cases the person making the statement is asserting a specific world hypothesis, which is conflicting with another world hypothesis.

I personally don't "believe" either way. Had there been enough data to form a scientifically sound hypothesis, this would have existed by now. In lieu of this, we have to just make do with the scariest thing of all: The human mind's very limited capacity for understanding reality.

[Chimps]

Out of context?? You might want to check out what that phrase means. You are using it inappropriately.


Yes, how silly that someone should have to spend time clarifying a comment they posted on the internet.

See technique #2 (http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/).

Actually, I am fully aware of that article and find it amusing that you should quote it, since it clearly applies more to your posts than it does to mine.

[chrisalviola]

maybe in the 3rd world countries peoples faith in Christ or their religion is strong, compared to people who live in some rich nation. thats why they don't care of UFO's they see religious signs instead of flying saucers.

[ViewsofMars]

NASA - Ask an Astrobiologist recently answered a question regarding a UFO.


1.Question
Reading all the questions that you anser on alian life and ufos you come across quite rude thousands of people see ufos each year. If one land in my back yard what should I do? Who would i go to for help? (I am 12 years old)

[Answer below]
If a UFO lands in your backyard, you should get good photos of it and call your family and neighbors to see it too. So far, in spite of millions of claims over the past 60 years of people seeing UFOs, no one has ever come up with credible photos or other evidence. That is why scientists do not believe these are alien spacecraft. Without evidence, such claims will not convince anyone. If UFOs interest you, I recommend that you read "The UFO Invasion: The Roswell Incident, Alien Abductions, and Government Coverups" by Kendrick Frazier, Barry Karr, and Joe Nickell to find our how UFO claims are investigated.

David Morrison
NAI Senior Scientist
April 8, 2010
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=10725

I just love David's answer! lol! He answered another one. David is very passionate about this issue.


Question

Has NASA any had UFO problems ?(i'm doing a school project on them)

[Answer below]
No, I can't imagine that NASA would have any problems with something that doesn't exist. The sad thing about UFO reports is that they distract so many people from understanding and enjoying real science. (There is a lot of nonsense on the Internet about UFOs, but I do recommend the website http://skepdic.com/ufos_ets.html).

David Morrison
NAI Senior Scientist
June 2, 2006
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=1510

[Ivan Seeking]

A typical nonsense debunking. For example, he specified that there are no credible photos of UFOs [I assume that he means alleged alien spacecrafts. Someone should inform him that one is not automatically the other]. According to whom? There are plenty of photos that the academic community simply rejects based on the demand that extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence. It took far less evidence for ball lightning to enter the mainstream - just a few fuzzy photos and unsupportable stories! Ask him for a photo of ball lightning. He also fails to address the far more compelling reports found in military files; likely because he doesn't even know they exist. I also wonder if he has reviewed the cases in which cops chased these things all over the countryside. Are the cops all crackpots and conspiring to tell tall tales? Note for example that the police chase scene in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, was based on a real episode that involved the police from I believe several counties. The most recent example of something like this occurred in Illinois, in 2000.

His answers are pedantic at best. I'm not claiming that ET is here, but the UFO story is far more interesting that he wants to believe or cares to learn.

[ViewsofMars]

A typical nonsense debunking.
[snip]
His answers are pedantic at best. I'm not claiming that ET is here, but the UFO story is far more interesting that he wants to believe or cares to learn.

Ivan, I don't think my previous message inclusive of David Morrison, NAI Senior Scientist is nonsense nor would I wish to mislead people into thinking he isn't aware of the lack of evidence to support UFO's.

I am sorry you are upset but I must agree with a scientist, especially if he is more than educated in advising children and adults. He obviously has the sources available from the scientific community so I would expect him to be aware of what is going on. I sure wouldn't wish for youngters to go around saying what you have to their parents after a NASA Senior Scientist has clearly and most recently responded. Perhaps you would like to present to "NASA - Ask an Astrobiologist" your concerns then share with us what an astrobiologist replies to you.

Note for example that the police chase scene in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, was based on a real episode that involved the police from I believe several counties.

Ivan, I thought the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" was fiction.

[zoobyshoe]

Ivan, I thought the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" was fiction.
The segment he mentioned was based on a real incident. His point is that various law enforcement officers have reported seeing unidentified flying objects.

When I lived in Minnesota many years ago there was a police officer who was crashed into by some unidentified flying object. It came up the highway flying in the opposite direction he was driving and it grazed his cruiser as it passed, bending his antenna and denting the vehicle. There were photos of the vehicle with the article about it in the paper. The point is, he could not identify what the flying object was: it did not look like any conventional air plane or helicopter.

Stories like this have convinced me that there are, indeed, unidentified things flying around out there. I don't believe for a second they are from another planet, but they are, non-the-less, intriguing.

[ViewsofMars]

The segment he mentioned was based on a real incident. His point is that various law enforcement officers have reported seeing unidentified flying objects.

Zoobyshoe, it would be nice if Ivan could give us the information by way of a link that will tell me as you have stated that Steven Spielberg "based on a real incident" used an account that "various law enforcement officers have reported seeing unidentified flying objects (UFO's)" in the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Zoobyshoe, getting back to the movie, this is what I found out about it.
The genesis of Close Encounters of the Third Kind started when Steven Spielberg and his father saw a meteor shower in New Jersey when the director was a young boy. 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. 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.
http://exclusivemovienews.blogspot.com/2010/02/close-encounters-of-third-kind.html

[DaveC426913]

Stories like this have convinced me that there are, indeed, unidentified things flying around out there. I don't believe for a second they are from another planet, but they are, non-the-less, intriguing.

This is a question I've wanted to ask Ivan and you.

What, in your considered but private opinion, do you think is the perpetrator? I'm not asking you to defend your opinion; I'm asking what - if you had a chance to a peek into the future to where these mysteries were conclusively solved - would you put your money on?

It could be anything from ET (which I believe you've both dismissed) to secret projects, to mis-identified objects (large birds, weather balloons) to false reports or hoaxes or anythiong else. And of course mixed ratios of the above.

I'm asking what you believe is the likely cause of the more interesting and inexplicable reports.

[zoobyshoe]

Zoobyshoe, it would be nice if Ivan could give us the information by way of a link that will tell me as you have stated that Steven Spielberg "based on a real incident" used an account that "various law enforcement officers have reported seeing unidentified flying objects (UFO's)" in the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

I'm sure he can dig up a link or two. I recall having read an account of the specific incident he's referring to.

[zoobyshoe]

This is a question I've wanted to ask Ivan and you.

What, in your considered but private opinion, do you think is the perpetrator? I'm not asking you to defend your opinion; I'm asking what - if you had a chance to a peek into the future to where these mysteries were conclusively solved - would you put your money on?
I would say:

1.) Eloraborate hoaxes (by the same people who brought you crop circles).

2.) Eloraborate hoaxes designed both by our government and foreign governments. I have this idea that the US and Soviet Union were in a clandestine UFO War for years during which each was trying to convince the other they had extra-terrestrial technology reverse engineered from crashed flying saucers.

3.) As yet unknown natural phenomena. It's been suggested, for example, that swarms of glowing insects might be swept high into the atmosphere and present as inexplicable lights. Then there are things like the Marfa lights that seem to be caused by city lights from miles and miles away being "piped" through the atmosphere via unusual channels caused by discrete air currents differing in temperature from the surrounding air. That sort of thing.

[Antiphon]

To the OP: The industrialized regions of the world are under greater scrutiny by extraterrestrial civilizations. If a technological threat to them develops here, that's where it will happen, not in the rain forest.

[MotoH]

To the OP: The industrialized regions of the world are under greater scrutiny by extraterrestrial civilizations. If a technological threat to them develops here, that's where it will happen, not in the rain forest.

They have space ships that can travel extremely fast. We have a glorified V2 rocket. I am positive they aren't scoping out our technologies.

(and I am also positive aliens are not visiting us. They have interstellar space craft, they wouldn't be didly dadling around in the atmosphere when they can just scan us from orbit.)

[russ_watters]

A typical nonsense debunking. For example, he specified that there are no credible photos of UFOs [I assume that he means alleged alien spacecrafts. Someone should inform him that one is not automatically the other]. We can do our regular dance here....

You point out that a "UFO" by definition isn't necessarily an alleged alien spacecraft and denigrate a skeptic for treating "UFOolog" is if it were 'did-you-just-see-an-alien-spacecraft-ology' and nog giving the appropriate level of respect or attributing the appropriate level of scientific rigor to the pursuit. As always, I respond: whether you really believe that to be true or just want that to be true is irrelevant. It just plain isn't true. UFOology really is 'did-you-just-see-an-alien-spacecraft-ology'. That's what the people reporting the sightings are talking about and that's what most of the people investigating them - particularly the most scientifically rigorous among them - are looking for. The most credible and scientifically rigorous investigations are about. By that, I mean military investigations. Project Blue Book is the archetype of this and it was all about looking for alien spacecraft, started not long after the initial "flying saucer" craze of the late 1940s. When a military investigation revels "no threat to national security", it means: 'this was not an alien spacecraft'.

Investigation of interesting scientific explanations for the sightings exist only as a subset of 'not an alien spacecraft' judgements. Whether swamp gas, Venus or an Iridium flare, figuring out if any natural (or pseudo-natural/unexpected man-made) explanation has interesting scientific implications is secondary -- and nonetheless also judged not worthy of study by reputable scientific studies.

Indeed, when a "credible" or "compelling" sighting is publicized, it is always a 'this looks like a real alien spacecraft!' type of event. And a big part of why the reputation of UFOology is so bad is because of this stance and because of the excitement generated by such events.....and the let-down when such events are figured-out as being mundane. The Mexican Air Force oil rig fiasco is a perfect example of the black-eye the field can get by overhyping the 'alien spaceship!' angle.

Of course, Morrison knows all of this and his dismissiveness is a reflection of his clear understanding of the issue. According to whom? According to reputable scientists in reputable scientific fields. There are plenty of photos that the academic community simply rejects based on the demand that extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence. Correct - and correctly. You seem to be attempting to criticize the scientific community for acting in a maner that is absolutely the proper way to act! The cold fusion fiasco is a great example of what happens when that rule of thumb is forgotton or bypassed. Yeah, extrordinary claims really do require extrordinary evidence in order to be worthy of serious consideration. If such a bar was not set, scientists would be buried by the necessity to investigate huge numbers of relatively obviously (to scientists) crackpot claims. It took far less evidence for ball lightning to enter the mainstream - just a few fuzzy photos and unsupportable stories! Ask him for a photo of ball lightning. Uh, attempting to denigrate a potential real scientific finding does not by corollary promote an unscientific one to legitimacy - even if you were correct to denigrate ball lightning in that way: Try googling it for your pictures: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS311US311&q=ball+lightning

Besides the pictures, the proposed effect has been demonstrated in a lab. So while that doesn't make the explanation certain, it does provide an absolutely certainly credible explanation that might be attributable to the observations in nature. By contrast (and I've pointed this out before), until the generic explanation "alien spacecraft are real" is proven, it cannot be credibly applied to individual sightings. He also fails to address the far more compelling reports found in military files; likely because he doesn't even know they exist. Unlikely. More likely: when it comes to this issue, what UFOologists consider "compelling" is much different from what reputable/mainstream scientists consider "compelling".
I also wonder if he has reviewed the cases in which cops chased these things all over the countryside. Are the cops all crackpots and conspiring to tell tall tales? Note for example that the police chase scene in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, was based on a real episode that involved the police from I believe several counties. The most recent example of something like this occurred in Illinois, in 2000. No. People who report they've seen UFOS are almost always telling the truth. It's just that (by definition), they just don't realize what they are seeing has a mundane explanation. Pilots and air traffic controllers have been known to chase Venus, so why should cops be any better at identifying it?

"“Do you know how many times we have cleared Venus to land?” (Hendry 27) - The words of an Air Traffic Controller in Detroit" http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Venusufo.htm

His answers are pedantic at best. I'm not claiming that ET is here, but the UFO story is far more interesting that he wants to believe or cares to learn. Only if the story is about alien spacecraft!

[russ_watters]

This is a question I've wanted to ask Ivan and you.

I'm asking what you believe is the likely cause of the more interesting and inexplicable reports. In addition, I'm interested in what UFOologists and laymen observers are looking for. I don't believe for a second that by-and-large they are searching for natural phenomena: people would not be studying the issue if not for the possibility that what was being seen is alien spacecraft.

[russ_watters]

I would say:

1.) Eloraborate hoaxes (by the same people who brought you crop circles)...

2.) Eloraborate hoaxes designed both by our government and foreign governments...

3.) As yet unknown natural phenomena... Just for clarity, would "unidentified, mundane phenomena" also make the list? Ie, did you just leave it off because it was too obvious/mundane? From Venus to birds to fireflies to oil rigs, the vast majority of sightings that are initially called "UFOs" are later identified as perfectly mundane things that the observer just didn't recognize. It stands to reason that even most of the ones that are never positively identified are also such perfectly ordinary things.

[zoobyshoe]

Just for clarity, would "unidentified, mundane phenomena" also make the list? Ie, did you just leave it off because it was too obvious/mundane? From Venus to birds to fireflies to oil rigs, the vast majority of sightings that are initially called "UFOs" are later identified as perfectly mundane things that the observer just didn't recognize. It stands to reason that even most of the ones that are never positively identified are also such perfectly ordinary things.

Obviously a lot of reports are of misidentified mundane phenomena and outright hallucinations. Dave asked for personal opinion about "the more interesting and inexplicable reports".

[undidly]

People who claim to see space aliens in our sky are mocked.
Government agencies participate in the mocking.
Religious people who claim that there is an invisible man living in the sky are not mocked.
Government agencies support the invisible man delusion.
Why is this?.
Seems to be a huge conspiracy to me.
Soon to be reversed I think.

[Ivan Seeking]

Hello undidly, note that conspiracy theories are not allowed. Also, religion bashing is not allowed. Please review the guidelines at the following link:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5929

[infinitenight]

In my opinion it really doesn't matter how many times people try to play off these sightings for everyday natural phenomena because even if a fraction of them are correct, it means that we are being visited by extraterrestrials. Hundreds of cases have been debunked down to natural, even comical explanations but there are still those that cannot be explained even by the most imaginative of skeptics. I think that it really is time we all open our eyes and see that there is so much more to this universe than any of us could imagine. Other races of intelligent beings exist, and they have visited us. Get used to it because this is going to play a huge role in the future of mankind

[Evo]

In my opinion it really doesn't matter how many times people try to play off these sightings for everyday natural phenomena because even if a fraction of them are correct, it means that we are being visited by extraterrestrials. Hundreds of cases have been debunked down to natural, even comical explanations but there are still those that cannot be explained even by the most imaginative of skeptics. I think that it really is time we all open our eyes and see that there is so much more to this universe than any of us could imagine. Other races of intelligent beings exist, and they have visited us. Get used to it because this is going to play a huge role in the future of mankindPlease post your proof of visitation.

It's ok to post that you think we have been visited, but it is not ok to say that we have.

[DaveC426913]

... there are still those that cannot be explained even by the most imaginative of skeptics....
The fact that they cannot be explained does not mean they must be of extraterrestrial origin. It means simply that we cannot explain them.

Consider the following unrelated but equally-plausible scenario:

We see phenomena that, despite our very best efforts, simply cannot be explained by any known terrestrial event. Flying saucers in our skies, abductions, whatever you care to put on the table.

By process of elimination, since these are not of any terrestrial origin, they must be the only thing left:

Acts of God.

God, for whatever reason he sees fit, is tossing saucer-shaped devices through our skies and kidnapping people.

You see, your process-of-elimination argument works perfectly well. You have just proven that God must exist and we'd better get used to it.

[jreelawg]

It is interesting considering NASA, it's position and role in addressing UFO issues, and questions of extra terrestrial life.

My grandfather worked for NASA as a public relations officer, in charge of wester operations. He worked for NASA from it's inception until the late 80's. One of his roles was to address this issue of how NASA would address the public in the event extra-terrestrial life was found on other planets, from intelligent to microbes. This issue was a complex and controversial issue at the time among NASA officials. What would news of such events cause. How would religion be affected, how would the economy be affected, and so forth.

It's important to realize, that NASA, is obligated to have particular stances on the subject independent of observation and science depending on who is in charge. Second, that any NASA obtained evidence of the subject is NASA property and would be illegal for anyone to talk about without NASA permission. Thirdly, some UFO sightings could possibly be classified aircraft developed through or with the help of NASA, or known to NASA which they are not authorized to talk about.

So the thing is, NASA in spite of being the one agency you would expect to be the experts on the Subject of UFO's, most likely would be the last place you are going to get information on the subject.

There are however a lot of older retiring NASA pilots and astronauts who claim to have witnessed extra-ordinary UFO's while on flights/mission. Then again, what they witnessed could always be just another NASA project or project of another government agency which was not privy to them. NASA operates in a need to know basis when it comes to sensitive information, and you can get in a lot of trouble for saying things your not supposed to if you work for NASA.

[jreelawg]

I would say:

2.) Eloraborate hoaxes designed both by our government and foreign governments. I have this idea that the US and Soviet Union were in a clandestine UFO War for years during which each was trying to convince the other they had extra-terrestrial technology reverse engineered from crashed flying saucers.


I've had this thought run through my head a few times. What if the these lights which are in formations and perform seaming impossible aeronautical stunts, are nothing more than some kind of sophisticated light show, and illusion designed to make people think they see something extra-ordinarily advanced. This would get around the issue of how many of these sightings report rapid changes of direction and rapid drops and gains in altitude, at the magnitude which would easily kill any human passenger. The only thing is that there are a lot of reports in which UFOs demonstrating seemingly impossible acrobatic stunts were tracked on radar.

[zoobyshoe]

I've had this thought run through my head a few times. What if the these lights which are in formations and perform seaming impossible aeronautical stunts, are nothing more than some kind of sophisticated light show, and illusion designed to make people think they see something extra-ordinarily advanced. This would get around the issue of how many of these sightings report rapid changes of direction and rapid drops and gains in altitude, at the magnitude which would easily kill any human passenger. The only thing is that there are a lot of reports in which UFOs demonstrating seemingly impossible acrobatic stunts were tracked on radar.
Yes, the point would not be that any craft have to be able to actually do any of these remarkable things, they just have to appear to be able to do them. The brains behind the stunts would be David Copperfield caliber magicians let loose on all the technology available to the military. They would study things like radar and focus on all the loopholes and glitches that could be exploited to make craft seem like they're doing impossible things.

The US did, in fact, hire a magician to create a bedazzling light show in the Panama Canal when it was suspected axis forces were planning on bombing it during WWII. It was some sort of rotating configuration of mirrors and searchlights that just outright blinded airplane pilots looking down on the ground at it. They became disoriented and couldn't see where to drop the bombs. Plus we know, from WWII both sides went way out of their way to create false, "dummy" battalions of tanks and trucks to make it look like troop strength was building up in places it wasn't.

I happened just today to see a UFO program on the History Channel. They interviewed two former Soviet Generals. When Andropov was in power he ordered the military to keep nightly watch of the skies everywhere for UFO's. This went on for 13 years. Many reports were collected. One general said they automatically suspected any report they could not otherwise explain was some sort of new US spy plane or attempt to create disinformation. Military strategists think about deception all the time and it would not be the least unusual for both sides to have a UFO distraction/deception program going.

[ecsspace]

What people claim to see in the sky tells you more about the observer than what's in the sky. You can go out at night with a large group of people to "watch for UFO's", and depending where you are and with enough time a normal airliner will pass over. There will always be be someone in the crowd who insists it's "a UFO"; from their perspective meaning they see this airliner as an alien spacecraft.
Because: they want it to be, and their desire to see it as such is more important to them than any sense of reason and experience (they may or may not possess) that tells them it's a common jet.
I mean, your parents said "Santa Claus, oh sure' They leave the room, you go look up the chimney - someone of the dimensions they describe is gonna fit through a four inch flue? Yet you have friends in elementary school, and here comes some guy in the Santa suit, and to them he's the man, no question. Even after you say, no, it's coach in a red suit and beard. Some of your friends actually
start to cry because you ruined the ride.
I still have that bad ruin-the-ride habit. Maybe there's some twelve step program: AA - Assholes Anonymous. Or even better: AO 'Assholes Obvious"

[jreelawg]

What people claim to see in the sky tells you more about the observer than what's in the sky. You can go out at night with a large group of people to "watch for UFO's", and depending where you are and with enough time a normal airliner will pass over. There will always be be someone in the crowd who insists it's "a UFO"; from their perspective meaning they see this airliner as an alien spacecraft.
Because: they want it to be, and their desire to see it as such is more important to them than any sense of reason and experience (they may or may not possess) that tells them it's a common jet.
I mean, your parents said "Santa Claus, oh sure' They leave the room, you go look up the chimney - someone of the dimensions they describe is gonna fit through a four inch flue? Yet you have friends in elementary school, and here comes some guy in the Santa suit, and to them he's the man, no question. Even after you say, no, it's coach in a red suit and beard. Some of your friends actually
start to cry because you ruined the ride.
I still have that bad ruin-the-ride habit. Maybe there's some twelve step program: AA - Assholes Anonymous. Or even better: AO 'Assholes Obvious"

This is all true, yet really tells us nothing of the mystery of the UFO phenomena. The only reports you can explain by this phenomena, are ones that no rational person would take serious anyways.

Santa Clause is a proven fictional character, whereas the UFO mystery is still, as far as you or I know, unsolved. So in my opinion people who claim to represent any certainty about the UFO phenomena without evidence, should take the JAA twelve step program, Jack-A**'s-Anonymous.

[FlexGunship]

Obviously a lot of reports are of misidentified mundane phenomena and outright hallucinations. Dave asked for personal opinion about "the more interesting and inexplicable reports".

"More interesting and inexplicable reports" can still be explained by mundane misunderstandings.

[Ivan Seeking]

"More interesting and inexplicable reports" can still be explained by mundane misunderstandings.

"Might", not necessarily "can".

And there is no way this applies to all reports.

[Ivan Seeking]

Note that you and Russ had to posit a conspiracy theory [with no basis other than wild speculation, I might add] to explain the Iran 1976 event. And there are others, like the case of the RB-47 over the Gulf. Even the Condon committee, which is well known for its bias and failure to accurately reflect the body of the report in the summary by Condon, had to concede that there was no known explanation for this.

The Condon Committee toyed with several explanations, but found none to be satisfactory listed this as an unknown.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case665.htm

[FlexGunship]

"Might", not necessarily "can".

And there is no way this applies to all reports.

You are correct about the distinction between "might" and "can" and I accept your modification.

However, there is no fundamentally-implicit reason why it couldn't apply to all reports. That's really a tautology.

[DaveC426913]

However, there is no fundamentally-implicit reason why it couldn't apply to all reports.

It is meaningless to suggest that all observations might, in an ideal circumstance, be explainable by mundane means.

We explain what we can, and the rest is unexplainable. No one is suggesting that unexplainable===extraterrestrial.

[ecsspace]

I can say this only for myself, but I know that a certain % of these cases are not "crackpottery", as me and a group of friends all saw the same UFO, totally unexplainable by any known phenomenon. 0 feasible alternative explanations exist, so until more variables come my way I am happy to say that I probably saw an alien spaceship.

I once saw something myself that by it's behaviour did not exhibit any traditional human-created flight characteristics, but did demonstrate behaviour that could very easily be considered to be under some conscious control.
But even now many years later I shy from considering that it could be a vehicle or some conveyance of an extraterrestrial origin.
The most remarkable aspect of the sighting was how unremarkable it seemed at the time, which I still think about once in a while. There was no accompanying emotion of any kind, yet I would imagine that most people would expect some sense of awe or fear. My father saw it with me, and seemed equally nonplussed, as if it was no more remarkable than the overflight of a normal airplane.
Following from this experience I tend to be closer to dismissing outright claims of people who speak of sightings and then relate their emotional state, as if they are attempting first to illicit the emotional state in any listener as a means of qualifying the veracity of their sighting. For instance, I only know personally one other person who saw something unusual 9whose story I 'believe'), and she too described it as if it was 'no big deal', and her sighting was far more detailed than mine. She seemed convinced that it was an actual craft from another world, but it seemed as though she took no more regard for it's presence at the time as if she had seen a billboard or any other common roadside object. Somehow, her emotional detachment made her story more 'believable' to me.

When you and your friends saw this UFO, do you recall any particular emotional state of your own, or if any of your friends seemed more affected by it emotionally than others? Did the sighting cause any kind of uncomfortable emotions in any of you while you were seeing it, and was that ever a topic of discussion amongst any of you later?

[davenn]

Even the Condon committee, which is well known for its bias and failure to accurately reflect the body of the report in the summary by Condon, had to concede that there was no known explanation for this.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case665.htm

Thanks for the link Ivan, amazing reading and also amazing is the lack of serious reporting of events (as commented on) in the Condon and Bluebook reports
I also followed some of the other links at the top of that first page and 1.5 Hrs later had to call it quits and go do something else for a break.
thanks again happy NY

Dave

[Ivan Seeking]

"More interesting and inexplicable reports" can still be explained by mundane misunderstandings.

You are correct about the distinction between "might" and "can" and I accept your modification.

However, there is no fundamentally-implicit reason why it couldn't apply to all reports. That's really a tautology.

A misunderstanding does not explain the Iran report, nor the RB-47 or other miliary reports, nor thousands of anecdotal and undocumented [civilian] reports.

You and Russ invented a conspiracy theory with no basis in known facts, in order to explain the Iran '76 report. While I think your suggested conspiracy is highly unlikely given the number of people involved and the highest level of reporting that took place within the US governemnt, up to an including the White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I didn't object because it is possible. However, a conspiracy is not a misunderstanding.

Seriously, I don't understand why I should have to make this point given that the conspiracy bit was your own argument.

Beyond that, rarely does anyone invoke the ET explanation in a high-quality UFO report. Your statement implicity assumes that they do. If a report merely describes what was observed, it can't be a misunderstanding. It was an observation. A misunderstanding is only possible if an explanation, or an interpretation of the facts, is offered.

[Ivan Seeking]

totally unexplainable by any known phenomenon.

I should have interjected [last May] to say this is not an assertion that can be made here. We don't know that you are qualified to make that judgement. However, you are free to describe what you saw.

[Ivan Seeking]

There is the additional use of the word "mundane". We can only assume that all can be explained as mundane if we assume that all non-mundane reports and stories are lies. That is circular logic. While it might be true, we certainly can't state it as fact. It is a guess.

The reason that some attempt to explain the Iran '76 event as a conspiracy, is that any other explanation would not be "mundane". However, I wouldn't call a conspiracy involving a General, two pilots, and at least one tower operator, who falsely claim a seemingly impossible encounter with an unknown craft, a claim that went all the way to the White House via the CIA, mundane. That is still an exotic explanation as we wouldn't expect it. And it certainly wasn't a mundane misunderstanding.

However, it is also true that "not mundane" [I like to use the word "exotic"] reports, even if true down the last word, do not necessarily require that ET is here. Some do, [for example the case of Travis Walton] but not all by any means. It is possible that there are exotic but terrestrial explanations for many cases. Imo, the most obvious suggestion would be, assuming many reports of a particular variety are true, that ball lightning, or something like it in appearance, is far more interesting that we know. This is not a mundane explanation as that would imply a common or familiar explanation. But there is no accepted model for ball lightning. So to say case X can be explained as BL is to say that we don't know how to explain it! It may represent an opportunity for scientific discovery.

[Radrook]

I once saw something myself that by it's behaviour did not exhibit any traditional human-created flight characteristics, but did demonstrate behaviour that could very easily be considered to be under some conscious control.
But even now many years later I shy from considering that it could be a vehicle or some conveyance of an extraterrestrial origin.
The most remarkable aspect of the sighting was how unremarkable it seemed at the time, which I still think about once in a while. There was no accompanying emotion of any kind, yet I would imagine that most people would expect some sense of awe or fear. My father saw it with me, and seemed equally nonplussed, as if it was no more remarkable than the overflight of a normal airplane.
Following from this experience I tend to be closer to dismissing outright claims of people who speak of sightings and then relate their emotional state, as if they are attempting first to illicit the emotional state in any listener as a means of qualifying the veracity of their sighting. For instance, I only know personally one other person who saw something unusual 9whose story I 'believe'), and she too described it as if it was 'no big deal', and her sighting was far more detailed than mine. She seemed convinced that it was an actual craft from another world, but it seemed as though she took no more regard for it's presence at the time as if she had seen a billboard or any other common roadside object. Somehow, her emotional detachment made her story more 'believable' to me.

When you and your friends saw this UFO, do you recall any particular emotional state of your own, or if any of your friends seemed more affected by it emotionally than others? Did the sighting cause any kind of uncomfortable emotions in any of you while you were seeing it, and was that ever a topic of discussion amongst any of you later?


Interesting that you should point that out. My lack of strong defensive emotion has indeed come repeatedly to my mind whenever I remember the incident and I have often wondered whether it was induced. Here's a brief description of how the incident went.

I saw a UFO one night while waiting for a public bus in the outskirts of Miami back in the seventies. As I waited for the bus on an isolated dark street under slight drizzle and below a low fog, I noticed this white light slowly approaching from the city's direction just below the fog and exhibiting quavering lateral movements.


When it got closer and was about to pass me the light's glare revealed that it was attached to the "rim?" of this large diamond-shaped object. How large is hard to say but since it began passing above a house I would say about the size of a three-storied residential house.

I thought it would continue but it stopped and silently hovered. Then it suddenly doused its frontal white light and refocused it on me. It's extreme diamond shape became more visible then and its dull brown nonmetallic texture seemed menacingly organic. The only beauty in it were the bright large round, Red, White and Green lights it focused on me one after the other for few seconds each before dousing them. Then it repositioned the white light toward its direction of travel which was to my left and silently resuming its course at about 3mph toward the Miami airport area.


I only experienced a slight apprehension at the thing's texture and color which seemed non-machinelike, its ability to hove silrntly and effortlessly despite its size and was awed by the beauty of those lights. Only after reading the newspaper reports the next day about UFO interferences at the Miami International Airport that previous night aprox the same time I had that encounter did I begin to get a bit anxious about it. I also wondered and still wonder why I let that thing focus those lights on me since I had recently read that some persons had suffered burns after undergoing similar experiences where lights were focused on them by UFOS.

[SpeedOfDark]

Stephen Hawkings wants to know "Why do they only appear to the cranks and weirdos"

http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_hawking_asks_big_questions_about_the_unive rse.html

I call it the "Why don't normal people see crazy stuff phenom"

[Ivan Seeking]

Stephen Hawkings wants to know "Why do they only appear to the cranks and weirdos"

http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_hawking_asks_big_questions_about_the_unive rse.html

I call it the "Why don't normal people see crazy stuff phenom"

Obviously Dr. Hawking is ignorant of the facts, as are you. Many of the best [more impressive] UFO reports involve the military are found in government files that are available to the public.

[nismaratwork]

Stephen Hawkings wants to know "Why do they only appear to the cranks and weirdos"

http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_hawking_asks_big_questions_about_the_unive rse.html

I call it the "Why don't normal people see crazy stuff phenom"

Not bad, but you appeal to authority too much, and you'd do better if you went with something more along the lines of: "Why do most people who see things in the night sky, NOT misinterpret them and stick with that?"

It's not so much about what we see, as Flex keeps trying to point out, but what our brains and personalities do with that info. Do we run indoors and start yelling to "ma" that the aliens are coming? Do we stop, call for others, and try to carefully examine whatever "it" is?

The former (often in less extreme forms) is going to see only what they first believed they saw... they had no other chance to form a different view. The latter, while still possibly ending at a wrong conclusion, at least isn't running with assumptions, and continuing observation.

After all, a lot of "strange LOOKING things" in the sky don't seem very strange once you observe them, and think for a bit.

Or everyone is lying... which is actually MORE likely? A mix of motives and causes, or a universal human truth about lies around a SINGLE subject, when those lies yield dubious results?

[nismaratwork]

Obviously Dr. Hawking is ignorant of the facts, as are you. Many of the best [more impressive] UFO reports involve the military are found in government files that are available to the public.

I'm still not sure that military/government/official = better, but we have a thread for that so I'll leave it at that. I agree that impressive is an exceptional adjective in this extraordinary situation. :wink:

[pftest]

Stephen Hawkings wants to know "Why do they only appear to the cranks and weirdos"It could be because of circular reasoning.

1. assume that anyone who reports a UFO is a crank
2. conclude that UFOs are only seen by cranks

Id be a bit surprised if Hawkings were so sloppy (as opposed to being merely ignorant about the subject), but its well known that even rational people go haywire when the topic is UFOs.

[FlexGunship]

Okay, totally sorry everyone, but this is bugging me.

The man's name is Hawking. There's only one of him. So there is no "s" at the end.

[Radrook]

Sure seem to be a lot of cranks and weirdos out there! LOL



UFO Quotes from Presidents, Astronauts, Senior Military and more. UFO Cover Up? These people say YES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Excerpt:
This is a list of UFO-related quotes from Presidents, Prime Ministers, NASA Astronauts, retired military personnel, airline captains and more.

When large numbers of people of this caliber go on record, under oath and affirm the existence of a UFO cover up, it poses some serious questions


http://www.squidoo.com/ufo-coverups

[ecsspace]

Okay, totally sorry everyone, but this is bugging me.

The man's name is Hawking. There's only one of him. So there is no "s" at the end.

That one you'll have to let go. People are good at ship-in-the-bottle math, but not proper nouns.
There's a thread somewhere else on here where they discuss 'John Edwards, the TV psychic guy'
"John Edward" is the only TV psychic guy I know of, but that doesn't mean there isn't a TV psychic
guy named "John Edwards" that I have never heard of who they are discussing.
"John Edwards", as far as I know, is the name of a guy who was a senator from N.C.
and ran for president of the USA.

[ecsspace]

Stephen Hawkings wants to know "Why do they only appear to the cranks and weirdos"

http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_hawking_asks_big_questions_about_the_unive rse.html

I call it the "Why don't normal people see crazy stuff phenom"

'Normal' people consider that if they talk about it they may appear to be cranks and weirdos.

[ecsspace]

Sure seem to be a lot of cranks and weirdos out there! LOL



UFO Quotes from Presidents, Astronauts, Senior Military and more. UFO Cover Up? These people say YES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Excerpt:
This is a list of UFO-related quotes from Presidents, Prime Ministers, NASA Astronauts, retired military personnel, airline captains and more.

When large numbers of people of this caliber go on record, under oath and affirm the existence of a UFO cover up, it poses some serious questions


http://www.squidoo.com/ufo-coverups

The J Edgar Hoover quote is out of context, he was talking about wax recording discs during one of those 1950's era red scare conflicts that had the Army's interests intertwined with the FBI's. (You can see a very good example of this wax recording technology in the movie "The King's Speech")

[nismaratwork]

Okay, totally sorry everyone, but this is bugging me.

The man's name is Hawking. There's only one of him. So there is no "s" at the end.

I think Speedofdark started that one... which could be a simple error. It's HILARIOUS that pftest simply ran with it though, proving that intimate familiarity with the issues that makes him indispensable around here.

ecsspace: Your response to Flex... what the hell is that?

Could you please explain the following:

People are good at ship-in-the-bottle math, but not proper nouns.

and a two for..

There's a thread somewhere else on here where they discuss 'John Edwards, the TV psychic guy'
"John Edward" is the only TV psychic guy I know of, but that doesn't mean there isn't a TV psychic
guy named "John Edwards" that I have never heard of who they are discussing.
"John Edwards", as far as I know, is the name of a guy who was a senator from N.C.
and ran for president of the USA.

First: Are you aware that you have a very wandering style? I don't mean that as an insult or critique, but in the course of essentially saying:

'That 's' is a common error, get used to it. People aren't very good with proper nouns [so you say], so you find this kind of confusion around John Edward the TV psychic, and John Edwards the former Senator and VP candidate.'

You kind of... talked to Flex like he about 5 years old. In what I find amusing, John Edward the "psychic" is in fact, not a John Edward... full stop... at all. His name is, John Edward McGee Jr... so in common parlance: he's John Jr., or John McGee Jr. which I guess doesn't sound sufficiently spoooooky to convince his fans.

[nismaratwork]

'Normal' people consider that if they talk about it they may appear to be cranks and weirdos.

...Or they correctly interpret stimuli, thus coming to conclusions other than those "cranks and weirdos" do?

[ecsspace]

Sure seem to be a lot of cranks and weirdos out there! LOL

http://www.squidoo.com/ufo-coverups

The polite term for it used among sociologists is the 'theory of deviance'; meaning
that no matter how many people your point of view makes sense to, there will
always be other people who will think of you as a
A. crank
B. weirdo
C. imbecile
D. loon
E. someone who posts at online forums (aka: all of the above)

I remember we were all so enchanted by this "theory of deviance" thing,
the whole class took it as open license to behave however they pleased, for
if the professor did not like it, surely there was someone somewhere who would.
PT Barnum's famous quote comes to mind:
"Did you guys remember to get all the tent pegs out of the ground this time?"

[ecsspace]

You kind of... talked to Flex like he about 5 years old. In what I find amusing, John Edward the "psychic" is in fact, not a John Edward... full stop... at all. His name is, John Edward McGee Jr... so in common parlance: he's John Jr., or John McGee Jr. which I guess doesn't sound sufficiently spoooooky to convince his fans.

Does that also mean that the senator's full name is John Edwards McGees? (Jnr?)
Now there is an example of deductive reasoning in action!!

'ship-in-the-bottle math' is a term some friends of mine used to tease a guy who was convinced that
anything 'that looked good on paper' was executable in reality, eventually. Math was his cocaine.
Big fan of MC Escher, you betcha.

[pftest]

I see i have fans :smile:

As for the "mundane" explanations... i think anyone who has even glimpsed at some of the UFO cases from the UFO napster will admit that there is some pretty bafflingly weird stuff going on in the skies.

[ecsspace]

I see i have fans :smile:

As for the "mundane" explanations... i think anyone who has even glimpsed at some of the UFO cases from the UFO napster will admit that there is some pretty bafflingly weird stuff going on in the skies.

Or just some baffling weird stuff going on at UFO napster.
Remember, anyone can type anything.
There is more empirical evidence of that kind of behaviour
than there is evidence of the behaviour of aliens/whoever.

The faults lay not in the starships but in our selves.
(takes a bow) I know, I know, that was a good one; mucking up the Shakespeare quote.

[pftest]

Or just some baffling weird stuff going on at UFO napster.
Remember, anyone can type anything.The ufo napster is here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2805

Have a look.

[nismaratwork]

Does that also mean that the senator's full name is John Edwards McGees? (Jnr?)
Now there is an example of deductive reasoning in action!!

'ship-in-the-bottle math' is a term some friends of mine used to tease a guy who was convinced that
anything 'that looked good on paper' was executable in reality, eventually. Math was his cocaine.
Big fan of MC Escher, you betcha.

That's really fascinating stuff, but when you're trying to talk to other people who don't know you and your friend... well... you can see how it would seem absurd? If I might ask, because I think this might be a problem here that we can overcome, what's your first language? I don't mean this as an insult, I just think we might be talking across purposes... that or you're a fan of simple riddles in your language. The latter would be an unfortunate thing to see of course, so you can understand my caution?

[nismaratwork]

I see i have fans :smile:

As for the "mundane" explanations... i think anyone who has even glimpsed at some of the UFO cases from the UFO napster will admit that there is some pretty bafflingly weird stuff going on in the skies.

I think the crux of the argument that's been made OVER and over again in other threads is... NO... everyone doesn't and anyone doesn't believe that; you have your own defintion of what is "baffling" and "weird".

I think what you can say with confidence is that if you look at the UFO napster, you'll admit thee are some pretty baffled and weird people here on earth.

[pftest]

I think the crux of the argument that's been made OVER and over again in other threads is... NO... everyone doesn't and anyone doesn't believe that; you have your own defintion of what is "baffling" and "weird".

I think what you can say with confidence is that if you look at the UFO napster, you'll admit thee are some pretty baffled and weird people here on earth.Of course... but where are the explanations?

A single example from the napster: the Illinois 2000 case (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=36847&postcount=12)

[nismaratwork]

Of course... but where are the explanations?

A single example from the napster: the Illinois 2000 case (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=36847&postcount=12)

I'm now forced to ask you a question:

Do you no longer remember principles of burden of proof, even though they've been discussed OVER and over here, and I believe with you as well?

OR

Are you circling the argument back for rhetorical purposes?


Really, I don't feel like I have a WIN in there... just a whole bunch of lose.


As for the case you mentioned... I don't know: I wasn't there and there isn't any evidence beyond anecdotes. This is the point: someone ELSE is claiming they saw things, and they need to prove it... it's not up to everyone else to explain each claim. If you don't understand this now, I don't know any other way to communicate this concept. What you're asking leads to another kind of pseud-science: blind conjecture as to what people saw. Was it Venus? I don't know... it's possible, but it's possible that it was ANYTHING.

Bring evidence or bring no claims... is that clear enough? You don't just say, "I saw Sasquatch, prove me wrong!"

[pftest]

As for the case you mentioned... I don't know: I wasn't there and there isn't any evidence beyond anecdotes. This is the point: someone ELSE is claiming they saw things, and they need to prove it... it's not up to everyone else to explain each claim. If you don't understand this now, I don't know any other way to communicate this concept. What you're asking leads to another kind of pseud-science: blind conjecture as to what people saw. Was it Venus? I don't know... it's possible, but it's possible that it was ANYTHING.

Bring evidence or bring no claims... is that clear enough? You don't just say, "I saw Sasquatch, prove me wrong!"And this is just 1 single case i picked from the UFO napster, people. 1 case! We have no clue what it could possibly be, but surely it isnt baffling...

UFO topics often end up in very vague and general discussions about the flaws of human perception and interpretation, about how there are many mundane explanations, etc. Often this is no more than wishful thinking that is far removed from the data, the actual UFO cases. This is precisely the reason i dive into the specifics and pick an actual case.

Let the mundane and non-weird explanations be known...

[ecsspace]

...Or they correctly interpret stimuli, thus coming to conclusions other than those "cranks and weirdos" do?

Yeah, there is that peculiar occurrence from time to time; oft the rarer instance, seemingly.

[nismaratwork]

And this is just 1 single case i picked from the UFO napster, people. 1 case! We have no clue what it could possibly be, but surely it isnt baffling...

UFO topics often end up in very vague and general discussions about the flaws of human perception and interpretation, about how there are many mundane explanations, etc. Often this is no more than wishful thinking that is far removed from the data, the actual UFO cases. This is precisely the reason i dive into the specifics and pick an actual case.

Let the mundane and non-weird explanations be known...

I get the sense that you feel you won some kind of victory, which just says you missed the point entirely. Maybe that's being overly generous, but I'll leave that to mentors to decide: enough of this nonsense.

@ecsspace: Not really... we take in a vast array of sensory input, and for the most part effectively interpret it. When it comes to things that fly, naturally we land-bound hunter-gatherers wouldn't be aces at spotting it.

[ecsspace]

That's really fascinating stuff, but when you're trying to talk to other people who don't know you and your friend... well... you can see how it would seem absurd? If I might ask, because I think this might be a problem here that we can overcome, what's your first language? I don't mean this as an insult, I just think we might be talking across purposes... that or you're a fan of simple riddles in your language. The latter would be an unfortunate thing to see of course, so you can understand my caution?

Me speak English/American mid atlantic imitation hillbilly Appalachian dialect. Me speak heap good!
No insult taken, bwana. Not cross-purpose but multipurpose to reflect some aspect of multiple interpretations extant in universe of possibly unfathomable variety. Absurdity as an ever accumulating variable. Like modern art: your interpretation speak volumes of your perception of the world. That people are color blind can also mean that there other realms of perception blindness that could exist, not necessarily only in visual interpretive brain process. Wonder how often language is always entirely useful enough to correlate sharable data. Some deeply ingrained lessons were transferred to me via a good riddler, sank much deeper than ideas from droning lecturers.
Also knew someone else who used the term ship-in-the-bottle to refer to physics models, as a metaphor for something that was more elaborately complicated to build than was necessary, but was celebrated for the skill in the building. Then the ship-in-the-bottle model builders show them to each other and argue over whose ship was harder to build, and then argue whose ship would be the most seaworthy...were they not enclosed in the bottles. Not to mention the problem of scale.
It's a bit more cynical than I like to be...but I understood his perspective. His favorite saying: the construction of the wheel was accomplished without a slide rule.
But it's all about leprechauns.. err, I mean UFOs. Lots of reputable folks have seen leprechauns. But again there's that problem of scale.

[ecsspace]

Of course... but where are the explanations?

A single example from the napster: the Illinois 2000 case (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=36847&postcount=12)

You know, I remember that story. A guess might be it could have been from a family of vehicles called
'stealth blimps' Notice this statement from Illinois 2000:
"Two separate inquiries from NIDS to the Boeing St. Louis facility showed that Boeing does not conduct testing of military aircraft at their facility."

The statement says Boeing doesn't conduct testing. The military might've conducted the test, the military
isn't Boeing.

"According to Boeing, the facility conducts acceptance testing of newly manufactured (from the assembly line) aircraft during the day at the local commercial airport.

They said: 'Boeing conducts their tests during the day' this does not preclude the military from conducting
their tests at night.

"A Boeing spokesperson confirmed that there were no Boeing St. Louis derived aircraft flying around St. Louis and surrounding areas during the early morning (midnight to sunrise) dark hours of Jan 5, 2000."

I think the stealth blimp is (if real) a Lockheed Martin project. Boeing and Lockheed probably have some
informal sharing arrangements with their common client. Or, if it is a Boeing product being tested by the military<it was derived at another Boeing plant (other than St. Louis) but only tested at St. Louis.

[ecsspace]

I get the sense that you feel you won some kind of victory, which just says you missed the point entirely. Maybe that's being overly generous, but I'll leave that to mentors to decide: enough of this nonsense.

@ecsspace: Not really... we take in a vast array of sensory input, and for the most part effectively interpret it. When it comes to things that fly, naturally we land-bound hunter-gatherers wouldn't be aces at spotting it.

You are replying to the wrong party, or perhaps meant to reply to the post directly preceding the post you did reply to.
None of what was quoted above your entry that begins '@ecsspace...' was from of any of my original statements.

[nismaratwork]

Me speak English/American mid atlantic imitation hillbilly Appalachian dialect. Me speak heap good!
No insult taken, bwana. Not cross-purpose but multipurpose to reflect some aspect of multiple interpretations extant in universe of possibly unfathomable variety. Absurdity as an ever accumulating variable. Like modern art: your interpretation speak volumes of your perception of the world. That people are color blind can also mean that there other realms of perception blindness that could exist, not necessarily only in visual interpretive brain process. Wonder how often language is always entirely useful enough to correlate sharable data. Some deeply ingrained lessons were transferred to me via a good riddler, sank much deeper than ideas from droning lecturers.
Also knew someone else who used the term ship-in-the-bottle to refer to physics models, as a metaphor for something that was more elaborately complicated to build than was necessary, but was celebrated for the skill in the building. Then the ship-in-the-bottle model builders show them to each other and argue over whose ship was harder to build, and then argue whose ship would be the most seaworthy...were they not enclosed in the bottles. Not to mention the problem of scale.
It's a bit more cynical than I like to be...but I understood his perspective. His favorite saying: the construction of the wheel was accomplished without a slide rule.
But it's all about leprechauns.. err, I mean UFOs. Lots of reputable folks have seen leprechauns. But again there's that problem of scale.

OK, so English is your first language, I'm sorry if I offended you. You have a very interesting way of stringing together words and concepts. You point out that my view of the world is revealed in how I interpret things, but I'd add that how people express themselves can be quite revealing too. I can appreciate a unique style; the question is: can you communicate clearly without the riddles?


Oh, and regarding your last post, only that portion AFTER the "@yourname" portion applies to you... so... that works well.

[ecsspace]

OK, so English is your first language, I'm sorry if I offended you. You have a very interesting way of stringing together words and concepts. You point out that my view of the world is revealed in how I interpret things, but I'd add that how people express themselves can be quite revealing too. I can appreciate a unique style; the question is: can you communicate clearly without the riddles?


Oh, and regarding your last post, only that portion AFTER the "@yourname" portion applies to you... so... that works well.


"No insult taken, bwana" means you didn't offend me.

[pftest]

You know, I remember that story. A guess might be it could have been from a family of vehicles called
'stealth blimps' Notice this statement from Illinois 2000:
"Two separate inquiries from NIDS to the Boeing St. Louis facility showed that Boeing does not conduct testing of military aircraft at their facility."

The statement says Boeing doesn't conduct testing. The military might've conducted the test, the military
isn't Boeing.

"According to Boeing, the facility conducts acceptance testing of newly manufactured (from the assembly line) aircraft during the day at the local commercial airport.

They said: 'Boeing conducts their tests during the day' this does not preclude the military from conducting
their tests at night.

"A Boeing spokesperson confirmed that there were no Boeing St. Louis derived aircraft flying around St. Louis and surrounding areas during the early morning (midnight to sunrise) dark hours of Jan 5, 2000."

I think the stealth blimp is (if real) a Lockheed Martin project. Boeing and Lockheed probably have some
informal sharing arrangements with their common client. Or, if it is a Boeing product being tested by the military<it was derived at another Boeing plant (other than St. Louis) but only tested at St. Louis.Good points. At the very least its clear that there actually was a gigantic weird object flying around in the area, and you dont irrationally suggest it was venus. Heres a video with the 911 calls, the eyewitnesses (including several police officers), their descriptions and drawings, a picture that one of them took, and a reconstruction of the event: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6483818398061077731#

[nismaratwork]

"No insult taken, bwana" means you didn't offend me.

Yes, I'm aware of that... very much the African (Swahili) version of the Arabic: "Sheikh".

pftest: When you hear, "see Venus", are you thinking that people are just stargazing, see the planet, and come to a truly outrageous conclusion? It doesn't occur to you that it's in the context of weather conditions that can cause INTENSE atmospheric lensing, which HAS been proven to occur, even on grand scales such as entire metropolitan areas.

Again, the issue here is not what one self-described skeptic said, but an example of why the proof of WHAT needs to come from those making the claim. Anything else leads to beliefs that are based on truly confused information and assumptions.

[pftest]

pftest: When you hear, "see Venus", are you thinking that people are just stargazing, see the planet, and come to a truly outrageous conclusion? It doesn't occur to you that it's in the context of weather conditions that can cause INTENSE atmospheric lensing, which HAS been proven to occur, even on grand scales such as entire metropolitan areas.Feel free to provide sources that demonstrate that venus can be distorted to make it look like what the eyewitnesses describe. I think what you are suggesting about the capabilities of atmospherical conditions, is somewhat twisted out of proportion (to put it mildly :biggrin:) and has no grounding in reality. For example, you cannot simply claim that natural atmospherical conditions can make venus can take the form of a giant footballfield-sized mickey mouse either. Remember, we are no longer talking about UFO sightings in general, but about a specific case. I did this precisely to put the supposedly existing mundane explanations to the test.

[nismaratwork]

Feel free to provide sources that demonstrate that venus can be distorted to make it look like what the eyewitnesses describe. I think what you are suggesting about the capabilities of atmospherical conditions, is somewhat twisted out of proportion (to put it mildly :biggrin:) and has no grounding in reality. For example, you cannot simply claim that natural atmospherical conditions can make venus can take the form of a giant footballfield-sized mickey mouse either. Remember, we are no longer talking about UFO sightings in general, but about a specific case. I did this precisely to put the supposedly existing mundane explanations to the test.

1.) Atmospherical isn't a WORD. Normally I wouldn't comment, but you have it spelled correctly in the the post you quote.

2.) This isn't a contest: concepts of burden of proof are established elsewhere, and here. When people are asking you in a post, it's usually because they're not reporting you for the same reason. Take. The. Hint.

3.) A simple moisture-laden atmospheric boundary between two wildly differing air-densities creates extreme lensing. You've seen examples in "hit shimmers" on roads, and how they distort objects on the horizon. Well... this is a lot more wide-spread, in the sky, and the distant object is both bright and FAR FAR more distant than what we see on the horizon.

I don't know if you're so unfamiliar with optics and meteorology that these are foreign concepts, or if this is more of your... playing... around. Either way, here's the olive branch: http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/mirages/Wollaston.html

I'm done trying to reason with you until I have some iota that you're more than a crackpot who dances on the razor edge of the this site's rules.

[nismaratwork]

Good points. At the very least its clear that there actually was a gigantic weird object flying around in the area, and you dont irrationally suggest it was venus. Heres a video with the 911 calls, the eyewitnesses (including several police officers), their descriptions and drawings, a picture that one of them took, and a reconstruction of the event: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6483818398061077731#

You don't know what a source is... do you? You can't just site a mix of real images (of what... hm) third and worst-hand testimony, and a DRAMATIC RECREATION.

[pftest]

1.) Atmospherical isn't a WORD. Normally I wouldn't comment, but you have it spelled correctly in the the post you quote.

2.) This isn't a contest: concepts of burden of proof are established elsewhere, and here. When people are asking you in a post, it's usually because they're not reporting you for the same reason. Take. The. Hint.

3.) A simple moisture-laden atmospheric boundary between two wildly differing air-densities creates extreme lensing. You've seen examples in "hit shimmers" on roads, and how they distort objects on the horizon. Well... this is a lot more wide-spread, in the sky, and the distant object is both bright and FAR FAR more distant than what we see on the horizon.

I don't know if you're so unfamiliar with optics and meteorology that these are foreign concepts, or if this is more of your... playing... around. Either way, here's the olive branch: http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/mirages/Wollaston.html

I'm done trying to reason with you until I have some iota that you're more than a crackpot who dances on the razor edge of the this site's rules.Atmospherical:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atmospherical

Btw, it is well known that mirages are only seen on or near the horizon, they vanish beyond a certain degree, and they certainly do not fly over peoples heads and appear the way they did to all the eyewitnesses. Again, this suggestion of what atmospherical conditions are capable of is not grounded in reality.

As for the burden of proof: if someone claims that a particular atmospherical condition can explain a UFO sighting, then the burden is upon him of course. In a skepticism and debunking forum, you can expect people to be skeptical.

[nismaratwork]

Atmospherical:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atmospherical

Btw, it is well known that mirages are only seen on or near the horizon, they vanish beyond a certain degree, and they certainly do not fly over peoples heads and appear the way they did to all the eyewitnesses. Again, this suggestion of what atmospherical conditions are capable of is not grounded in reality.

As for the burden of proof: if someone claims that a particular atmospherical condition can explain a UFO sighting, then the burden is upon him of course. In a skepticism and debunking forum, you can expect people to be skeptical.

re: bold: You're factually incorrect here, and I'm down to fact-check and report with you. Do you have any support or citations for your erroneous claim in bold? You're actually contradicting the link you could have read about reflection and optics...


re: atmospherical: It's a neologism accepted as secondary in common usage in one (non internet) dictionary I could find. This is what the site you cited has to say on the subject of its etymology: http://dictionary.reference.com/etymology/atmospherical . Just in case none of that stuck: without engaging in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, you might want to argue less on this point, and research more. The proper term is, "Atmospheric"...
...Which is actually the first thing YOUR link spells out:

at·mos·pher·ic (tm-sfrk, -sfîr-) also at·mos·pher·i·cal (--kl)

Still, it exists, so you have that... now if only you were so willing and able to provide evidence for the other claims you've made... Oh well.

[pftest]

You don't know what a source is... do you? You can't just site a mix of real images (of what... hm) third and worst-hand testimony, and a DRAMATIC RECREATION.The video has some of the original taped conversations between several police officers and the 911 center, the police officers themselves, 2 civilian eyewitnesses, a photograph, drawings of the object (at least some of which were done immediately after the event by a police officer). That in itself makes it a valuable source.

The reconstruction was done by sigma animations:

A Full-Service Forensic Engineering and Scientific Consulting Firm

For over 45 years, DJS Associates, Inc. has been a trusted source for quality forensic consulting and state-of-the-art litigation support services through the time-tested and highly effective DJS Approach: Collecting Data, Preserving Evidence, Identifying Experts, Analyzing Information, Rendering Thorough and Ethical Conclusions, and Demonstrating Results.

DJS Associates, Inc. features nationally recognized, board-certified forensic consultants with over 45 years of specific experience in accident investigation, reconstruction, highway safety, and traffic engineering, including expert testimony. State-of-the-art data collection and analysis technology utilized includes High-Definition Surveying (HDS), Event Data Recorder Download, and computerized collision reconstruction and simulation programs.

Computer animation engineering specialists utilizing state-of-the-art technology to create precise, court-accepted animations and simulations. The animation engineers of DJS Associates, Inc. incorporate cutting-edge technology such as High-Definition Surveying (HDS), 3D Modeling, Photogrammetry and Computer Reverse Projection Photogrammetry.

DJS Associates, Inc. provides an innovative, groundbreaking, state-of-the-art storage, inspection and conference facility. Secure, indoor storage space available for all types and sizes of evidence including large items such as passenger vehicles, heavy trucks and buses. Clean and well-equipped indoor inspection area complete with adjacent conference room with Internet access and an aerial viewing platform. Services such as Event Data Recorder download, High-Definition Surveying (HDS) laser scanning, photography and videography available.

[pftest]

re: bold: You're factually incorrect here, and I'm down to fact-check and report with you. Do you have any support or citations for your erroneous claim in bold? You're actually contradicting the link you could have read about reflection and optics...Click on your own link. Then click on "inferior mirage". Behold:

Another common misconception is that the miraged image can fill a large part of the sky, as in this old drawing. Hogwash! Mirages NEVER look like that! They're always confined to a narrow strip of sky — less than a finger's width at arm's length — at the horizon.

re: atmospherical: It's a neologism accepted as secondary in common usage in one (non internet) dictionary I could find. This is what the site you cited has to say on the subject of its etymology: http://dictionary.reference.com/etymology/atmospherical . Just in case none of that stuck: without engaging in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, you might want to argue less on this point, and research more. The proper term is, "Atmospheric"...Whatever floats your boat...

[nismaratwork]

Click on your own link. Then click on "inferior mirage". Behold:



Whatever floats your boat...

That is by definition, a MIRAGE... as I said, an example of the effect being talked of, and one I described in detail! There is a reason I talked about "Atmospheric Lensing", and not "mirages". I used a mirage as a toy example that I thought someone without an understanding of optics might start with.

Remember #2? THIS IS NOT A CONTEST. UFO's don't become what you want them to be, or what the fellow who implicated Venus wants them to be. This is SUPPOSED to be about debate which leads to an exchange of ideas... which is impossible if you're unwilling or unable to honestly debate.


Finally... re: "atmospherical"... put it on your CV... have fun with it. Yet another example made of you taking the oppositional process of debate and making it simple oppositional behavior. Now, for extra credit, why is "oppositional" a correct usage, but "atmospherical is dog poo?

[nismaratwork]

The video has some of the original taped conversations between several police officers and the 911 center, the police officers themselves, 2 civilian eyewitnesses, a photograph, drawings of the object (at least some of which were done immediately after the event by a police officer). That in itself makes it a valuable source.

The reconstruction was done by sigma animations:

I understand all of that... it still isn't a valid source. I get it... you think this is some legalistic nonsense and part of keeping down the truth... whatever that may be. Its NOT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Fleischmann.E2.80.93Pons_experiment

This isn't just about lights in the sky: this is about how science is done, what constitutes evidence, and standards that you and I are subject to, but don't have a vote it. You don't have to like, or even participate in that kind of debate... you clearly see it as overly restrictive... however it's also an option to reconsider.

You believe what you're talking about... so... why can't or WON'T you produce evidence to match the claims?

[ecsspace]

Good points. At the very least its clear that there actually was a gigantic weird object flying around in the area, and you dont irrationally suggest it was venus. Here's a video with the 911 calls, the eyewitnesses (including several police officers), their descriptions and drawings, a picture that one of them took, and a reconstruction of the event: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6483818398061077731#

Oh yeah, I'm familiar with the Illinois 2000 incident. Did some digging on it after seeing the Discovery channel (or whichever Discovery network aired it) program about it. The three different cops, the photo, the drawings, sure. Leaning towards (not 'definite') it being a stealth blimp test. The well-parsed replies from 'Boeing' kind of confirm. Maybe even the same craft that caused all the brouhaha w/ 'Phoenix Lights' (the 'lights' themselves being flares dropped by a confirmed Maryland National Guard flight, purposefully to distract most of the city inhabitant's attention to the flares and away from the blimp test. Funny in how all the arm-waving It was only shown once how those descending lights all managed to 'wink out' at the point where they would have dropped below the line of sight as defined by the hilly horizon beneath where they appeared.)
My general feeling is that if 'aliens' really are visiting we may not be able to recognize them, like trying to get a polar bear to describe the team from the university who comes out to put the radio tracking collar on him. Or the pet dogs in a typical family suburb neighborhood all getting together to try to figure out what a television is: there is one in every home, their masters pay a lot of attention to it, the dogs themselves see it and might be able to recognize some images on the screen, but they would never be able to grasp it's use or purpose.
If 'aliens' exist, we are the dogs unable to grasp what they are doing. I feel that if the Illinois cops really saw something otherworldly not all three of them would come forward. Probably an actual experience with real alien craft might be closer to what is depicted in that movie 'Fire In The Sky' - so instinctually weird and creepy you mind seeks to reject what you see whether you want it to or not. It could be too traumatic, even if benign.

[pftest]

That is by definition, a MIRAGE... as I said, an example of the effect being talked of, and one I described in detail! There is a reason I talked about "Atmospheric Lensing", and not "mirages". I used a mirage as a toy example that I thought someone without an understanding of optics might start with.Then once again i must ask:

Feel free to provide sources that demonstrate that venus can be distorted to make it look like what the eyewitnesses describe.

[pftest]

I understand all of that... it still isn't a valid source. I get it... you think this is some legalistic nonsense and part of keeping down the truth... whatever that may be. Its NOT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Fleischmann.E2.80.93Pons_experiment

This isn't just about lights in the sky: this is about how science is done, what constitutes evidence, and standards that you and I are subject to, but don't have a vote it. You don't have to like, or even participate in that kind of debate... you clearly see it as overly restrictive... however it's also an option to reconsider.

You believe what you're talking about... so... why can't or WON'T you produce evidence to match the claims? I think you have me confused with someone else. I just posted a link to a case in the UFO napster and asked if you could find a mundane explanation. Its all fine to keep the discussion very general and vague, but how about we take a look at an actual UFO case for a change?

[pftest]

Oh yeah, I'm familiar with the Illinois 2000 incident. Did some digging on it after seeing the Discovery channel (or whichever Discovery network aired it) program about it. The three different cops, the photo, the drawings, sure. Leaning towards (not 'definite') it being a stealth blimp test. The well-parsed replies from 'Boeing' kind of confirm. Maybe even the same craft that caused all the brouhaha w/ 'Phoenix Lights' (the 'lights' themselves being flares dropped by a confirmed Maryland National Guard flight, purposefully to distract most of the city inhabitant's attention to the flares and away from the blimp test. Funny in how all the arm-waving It was only shown once how those descending lights all managed to 'wink out' at the point where they would have dropped below the line of sight as defined by the hilly horizon beneath where they appeared.)
My general feeling is that if 'aliens' really are visiting we may not be able to recognize them, like trying to get a polar bear to describe the team from the university who comes out to put the radio tracking collar on him. Or the pet dogs in a typical family suburb neighborhood all getting together to try to figure out what a television is: there is one in every home, their masters pay a lot of attention to it, the dogs themselves see it and might be able to recognize some images on the screen, but they would never be able to grasp it's use or purpose.
If 'aliens' exist, we are the dogs unable to grasp what they are doing. I feel that if the Illinois cops really saw something otherworldly not all three of them would come forward. Probably an actual experience with real alien craft might be closer to what is depicted in that movie 'Fire In The Sky' - so instinctually weird and creepy you mind seeks to reject what you see whether you want it to or not. It could be too traumatic, even if benign.I dont know anything about stealth blimps or even if they exist (aliens too btw), so im not going to speculate on that (though i once read a paper on PF that compared humans on earth with a gorilla reservation in the jungle). I just think that whatever the explanation is, it should match the eyewitness reports as closely as possible.

[ecsspace]

I think you have me confused with someone else. I just posted a link to a case in the UFO napster and asked if you could find a mundane explanation. Its all fine to keep the discussion very general and vague, but how about we take a look at an actual UFO case for a change?

He did that with me, too (nismaratwork)

[ecsspace]

I dont know anything about stealth blimps or even if they exist (aliens too btw), so im not going to speculate on that (though i once read a paper on PF that compared humans on earth with a gorilla reservation in the jungle). I just think that whatever the explanation is, it should match the eyewitness reports as closely as possible.

Yeah, one of the things that is so interesting about Illinois 2000 are how similar but also the differences
in each of the witness's recreated simulations, with the documentary affirming that each person approved the accuracy of their relevant simulated image. Notice how the cop's simulations were more alike to one another than the simulated image of the first guy who saw it.
The world of stealth technology can be every bit as mysterious as UFOs, and probably attracts as many varied-interest parties, though I imagine with some culling due to that fact that it's considered more highly probable that all 'stealth tech' is a definite human invention. Here's a page that may have some facts and some 'indulgent enthusiast' stuff. http://www.thestealthblimp.com/
Give people a circus balloon and they'll take the Hindenburg.

[nismaratwork]

I think you have me confused with someone else. I just posted a link to a case in the UFO napster and asked if you could find a mundane explanation. Its all fine to keep the discussion very general and vague, but how about we take a look at an actual UFO case for a change?

What do you not understand? Just as though I were attempting to prove your GUILT in a crime (i.e. a set of events), the burden to prove:
-That a crime was comitted
-The nature of the crime
-Your connection to the crime

Do you understand that this basic concept is central to the process of science, and asking for a MUNDANE explanation to then attack as a straw man is ABSURD.

This thread is a pathetic example of the very worst of S&D run-away. I'll leave you both to your chatter until the inevitable locking.

edit: Seriously, I've had more structured and serious conversations with acid-casualties who were institutionalized.

[FlexGunship]

Feel free to provide sources that demonstrate that venus can be distorted to make it look like what the eyewitnesses describe.

OKay, I have posted this site literally two million billion infinity times.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Venusufo.htm

Just read it. There's a reason why Venus is considered the queen of UFOs. There'a lot of spurious and irrational conversation here. Nismar is right though, your vaguely crackpot yammering is certainly going to doom an otherwise interesting thread.

[pftest]

OKay, I have posted this site literally two million billion infinity times.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Venusufo.htm

Just read it. There's a reason why Venus is considered the queen of UFOs. There'a lot of spurious and irrational conversation here. Nismar is right though, your vaguely crackpot yammering is certainly going to doom an otherwise interesting thread.I see you missed part of the conversation. Remember, werent discussing UFO cases in general, some of which may indeed be a misidentified venus, and others may be swamp gas, but we were talking specifically about the Illinois 2000 case (see page 1 of the ufo napster).

[nismaratwork]

I see you missed part of the conversation. Remember, werent discussing UFO cases in general, some of which may indeed be a misidentified venus, and others may be swamp gas, but we were talking specifically about the Illinois 2000 case (see page 1 of the ufo napster).

Let me be clear: You're asking for an explanation for a claim that may or may not be valid (we just don't know) despite the number of sources?

If there's no explanation... no Venus, no Blimps... what's your explanation? I'm curious, because this is a very bizarre kind of situation: you pose a case, demand an explanation, and if not....

...then what? What is your conclusion?

[pftest]

Let me be clear: You're asking for an explanation for a claim that may or may not be valid (we just don't know) despite the number of sources?

If there's no explanation... no Venus, no Blimps... what's your explanation? I'm curious, because this is a very bizarre kind of situation: you pose a case, demand an explanation, and if not....

...then what? What is your conclusion?Even if the claims "arent valid", they still require an explanation: why do people suddenly call 911 to report a UFO, and several different police departments confirm the sighting? Why do they all describe and draw more or less the same thing? Etc.

[nismaratwork]

Even if the claims "arent valid", they still require an explanation: why do people suddenly call 911 to report a UFO, and several different police departments confirm the sighting? Why do they all describe and draw more or less the same thing? Etc.

You didn't answer the question: will you answer it, or should I not bother to continue to ask?

[pftest]

You didn't answer the question: will you answer it, or should I not bother to continue to ask?I dont have a mundane explanation. Im baffled. But i thought that wilth all the people who think there are mundane explanations, maybe finally the case would be cracked...

Btw i see that the video that i posted earlier is already in the UFO napster (page 4 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2805&page=4)).
Theres also another video about polygram exams of the witnesses:

A follow-up to the Illinois sightings: Witnesses take a polygraph exam [nominated by PIT2]. I checked on the polygrapher who appears to be a credible expert.
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=1862693385446435991

[pftest]

I just found this long newspaper article on the case, also with many eyewitness descriptions. Heres a bit from the first page:

He went into the office for a bit, checked the plumbing and returned to his truck: "I looked up and there it was, just like a big house floating in the air, with windows in it and a bright light on the inside, like there might've been a big room in there."

Although it is difficult to judge the size of an airborne object at a distance -- there's no point of reference by which to gauge -- Noll estimates that the craft was "about the size of a football field." The object was moving slowly, perhaps 50 mph, some 800-1,000 feet above him and off to the south, providing a view of its side and bottom as it passed along a stand of trees. "I just couldn't hardly believe my eyes what I was seeing up there," he recalls. "I mean, there was no noise, nothing! And I was looking for wings and couldn't see no wings on it. I thought, 'What in the heck is it?'" Noll stood on the parking-lot gravel contemplating this strange sight for five minutes or so: "I just kept watching it, and at one point it seemed like it slowed down and I had the feeling it spotted me down here, and it scared the heck out of me. Then it kept a-going toward the southwest." The last he saw of the craft, a mysterious and silent behemoth, it was sailing silently past the Oberbeck Grain Elevator.

When Noll walked in to the Highland police station and told them about the UFO, he felt compelled to add that he hadn't been partying. The dispatcher, Nancy Edwards, reassured him: "I believe you. I can see it in your face that you saw something." Edwards then got on the horn and notified a St. Clair County police dispatcher, who in turn began a round of contacts to patrol officers in various jurisdictions.

Nothing much was shaking in Lebanon at 4:11 a.m. when Officer Ed Barton received the call from St. Clair County dispatch. Barton, who at first scoffed at the dispatcher's request to look for a flying object in the shape of a "two-story house" with white lights and red blinking lights -- "If I find it, what am I supposed to do with it?" -- soon changed his tune when he spied a "very bright white light just east of town." From the time he first saw it, "and that was a good five, six miles away," says Barton, "it looked like two large -- very large -- bright white lights so close together it looked like they were almost touching, with rays of light emitting from them." Barton switched on the cruiser's overhead lights, driving south on Route 4 in the general direction in which he'd seen the craft. "I was going rather fast," he says, "because I thought at first it was a plane going down."

Getting an occasional visual on the craft through the trees, Barton turned on Route 50, heading eastbound about three miles into the village of Summerfield. And there it was. "Just imagine an elongated, narrow triangle, but massive, so big it blotted out the stars that would've been above it," Barton says. "And on each of the corners of this thing were these round, bright white lights, so bright I had to squint to look." It had been stationary, but then it began to move. "That's when I noticed it was coming toward me, and so I pulled off the road, turned off my overhead lights, turned off my squad car."

All the witnesses saw the object at different distances and different angles. Barton had one of the closest views -- by his reckoning, it was some 200 feet away and about 1,000-1,500 feet in the air. Barton's proximity helps discount the theory that the craft was an airplane. "I was a military brat 21 years -- my father was active-duty Air Force -- so I'm familiar with both foreign and domestic aircraft," he says. "It got to where I could usually identify an aircraft just by the engine noise, and when this thing went over, it made zero noise. I mean, that's what really caught my attention -- no noise whatsoever."

More: http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2000-04-05/news/space-case/

[nismaratwork]

I dont have a mundane explanation. Im baffled. But i thought that wilth all the people who think there are mundane explanations, maybe finally the case would be cracked...

Btw i see that the video that i posted earlier is already in the UFO napster (page 4 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2805&page=4)).
Theres also another video about polygram exams of the witnesses:

You don't have a mundane explanation: do you have one that isn't mundane?

If you're baffled, why are you so laughingly certain that Venus isn't the culprit, or an elaborate prank? Your sources and your presentation suggest that you DO believe something, but you're not saying what. I really don't' see how this can progress while you remain "elusive" on the simple question of: 'OK, well... what do you think then?'

I'd add..

While I have the utmost respect, and personally I like, Ivan... he seems to have a soft-spot in this area. I do NOT recall ever conversing with him on this issue where he didn't stick to what could and couldn't be proven. Even if he has personal beliefs, like a good journalist, he does his best to keep it from being a bias. Besides, he's a mentor and clearly has been for a while: I trust his judgment, and he presents it as simply another item to be examined, not support for something yet-to-be-named.

[nismaratwork]

I just found this long newspaper article on the case, also with many eyewitness descriptions. Heres a bit from the first page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

[Radrook]

.I agree that the planet Venus suggestion is very often the least convincing. Especially when it requires the planet to leave its orbit, shrink in size and chase a car at breakneck speed down a country road or highway.

Hallucination carries more weight when applied to an individual who might be under the influence of drugs or might be suffering from schizophrenia or perhaps extreme emotional stress. But then again in some cases it requires mass hallucination which needs to be explained via provision of cause and that can prove almost impossible. It also has the drawback of excluding persons who don't fall under the mental-stress mental-illness categories.

Mirage is better since atmospheric conditions can lead to it. However it has the drawback of requiring just the right conditions and explanations as to what exactly is being distorted and if the degree of distortion necessary is indeed possible under the geological and meteorological conditions at the time of the claim.

Then we have seismic pressure on subterranean crystals-a phenomenon which can be repeated under laboratory conditions. But that too demands a meticulous demonstration of all the anomalies associated with UFO behavior and that's where the debunking might tend to break down.

In short it's best to simply say that we just don't know what's really going on and leave it at that.

[FlexGunship]

I agree that the planet Venus suggestion is very often the least convincing. Especially when it requires the planet to leave its orbit, shrink in size and chase a car at breakneck speed down a country road or highway.

I'm really tired of having to repeat my posts. Look, to all the "newbies," Nismar and I take the time to read your posts and actually respond to the words in them. When you provide links, we read them. Why don't you start by affording us the same courtesy.

Since Radrook has joined with his thoughts about Venus, I will AGAIN share the relevant site, AND an except.

The apparent pursuit of moving vehicles, or flight from them, is characteristic of any distant object which is imagined to be close to the observer. Because of the object's great distance, it remains essentially the same direction from the observer as the observer moves. Because of the object's great distance, it remains essentially the same direction from the observer as the observer moves. Compared with trees or terrain nearby which change in direction as the observer moves past them, the object, retaining a constant direction, does seem to be moving the same speed and direction as any observer who thinks it no more distant than the reference terrain...It is a characteristic of this "pursuit" that the object stops when the observer stops, resumes its motion as the observer resumes motion, goes the opposite direction when the observer reverses direction, and travels at whatever speed the observer happens to travel. (Craig 47)
Source: http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Venusufo.htm

Hallucination carries more weight when applied to an individual who might be under the influence of drugs or might be suffering from schizophrenia or perhaps extreme emotional stress. But then again in some cases it requires mass hallucination which needs to be explained via provision of cause and that can prove almost impossible. It also has the drawback of excluding persons who don't fall under the mental-stress mental-illness categories.

Wow, three things wrong here.

Hallucination isn't just something that happens to "the other guy." Seriously, if you were hallucinating, you wouldn't even know it. That's how hallucinations work.
Mass hallucination is more commonplace than you'd think. What do you think the cut off is? Maybe 30 people? Maybe 50 people? How about 100,000? (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun) (Here's an idea... instead of just disregarding that link; read it. For real. Add it to your repository of knowledge. And next time you talk about what could and could not be mass hallucination, remember it!)
Again, why must someone be under mental stress to hallucinate? Happens every night. Every night. EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. You lay there unconscious and hallucinate vividly for hours on end. Do you think your brain just stops working when you wake up? What do you think optical illusions are? They're brain hiccups. We get them constantly and just integrate them into our daily lives. And if you don't know why optical illusions and hallucinations are CLOSELY RELATED, then you are not equipped to comment on the matter.


Mirage is better since atmospheric conditions can lead to it. However it has the drawback of requiring just the right conditions and explanations as to what exactly is being distorted and if the degree of distortion necessary is indeed possible under the geological and meteorological conditions at the time of the claim.

A surprisingly lucid comment. If the stars twinkle, there's enough atmospheric disturbance to compromise your observations.

Then we have seismic pressure on subterranean crystals-a phenomenon which can be repeated under laboratory conditions. But that too demands a meticulous demonstration of all the anomalies associated with UFO behavior and that's where the debunking might tend to break down.

What?!
I Googled what I've bolded in your quote. And there was nothing about UFOs, hallucinations, or anything else. In fact, the third result was this thread which makes it a tautology of the worst kind. The only reason your claim exists on the internet is because you made it!

Process that. Digest it.

The next post you make should be a citation of your claim. If it's not, then we all know exactly where your claim of subterranean crystal crushing UFO manifesting shenanigan hullabaloo came from.

Here's an example of a post you should NOT make: "I'm not going to look everything up for you." Nor "it's not my job to do your research for you." Nor "it's not my fault if you don't know about these things." Nor "well, I can't find it now." Nor "it's obvious."

I've made claims before that I had to retract. It's a good habit to get into.

[FlexGunship]

Then once again i must ask:

Did you find it in the link I provided?

Various shapes and sizes [for Venus] were given. “Football shaped light”, “Big as the moon”, “appeared to be a star”, “round”, “the shape of a giant four-leaf clover”, “A piece of floating tin foil”, “a yellow rectangle-shaped object”, “sphere shaped object approximately 25-feet in diameter”, etc. (Condon 370-373)

Pulled directly from the Condon report in a control study speaking specifically about observations of Venus.

Now, I'm 100% sure we don't need to discuss that again, right?

And, I'll warn you now, don't bother with a straw man argument. Obviously not every object in the sky is Venus.

Venus:
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesC/Venus02.jpg_1.jpg

Not Venus:
http://shanemcdonald.org/myblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/rio-ufo-light-show.jpg

[pftest]

You don't have a mundane explanation: do you have one that isn't mundane?

If you're baffled, why are you so laughingly certain that Venus isn't the culprit, or an elaborate prank? I dont know who killed Kennedy, but i do know it wasnt flipper the dolphin or mark zuckerberg. The idea that venus can be transformed into a giant triangle that flies over peoples heads, rotates, changes direction + speed and is seen from different angles, is about as mindblowingly non-mundane an explanation as ive ever heard :biggrin:

[nismaratwork]

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010CoMP..tmp..108O
Creep strength of oriented orthopyroxene single crystals was investigated via shear deformation experiments under lithospheric conditions

That's real research into crystalline formations in the lithosphere.

Here's the absolute crackpot, loony toons stuff HE is talking about.

http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Salnikov_1.pdf
WOW... this is a really fantastic site for people who think gravity is a myth perpetrated by the same aliens that killed JFK! :rolleyes:

It has been demonstrated by the example of such objects that field electromagnetic system may form in the lithosphere when phase transmission of the minerals generating the electromagnetic radiation. Such systems taking on the quasi-crystal structure in Riemannian elliptical space are of superconductivity and may be blown out from atmosphere in to lithosphere. Trending to transfer from field discrete to substantial structure electromagnetic systems compensate the points of field quasi-crystal by amers, atoms, molecules, particles of rocks. It has been supposed that related mechanism of such anomalous holes formation took place in Kemerovskaya oblast (Krapivinsky and Izmorsky districts) and in Volgogradskaya oblast. Microtungusk fallen wood has been investigated in 1990 in Petrozavodsk region (Karelia). [StealthSkater note: of possible relevance are the "Quasi-Crystals" in the Paul Potter UFO analysis documents => doc pdf URL http://www.stealthskater.com/UFO.htm#Potter ]
In the middle 1970s, the scientists paid attention to mechanical/electrical transformations in the rocks leading to accumulation of space charge and its relaxation. This process of appearance in the lithosphere "underground thunderstorm" may cause the earthquakes and consequently the changes of relief. However, the descriptions of the processes causing the changes of the Earth's surface under the influence of electromagnetic energy appeared only 20 years later. Formation of diatherms as a result of electrical break down between flying bolide and the Earth; fallen wood in Podkamennaya Tunguska; ether emanations from the central parts of the Earth; and formation of ether/gravitation bolide at the sacrifice of substance from the place of its formation (Sasovsky explosion, Voronov crater).
Many convictions concerned Tungusk catastrophe were suggested. But none of them can explain
2
many conflicting facts. The most of hypotheses provide explanations by appearance of meteorite, space shuttle, UFO, coronar seized solar prominence, or superconductor. And very few of them interpret the causes of the catastrophe as lithospheric/atmospheric event - explosion of gas released from the bogs and abyssal faults, electrical break down between lithosphere, bolide and atmosphere, laser impact of atmospheric lens consisted of nitrogen or carbonic-acid gas with atmospheric steam on the central part of Siberian magnetic anomaly. A number geophysical, biological, and psychological evidences support the lithospheric hypothesis of Tungusk phenomenon appearance. There are a lot of methods to forecast the anomalous events from geophysical to extrasensorical nature. These are quite earthly influences

*sigh*

*Bolding mine

[ecsspace]

edit: Seriously, I've had more structured and serious conversations with acid-casualties who were institutionalized.

Familiar territory?

[nismaratwork]

I dont know who killed Kennedy, but i do know it wasnt flipper the dolphin or mark zuckerberg. The idea that venus can be transformed into a giant triangle that flies over peoples heads, rotates, changes direction + speed and is seen from different angles, is about as mindblowingly non-mundane an explanation as ive ever heard :biggrin:

Right, but now you're still evading my question by attacking an assertion made by ONE man. I'm asking what you DO believe, not more tapdancing.

[nismaratwork]

Familiar territory?

Yes it is, although ironically not in the way I suspect you'd like to imply.

[pftest]

Did you find it in the link I provided?

Pulled directly from the Condon report in a control study speaking specifically about observations of Venus.

Now, I'm 100% sure we don't need to discuss that again, right?

And, I'll warn you now, don't bother with a straw man argument. Obviously not every object in the sky is Venus.

Venus:
[/IMG]http://www.rense.com/1.imagesC/Venus02.jpg_1.jpg[/IMG]

Not Venus:
[/IMG]http://shanemcdonald.org/myblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/rio-ufo-light-show.jpg[/IMG]Not venus:

http://i54.tinypic.com/2e1txs1.jpg

[ecsspace]

Yes it is, although ironically not in the way I suspect you'd like to imply.

They weren't one-way conversations?

[nismaratwork]

They weren't one-way conversations?

They can be that sometimes, if the person is acutely psychotic, but that's rare. Often listening, even to 'crazy' people, can be useful. You do realize that people with psychotic disorders require THERAPY in addition to medication, right?

[nismaratwork]

Not venus:

OK, that's certainly a fair assertion; the entire Venus issue is a straw man after all.

So... what do you think it is?
ecsspace: and you?
RadrooK: and you?

I have no idea, but I do know that there is nothing which rises to the level of viable evidence. Given that, all that can be said is people claimed to see, believed they saw, or did see a UFO; an Object that remains Unidentified, and appeared to Fly.

Superconducting crystals (Radrook)
Sketches and videos (pftest)
and riddles and word-play (exsspace)


I'm not seeing anything like a serious discussion that can be based on that. On one hand you, pftest, want to use anecdotal evidence to support a claim you are unable or unwilling to make here. ecsspace seems to be in it for reasons only known to him, and Radrook made an oblique case for ETs.

What. Do. You. Believe? Are you just throwing up chaff for the sake of fun? What are you skeptical of, or debunking, or trying to prove? After all of this talk, I think it's fair that you answer that question.

[ecsspace]

Not venus:

http://i54.tinypic.com/2e1txs1.jpg

You know, certain cheap video camcorders from the late 90's had this CCD that gave Venus a very unusual look, when it was at it's brightest and about 40 degrees(?) above the horizon. Kind of put a black line underneath it like those old TV cameras from the 1950's that would black out direct light sources...forget what they were called. Guy showed me a video he made in Central America, pans up, here's this thing. His partner is taking still photos. In the photos it looks like, well Venus. On the cheap camcorder video it looks like this horizontal blob with a black line underneath.
But now the CCDs are so much better that people take colorful videos of jet contrails at sunset and think
it's time to call Vandenburg Air Force base to pin them down about what secret rocket they launched, cause
here's 'the proof' in the picture (the jet contrail at sunset).

[nismaratwork]

You know, certain cheap video camcorders from the late 90's had this CCD that gave Venus a very unusual look, when it was at it's brightest and about 40 degrees(?) above the horizon. Kind of put a black line underneath it like those old TV cameras from the 1950's that would black out direct light sources...forget what they were called. Guy showed me a video he made in Central America, pans up, here's this thing. His partner is taking still photos. In the photos it looks like, well Venus. On the cheap camcorder video it looks like this horizontal blob with a black line underneath.
But now the CCDs are so much better that people take colorful videos of jet contrails at sunset and think
it's time to call Vandenburg Air Force base to pin them down about what secret rocket they launched, cause
here's 'the proof' in the picture (the jet contrail at sunset).

So... you tend towards a belief that an increase in the number of observers and recorders keeps this phenomenon alive? That does seem to be a logical conclusion, but I admit that I didn't see it coming from you.

[ecsspace]

OK, that's certainly a fair assertion; the entire Venus issue is a straw man after all.

So... what do you think it is?
ecsspace: and you?
RadrooK: and you?

I have no idea, but I do know that there is nothing which rises to the level of viable evidence. Given that, all that can be said is people claimed to see, believed they saw, or did see a UFO; an Object that remains Unidentified, and appeared to Fly.

Superconducting crystals (Radrook)
Sketches and videos (pftest)
and riddles and word-play (exsspace)


I'm not seeing anything like a serious discussion that can be based on that. On one hand you, pftest, want to use anecdotal evidence to support a claim you are unable or unwilling to make here. ecsspace seems to be in it for reasons only known to him, and Radrook made an oblique case for ETs.

What. Do. You. Believe? Are you just throwing up chaff for the sake of fun? What are you skeptical of, or debunking, or trying to prove? After all of this talk, I think it's fair that you answer that question.

All self-styled senses of "reasonable"?
Hey hey hey, you misspelled my nom-de-plum/guerre... it's 'ecsspace'
j'accuse!!! I mean, we wouldn't want to confuse 'John Edward' with 'John Edwards'

[ecsspace]

So... you tend towards a belief that an increase in the number of observers and recorders keeps this phenomenon alive? That does seem to be a logical conclusion, but I admit that I didn't see it coming from you.

Well... the nice thing about circular logic is how it arrives in such roundabout manner...

[ecsspace]

So... you tend towards a belief that an increase in the number of observers and recorders keeps this phenomenon alive? That does seem to be a logical conclusion, but I admit that I didn't see it coming from you.

I tend to believe that counting the peanuts and corn and then calling it science is
completely unnecessary if you can merely recall what you ate in the last 7 to 12 hours.
I simply flush and move on.

[nismaratwork]

Yes yes... ECS-space... it's called a typo. Anyway, thanks for the 3-part answer to my question. You sir, must be under "droll" in the dictionary. :rolleyes:

edit: What John Edward? There's John Edwards, and John E. McGee Jr.. :smile:

[FlexGunship]

All self-styled senses of "reasonable"?
Hey hey hey, you misspelled my nom-de-plum/guerre... it's 'ecsspace'
j'accuse!!! I mean, we wouldn't want to confuse 'John Edward' with 'John Edwards'

Well... the nice thing about circular logic is how it arrives in such roundabout manner...

I tend to believe that counting the peanuts and corn and then calling it science is
completely unnecessary if you can merely recall what you ate in the last 7 to 12 hours.
I simply flush and move on.

Total information content = zero.

You talked about typos, tossed out some pseudo-French, brought us back to an earlier non-sequitur, vaguely indicated circular reasoning in a specific case (without explaining?), talked about counting vegetables and legumes, and made a poop joke.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7CSDGSkwaeldhJiUeRh-OhlxSfecYvs159kNb69UCVonmH9m5

[ecsspace]

Yes yes... ECS-space... it's called a typo. Anyway, thanks for the 3-part answer to my question. You sir, must be under "droll" in the dictionary. :rolleyes:

edit: What John Edward? There's John Edwards, and John E. McGee Jr.. :smile:

Oh, cripes I forgot...right, right John E. McGee, Jr.
Can't see what is so much more appealing about 'Edward' over 'McGee'
unless it's some world-of-the-psychic reasoning.

(loud klaxon begins to sound) oh, jeez, that's the off-topic warning! Run!
(everyone runs back inside the UFO Claim circle)
Okay, everyone make out like we've been talking about UFOs
(everyone glances up as the floating PF monitor camera passes over, carefully scrutinizing every face)
ecsspace: (loudly) "well, a lot of authorities claim that the planet Venus is really what people are seeing.
we all know that's the usual story, or swamp gas or something...."
(after a brief pause to sniff the level of 'serious', the PF monitor camera continues off into the gloom towards another circle of light)

jeepers, fellas, that was a close one... we gotta watch that John Edward stuff..
Sorry, sorry John McGee. Jr. I mean.

[nismaratwork]

Oh, cripes I forgot...right, right John E. McGee, Jr.
Can't see what is so much more appealing about 'Edward' over 'McGee'
unless it's some world-of-the-psychic reasoning.

(loud klaxon begins to sound) oh, jeez, that's the off-topic warning! Run!
(everyone runs back inside the UFO Claim circle)
Okay, everyone make out like we've been talking about UFOs
(everyone glances up as the floating PF monitor camera passes over, carefully scrutinizing every face)
ecsspace: (loudly) "well, a lot of authorities claim that the planet Venus is really what people are seeing.
we all know that's the usual story, or swamp gas or something...."
(after a brief pause to sniff the level of 'serious', the PF monitor camera continues off into the gloom towards another circle of light)

jeepers, fellas, that was a close one... we gotta watch that John Edward stuff..
Sorry, sorry John McGee. Jr. I mean.

Do you understand that I was trying to make light of the situation, at nobody's expense but Edward's? I get it, you're dramatic and expressive, but there needs to be more signal in your noise, to use the kind of junior-high wordplay you seem to feel is necessary to a discussion.

edit: I realize that this is just my own bias, but if I didn't know better I'd say you liked your psychedelics/hallucinogens a little too much. You seem grounded in reality as to the issues, but your language is a constant flight of words and ideas. It strikes me as artificial, or forced, and that screams some kind of "haze".

Example:
Person 1: Oh, I feel so foolish!
Person 2: *profanity* I'm an idiot!
Brian Atene: slaps self* (giggles and plays with a ball+cup) a fool is me, but a fool are we!
You: [Insert teleplay] minor point [SOUND EFFECTS] noise sans signal [nonsensical comment or joke] minor echolalia [Total remove from subject matter... funny? Angry? Who knows]

Maybe you can just ease up on the Juliard training for those of us who like to MINIMIZE semantic confusion, rather than dancing on a surface made entirely OF rhetoric and games?

[ecsspace]

Do you understand that I was trying to make light of the situation, at nobody's expense but Edward's? I get it, you're dramatic and expressive, but there needs to be more signal in your noise, to use the kind of junior-high wordplay you seem to feel is necessary to a discussion.

The discussion about UFO's? What can be discussed, the price of tea in the Pleiades? Until they
land within range of CNN's cameras and Klaatu comes out with the scroll thing, it's all pretty much
academic. Musing over how crazy or deceptive or credible witness X might be.
Past that you are only talking subjective interpretations, which is just apples and oranges.

Don'tcha mean you were trying to make light of the situation at nobody's expense but McGee's?

[nismaratwork]

The discussion about UFO's? What can be discussed, the price of tea in the Pleiades? Until they
land within range of CNN's cameras and Klaatu comes out with the scroll thing, it's all pretty much
academic. Musing over how crazy or deceptive or credible witness X might be.
Past that you are only talking subjective interpretations, which is just apples and oranges.

Don'tcha mean you were trying to make light of the situation at nobody's expense but McGee's?

UFO = Unidentified Flying Object.. not...

ET's, which would be aliens.

A UFO could be anything that remains unidentified and flies... there's no need to invoke aliens.


And just like that, we're back to square one for the ENTIRE discussion over multiple threads on PF. Fantastic.

[nismaratwork]

OK, ecsspace, you seem not be understanding the lay of the land.

I believe that there is no evidence to support the assertion that aliens have been observed or have visited us. It strikes me as unlikely, and as you imply, very much NOT an issue of import until they start paying us a visit, if they do, which I think is unlikely.

Myself, and to an even greater extent, FlexGunship are essentially arguing for the basic scientific method central to skepticism to remain intact here. There is no result to reach, it's just about applying good methods that have proven themselves essential to meaningful advances since the age of reason (and to long before).

pftest is constantly asking for explanations, rather than offering them. Radrook needs to take a long hard look at the lithosphere first.

What is your "deal"? You seem to be, again... just playing games. You're not offering new information or sources... you're basically just having whatever passes for fun in your head, AFAI-can tell.

[ecsspace]

UFO = Unidentified Flying Object.. not...

ET's, which would be aliens.

A UFO could be anything that remains unidentified and flies... there's no need to invoke aliens.


And just like that, we're back to square one for the ENTIRE discussion over multiple threads on PF. Fantastic.

Well...back at square one...what do you want to discuss? I think I remember whosits mentioning
the Illinois 2000 incident and you wanted to know what he believed?

[nismaratwork]

Well...back at square one...what do you want to discuss? I think I remember whosits mentioning
the Illinois 2000 incident and you wanted to know what he believed?

Yes, I would like very much to know what pftest believes. I clearly don't like how you communicate, but that's my problem; your content when it's there isn't outrageous. pftest seems passionate about.. ??? I don't know. He introduced that case, which included a self-styled skeptic who, also without any valid evidence, made an guess which has been made into pftest's strawman.

So... it's that circle you mentioned earlier, and I would like to know why someone is approaching this as though a mystery need to be EXPLAINED, or it defaults to... something. He hasn't said what that something is however, AFAIK.

[ecsspace]

Myself, and to an even greater extent, FlexGunship are essentially arguing for the basic scientific method central to skepticism to remain intact here. There is no result to reach, it's just about applying good methods that have proven themselves essential to meaningful advances since the age of reason (and to long before).
.


But you are someone who is citing 'scientific method' and 'age of reason' who previously jumped to a conclusion that you had "insulted" me when I clearly stated you hadn't. Isn't jumping to a conclusion specifically not part of 'the scientific method' and definitely not on the menu at the Age of Reason Anniversary Banquet?

[nismaratwork]

But you are someone who is citing 'scientific method' and 'age of reason' who previously jumped to a conclusion that you had "insulted" me when I clearly stated you hadn't. Isn't jumping to a conclusion specifically not part of 'the scientific method' and definitely not on the menu at the Age of Reason Anniversary Banquet?

Yes, and here I think you've used your linguistic skills to make a good point. I think it's important to remember that social interactions online can be awkward, but on facts (or lack of them), we seem to agree. My leap to a conclusion was... unfortunate, if not atypical of me online. I can only say that I don't claim to approach anything like perfect; I'm just trying to focus on one problem per thread.

Let me put this to you: Reading everything you've posted here, it seems that you believe the jury is out. TRULY OUT... as in, you haven't drawn any conclusions. I respect that, and I think Flex would too (although, he'd want to change that perhaps), so it seems unfortunate that stylistic differences and communication barriers have divorced those essential facts from the discussion.

Besides... and I don't mean this as an insult either... I find you very confusing, which is not something I'm used to feeling about people, on or offline.

[ecsspace]

Yes, I would like very much to know what pftest believes. I clearly don't like how you communicate, but that's my problem; your content when it's there isn't outrageous. pftest seems passionate about.. ??? I don't know. He introduced that case, which included a self-styled skeptic who, also without any valid evidence, made an guess which has been made into pftest's strawman.

So... it's that circle you mentioned earlier, and I would like to know why someone is approaching this as though a mystery need to be EXPLAINED, or it defaults to... something. He hasn't said what that something is however, AFAIK.

Probably just one of the blunders of nature I guess. I think pftest was just tickled that there appears to be so much seemingly 'good' evidence re the Illinois 2000 case. Me, I think the Air Force was just testing a stealth blimp. But I could be wrong, it could be the Marine Corp's stealth blimp. Or the CIA's.

[nismaratwork]

Probably just one of the blunders of nature I guess. I think pftest was just tickled that there appears to be so much seemingly 'good' evidence re the Illinois 2000 case. Me, I think the Air Force was just testing a stealth blimp. But I could be wrong, it could be the Marine Corp's stealth blimp. Or the CIA's.

Heh... military aircraft testing was one of the first areas FlexGunship gave me a bit of perspective on. We can all I agree that SOME of these sightings are military or civilian craft, but there are SO many sightings... and so little evidence (if any).

As it stands, it COULD definitely be a blimp (stealth... heh... there's irony there), but it could be so many things. Still, you're clearly saying that you have an opinion... personally, given the testimony yours is a plausible explanation, although not my preferred one.

I guess for me, if the best we can say about something is what we personally believe it COULD be... there's nothing to get into at all. The result is, maliciously or not, pftest created this Venus straw man using the testimony of one skeptic who was speculating. So, instead of a thread talking about claims that we can somehow examine, discuss, or explain... it's this complete enigma.

[ecsspace]

Yes, and here I think you've used your linguistic skills to make a good point. I think it's important to remember that social interactions online can be awkward, but on facts (or lack of them), we seem to agree. My leap to a conclusion was... unfortunate, if not atypical of me online. I can only say that I don't claim to approach anything like perfect; I'm just trying to focus on one problem per thread.

Let me put this to you: Reading everything you've posted here, it seems that you believe the jury is out. TRULY OUT... as in, you haven't drawn any conclusions. I respect that, and I think Flex would too (although, he'd want to change that perhaps), so it seems unfortunate that stylistic differences and communication barriers have divorced those essential facts from the discussion.

Besides... and I don't mean this as an insult either... I find you very confusing, which is not something I'm used to feeling about people, on or offline.

Yeah, no conclusions, too absurd. Too many known and unknown variables that people's various personality myopias preclude from any possible ability they may have to consider that there might be a whole lot more that they don't know. Might as well have a few larfs at the expense of our collective ignorance. Edward/McGee can come too, he can be the fourth blind man trying to decipher what this elephant is.
Stephen Hawking has started making clever wisecracks, in his new book and elsewhere.. it sounds like he got to the point where he just couldn't resist and figured he had only to gain.

[ecsspace]

Heh... military aircraft testing was one of the first areas FlexGunship gave me a bit of perspective on. We can all I agree that SOME of these sightings are military or civilian craft, but there are SO many sightings... and so little evidence (if any).

As it stands, it COULD definitely be a blimp (stealth... heh... there's irony there), but it could be so many things. Still, you're clearly saying that you have an opinion... personally, given the testimony yours is a plausible explanation, although not my preferred one.

I guess for me, if the best we can say about something is what we personally believe it COULD be... there's nothing to get into at all. The result is, maliciously or not, pftest created this Venus straw man using the testimony of one skeptic who was speculating. So, instead of a thread talking about claims that we can somehow examine, discuss, or explain... it's this complete enigma.


I would call how I see it 'a likely hunch' more than an opinion, based mostly on Boeing's cagey response revealing them patting themselves on the back at being so clever to hide something in plain sight.

[nismaratwork]

OK, I understand. Thanks for your patience ecsspace.

[ecsspace]

OK, I understand. Thanks for your patience ecsspace.

Probably I should thank you for your patience, instead. Thanks for tolerating my japes.
Poor John McGee. I think I figured out why he went with 'John Edward', but it's a longshot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibber_McGee_and_Molly

[pftest]

I guess for me, if the best we can say about something is what we personally believe it COULD be... there's nothing to get into at all. The result is, maliciously or not, pftest created this Venus straw man using the testimony of one skeptic who was speculating. So, instead of a thread talking about claims that we can somehow examine, discuss, or explain... it's this complete enigma.Woops! Remember i asked for a mundane explanation of the illinois 2000 sighting and you mentioned it could be venus? Thats where the venus discussion started.

I do not subscribe to the idea that skepticism entails accepting any explanation for the sole reason of it not involving ET. In other words, one should be skeptical of any explanation, even the venus one (which i ripped to pieces) and the mirage one (idem dito).

[nismaratwork]

Woops! Remember i asked for a mundane explanation of the illinois 2000 sighting and you mentioned it could be venus? Thats where the venus discussion started.

I do not subscribe to the idea that skepticism entails accepting any explanation for the sole reason of it not involving ET. In other words, one should be skeptical of any explanation, even the venus one (which i ripped to pieces) and the mirage one (idem dito).

The Venus explanation is the one offered in your link, by a "skeptic", so I mentioned it.

re bold: Is this your answer? You believe that UFO sightings have an ET explanation?

[nismaratwork]

Probably I should thank you for your patience, instead. Thanks for tolerating my japes.
Poor John McGee. I think I figured out why he went with 'John Edward', but it's a longshot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibber_McGee_and_Molly

Water under the bridge, and good reference to Fibber McGee! I haven't heard that in ages, and that was tape of the original (before my time).

[jreelawg]

I'm now forced to ask you a question:

Do you no longer remember principles of burden of proof, even though they've been discussed OVER and over here, and I believe with you as well?

OR

Are you circling the argument back for rhetorical purposes?


Really, I don't feel like I have a WIN in there... just a whole bunch of lose.


As for the case you mentioned... I don't know: I wasn't there and there isn't any evidence beyond anecdotes. This is the point: someone ELSE is claiming they saw things, and they need to prove it... it's not up to everyone else to explain each claim. If you don't understand this now, I don't know any other way to communicate this concept. What you're asking leads to another kind of pseud-science: blind conjecture as to what people saw. Was it Venus? I don't know... it's possible, but it's possible that it was ANYTHING.

Bring evidence or bring no claims... is that clear enough? You don't just say, "I saw Sasquatch, prove me wrong!"

You made an error in your analysis. Multiple unrelated observers reported something, and their descriptions match and indicate the logical interpretation that they had seen a flying object of unknown origin.

It has already been suggested that only crazy people report UFOs. In your reasoning, the case under scrutiny here, in which multiple people including police officers made observations, shouldn't have been reported. To me, your the one who sounds crazy.

How can anyone ever prove they have seen something? You can lend more weight to their credibility if there are multiple witnesses, or if you have a picture or video, but as you point out, you cannot prove it. This goes for seeing anything. You could say you witnessed a robbery at your neighborhood, can you prove it? Should you report it? Maybe you have to be crazy to report it if you can't prove it.

There has been a smear campaign going on against the straw man UFO observer for quite a while now. Most people fall for these types of things as observed in the nature of advertising, and politics, for example.

I hate to be so cynical, but humans sometimes tend to be rather be foolish, than be wise at the expense of inconvenience. This makes for a culture of people who easily except group think and attitude.

Group think under the subject of UFOs makes for a few interesting divisions. On one hand, you have a bunch of auto pseudo skeptics with their heads up their ***'*. On the other hand you have a bunch of cultish weirdos with insane far reaching beliefs.

Then you have people who have nothing to do with group think, on one side who actually have seen something interesting, and the other who are willing to help them figure out what it might have been, who are both caught in the middle, and drowned in a sea of sidelines head cases who have some kind of agenda to micromanage peoples belief systems.

Usually you will find that the two sides who have an agenda to micromanage peoples beliefs, are the ones who are constantly at war with each other, and it is from these sides where the smearing and insults become arguments. The people in the middle who could care less about the social divisions and ensuing war of beliefs, who just saw something, and the honest skeptic or thinker, end up as targets and are subsequently encouraged to pick a side on the fringe. The end result is that honest discourse, and openly reporting what you see is intimidated against, and the people who should be allies in thinking sometimes end up pitted against each other.

[pftest]

I do not subscribe to the idea that skepticism entails accepting any explanation for the sole reason of it not involving ET. In other words, one should be skeptical of any explanation, even the venus one (which i ripped to pieces) and the mirage one (idem dito).

re bold: Is this your answer? You believe that UFO sightings have an ET explanation?I think you misread the bold bit.

[nismaratwork]

I think you misread the bold bit.

Please clarify.

[pftest]

Please clarify.Ill rephrase it:

I do not believe that skepticism entails: "accepting any non-ET explanation".

[nismaratwork]

You made an error in your analysis. Multiple unrelated observers reported something, and their descriptions match and indicate the logical interpretation that they had seen a flying object of unknown origin.

Call it what you want: you're making an assumption based on anecdotal evidence.

It has already been suggested that only crazy people report UFOs. In your reasoning, the case under scrutiny here, in which multiple people including police officers made observations, shouldn't have been reported. To me, your the one who sounds crazy.

OK, so you set up a straw man that hasn't been mentioned AFAIK, and end with a bit of ad hominem. I can't wait to see where this is going.

How can anyone ever prove they have seen something?
Really? Photographs and videos help... you know, ones that aren't shot like the clipping Zapruder left on the cutting-room floor. Of course, there's plenty of video evidence for anything if you're gullible enough, so I guess I'd add that it has to be open to analysis.


You can lend more weight to their credibility if there are multiple witnesses, or if you have a picture or video, but as you point out, you cannot prove it.

No, as I point out the testimony of eyewitnesses alone is not proof, it is anecdote... or something on a grander scale in some cases. That doesn't mean it cannot be proven, I'm just saying that the "getting tons of witnesses in a room" strategy doesn't fly in science. Hell... it rarely flies in court, and I like my proof of amazing claims to meet or exceed US justice standards for a criminal finding. :rolleyes:


This goes for seeing anything.
In theory, yes, but in practice you scale the evidence required to the claim being made. So, if you tell me that you saw a wonderful sunset in Maine, in the woods... I COULD doubt you if I had some reason to, but why? If you then told me that you saw a moose, and I didn't know you personally, you've entered the realm of "probably not lying, but who knows?". If you tell me the moose talked to you, I want video, witnesses, and the moose. GET IT?! I know you do, because this argument has been re-iterated many times in threads you're in.


You could say you witnessed a robbery at your neighborhood, can you prove it? Should you report it? Maybe you have to be crazy to report it if you can't prove it.

OK, lets address this specific issue... reporting is different from proving. Your report would be enough to open an investigation if your story is good and you don't show signs of mental illness or drug abuse. If you claim to be able to show physical evidence, such as a broken window, or a neighbor who can vouch that objects are lost, I'd say again, you're in great shape.

If you saw a robbery, and the police find the "victim" has no missing items or evidence of burglary, you'd be cited for filing a false police report if this was a pattern.

Get it?

There has been a smear campaign going on against the straw man UFO observer for quite a while now. Most people fall for these types of things as observed in the nature of advertising, and politics, for example.

In my experience the smear campaign is exclusively led and made of "true believers" representing their beliefs in the worst possible way. You can't honestly think that a paragraph here and there by Michael Shermer is somehow a match for "UFOoooooligists" on Larry King? You're complaining about an inequality that is arguably in your favor in terms of media coverage AND the number of people who believe.


I hate to be so cynical, but humans sometimes tend to be rather be foolish, than be wise at the expense of inconvenience. This makes for a culture of people who easily except group think and attitude.

Group think under the subject of UFOs makes for a few interesting divisions. On one hand, you have a bunch of auto pseudo skeptics with their heads up their ***'*. On the other hand you have a bunch of cultish weirdos with insane far reaching beliefs.

Then you have people who have nothing to do with group think, on one side who actually have seen something interesting, and the other who are willing to help them figure out what it might have been, who are both caught in the middle, and drowned in a sea of sidelines head cases who have some kind of agenda to micromanage peoples belief systems.

Are you saying this for the sake of convenience, or do you really believe that people are so easily categorized? You're establishing the absolute extremes of both sides as:

1.) Being equal... they're not. "believers" in everything from angels to aliens outnumber "non-believers". In fact, there is an enormous asymmetry which you should already know.

2.) Assuming that people fall into: "group thinkers", and "non-group thinkers". This is the old, "sheep and wolves" argument that's probably been made since grunts and pointing could communicate the idea.

Usually you will find that the two sides who have an agenda to micromanage peoples beliefs, are the ones who are constantly at war with each other, and it is from these sides where the smearing and insults become arguments. The people in the middle who could care less about the social divisions and ensuing war of beliefs, who just saw something, and the honest skeptic or thinker, end up as targets and are subsequently encouraged to pick a side on the fringe. The end result is that honest discourse, and openly reporting what you see is intimidated against, and the people who should be allies in thinking sometimes end up pitted against each other.

OK. So, now you have this elaborate straw man, in which you cast people engaged in the scientific process as ranting villains. The fact is that science, much like criminal law, is an adversarial process. Unfortunately skeptics tend to become jaded very quickly, as they are grossly outnumbered in most social situations. Meanwhile 'believers' feel that the adversarial process which is productive in every branch of science, is somehow intimidation and bullying in this one context.

You have constructed a very well crafted narrative, without a single shred of support beyond your own opinions on what people are like, and how you see yourself. What did the majority of your rambling post have to do with this supposed, "error in my analysis"?

[nismaratwork]

Ill rephrase it:

I do not believe that skepticism entails: "accepting any non-ET explanation".

Skepticism by definition has to be ultimately open to any possibility that can meet the standards of skepticism; that includes, "ET explanations".

[jreelawg]

nismaratwork;3097080]Call it what you want: you're making an assumption based on anecdotal evidence.

I'm pointing out where you misrepresented the facts in order to exaggerate the basis for your argument.

OK, so you set up a straw man that hasn't been mentioned AFAIK, and end with a bit of ad hominem. I can't wait to see where this is going.

I don't think you know what a straw man is. I'm taking issue with your preference that UFOs should only be reported if it can be proven. Maybe your still confused about what UFO stands for?

Really? Photographs and videos help... you know, ones that aren't shot like the clipping Zapruder left on the cutting-room floor. Of course, there's plenty of video evidence for anything if you're gullible enough, so I guess I'd add that it has to be open to analysis.

Photos and videos can be easily faked. I once made note that a demonstration showing that fact in which a person faked a picture and passed it off as real, looked very similar to the UFO that I saw. Aside from that, there are a bunch of claimed pictures of UFOs out there fake or real, how can you know for sure? As well, you have to consider the possibility that in some cases photographic evidence could be confiscated and kept top secret. This isn't a stretch wether it be evidence of a top secret military craft or an alien space craft.


In theory, yes, but in practice you scale the evidence required to the claim being made. So, if you tell me that you saw a wonderful sunset in Maine, in the woods... I COULD doubt you if I had some reason to, but why? If you then told me that you saw a moose, and I didn't know you personally, you've entered the realm of "probably not lying, but who knows?". If you tell me the moose talked to you, I want video, witnesses, and the moose. GET IT?! I know you do, because this argument has been re-iterated many times in threads you're in.


I know you get my simple point that you can't prove seeing something. Really a whole paragraph responding to that one line clear cut? Take the context and roll with it.

OK, lets address this specific issue... reporting is different from proving. Your report would be enough to open an investigation if your story is good and you don't show signs of mental illness or drug abuse. If you claim to be able to show physical evidence, such as a broken window, or a neighbor who can vouch that objects are lost, I'd say again, you're in great shape.

Back to my point about people who aren't interested in honest discourse, but rather have a specific belief to advocate. What I mean, is that you dedicate so much to attacking the observers credibility and practically nothing to observation itself, which I think is a side effect of the details being in contradiction to what you want to believe.

In my experience the smear campaign is exclusively led and made of "true believers" representing their beliefs in the worst possible way. You can't honestly think that a paragraph here and there by Michael Shermer is somehow a match for "UFOoooooligists" on Larry King? You're complaining about an inequality that is arguably in your favor in terms of media coverage AND the number of people who believe.

Your all mixed up. Are you hearing voices in your head? What did I say about inequality, or Michael Shermer, or Lary King? Aside from all of that rambling, why would the number of people who believe something be in my favor? After all that discussion about how I think a "believers first thinkers second" attitude clouds the arena where civil discussions should take place.


Are you saying this for the sake of convenience, or do you really believe that people are so easily categorized? You're establishing the absolute extremes of both sides as:

1.) Being equal... they're not. "believers" in everything from angels to aliens outnumber "non-believers". In fact, there is an enormous asymmetry which you should already know.

2.) Assuming that people fall into: "group thinkers", and "non-group thinkers". This is the old, "sheep and wolves" argument that's probably been made since grunts and pointing could communicate the idea.


Besides 1-being entirely irrelevant to the point I was making, you are hardly convincing without any evidence of your claim.

2-So you don't believe in group think?

OK. So, now you have this elaborate straw man, in which you cast people engaged in the scientific process as ranting villains. The fact is that science, much like criminal law, is an adversarial process. Unfortunately skeptics tend to become jaded very quickly, as they are grossly outnumbered in most social situations. Meanwhile 'believers' feel that the adversarial process which is productive in every branch of science, is somehow intimidation and bullying in this one context.

Here you go again drastically misrepresenting the meaning of my post trying to put words in my mouth, and all the while using an exaggerative tone. I can't tell if it is intended as an insult, or a desperate attempt to defend a failing thought process. It is clear I was pointing out the difficulty in having serious honest discourse with all the cultish lunes, and pseudo skeptics bombarding the discussions with nonsense.

You have constructed a very well crafted narrative, without a single shred of support beyond your own opinions on what people are like, and how you see yourself. What did the majority of your rambling post have to do with this supposed, "error in my analysis"?

The error in your analysis was the part in bold in the first paragraph. The rest wasn't really about your analysis particularly, but thinking about it further, I think some of my points say something about your style.

[nismaratwork]

I'm pointing out where you misrepresented the facts in order to exaggerate the basis for your argument.



I don't think you know what a straw man is. I'm taking issue with your preference that UFOs should only be reported if it can be proven. Maybe your still confused about what UFO stands for?



Photos and videos can be easily faked. I once made note that a demonstration showing that fact in which a person faked a picture and passed it off as real, looked very similar to the UFO that I saw. Aside from that, there are a bunch of claimed pictures of UFOs out there fake or real, how can you know for sure? As well, you have to consider the possibility that in some cases photographic evidence could be confiscated and kept top secret. This isn't a stretch wether it be evidence of a top secret military craft or an alien space craft.




I know you get my simple point that you can't prove seeing something. Really a whole paragraph responding to that one line clear cut? Take the context and roll with it.



Back to my point about people who aren't interested in honest discourse, but rather have a specific belief to advocate. What I mean, is that you dedicate so much to attacking the observers credibility and practically nothing to observation itself, which I think is a side effect of the details being in contradiction to what you want to believe.



Your all mixed up. Are you hearing voices in your head? What did I say about inequality, or Michael Shermer, or Lary King? Aside from all of that rambling, why would the number of people who believe something be in my favor? After all that discussion about how I think a "believers first thinkers second" attitude clouds the arena where civil discussions should take place.




Besides 1-being entirely irrelevant to the point I was making, you are hardly convincing without any evidence of your claim.

2-So you don't believe in group think?



Here you go again drastically misrepresenting the meaning of my post trying to put words in my mouth, and all the while using an exaggerative tone. I can't tell if it is intended as an insult, or a desperate attempt to defend a failing thought process. It is clear I was pointing out the difficulty in having serious honest discourse with all the cultish lunes, and pseudo skeptics bombarding the discussions with nonsense.



The error in your analysis was the part in bold in the first paragraph. The rest wasn't really about your analysis particularly, but thinking about it further, I think some of my points say something about your style.

While I appreciate your stylistic points, I like to really relax when I write online, and for me that tends to get verbose. You're a real champ for sticking with it all the way through, despite it being riddled with "misrepresentations" and "exaggerations". Hey, speaking of those... which ones? I assume they're abundant, and you can easily support your claim.

As for the rest... really, what is there to say? I think I disagree with you on virtually every substantive point (those few you tried to make, or I inferred). BTW, should I take if from your statements above that you reject all photographic and video evidence of UFOs? I have to say, I think there are a lot of hoaxes, but there are so many shots of helicopters that I do believe some people sincerely try to gather evidence.

It would at least, be something beyond the current sketches-on-napkins, conspiracy theorizing, and your brand of utterly baseless non-logic which reaches a pinnacle in your response:

Your all mixed up. Are you hearing voices in your head? What did I say about inequality, or Michael Shermer, or Lary King? Aside from all of that rambling, why would the number of people who believe something be in my favor? After all that discussion about how I think a "believers first thinkers second" attitude clouds the arena where civil discussions should take place.

Well... you didn't, I brought them up in a response to what you said. I didn't realize that I could only use topics you'd already brought up... although I love how in your second round of ad hominem junk you end with a call to civil discussion. You can understand I'm sure, if I don't take that seriously when you fail to address ANY substance, and instead try to start a fight.


No takers. Unlike pftest, I've already read plenty of your "logical arguments", and they end in you disappearing for a few days and a locked thread. No thank you. If you have something substantive rather than stylistic, I'm in, but until then I can't tell you how tired I am of this kind predictable belligerence.

[jreelawg]

As for the rest... really, what is there to say? I think I disagree with you on virtually every substantive point (those few you tried to make, or I inferred). BTW, should I take if from your statements above that you reject all photographic and video evidence of UFOs? I have to say, I think there are a lot of hoaxes, but there are so many shots of helicopters that I do believe some people sincerely try to gather evidence.

I tend to be more interested in verbal accounts and correlation between multiple observers over pictures or videos which can easily be faked.

Well... you didn't, I brought them up in a response to what you said. I didn't realize that I could only use topics you'd already brought up... although I love how in your second round of ad hominem junk you end with a call to civil discussion. You can understand I'm sure, if I don't take that seriously when you fail to address ANY substance, and instead try to start a fight.

Just tired of you claiming I said or made points that I didn't and using the things I didn't say to make personal attacks against me.

I guess it all started because I quoted you on something where I thought you were misrepresenting the case to exaggerate your point, and while I was at it, I included an essay about my take on a social phenomena in relation to UFO's. I didn't mean to address the whole thing to you, and it may have sounded like I was attacking you specifically when I wasn't. But in the process maybe I put a few kinks in some of your common arguments and evoked a fight or flight response.

Without it being personal, and it wasn't, my original post deserves some thought maybe? Are UFO observers afraid they will be labeled crazy if they report what they see? Will one side call them crazy, and the other tell them it was reptilians from another dimension? Where do they go to have a rational discussion about it where the room wont be clouded by either side?

Also just to clarify, I'm not saying there is a divide between non-believers and believers. Being a non-believer is different than believing the non-existence. If you believe the non-existence, than you are a believer. The divide is generally between believers and believers.

Ask yourself, are you a believer, a believer, or a non-believer?

[nismaratwork]

I tend to be more interested in verbal accounts and correlation between multiple observers over pictures or videos which can easily be faked.



Just tired of you claiming I said or made points that I didn't and using the things I didn't say to make personal attacks against me.

I guess it all started because I quoted you on something where I thought you were misrepresenting the case to exaggerate your point, and while I was at it, I included an essay about my take on a social phenomena in relation to UFO's. I didn't mean to address the whole thing to you, and it may have sounded like I was attacking you specifically when I wasn't. But in the process maybe I put a few kinks in some of your common arguments and evoked a fight or flight response.

Without it being personal, and it wasn't, my original post deserves some thought maybe? Are UFO observers afraid they will be labeled crazy if they report what they see? Will one side call them crazy, and the other tell them it was reptilians from another dimension? Where do they go to have a rational discussion about it where the room wont be clouded by either side?

I guess I'm more interested in the facts: what are people seeing, what do they BELIEVE they're seeing, what are those things that can't be explained, and why do people continue to believe what they saw even after they've been definitively proven wrong?

Science circumvents that by relying on a process which attempts to strain that out. Yes, it requires a measure of confrontation, but as Flex so eloquently pointed out... it beats alchemy!

Look, I spend a good portion of my year talking to people on the verge of, or in the midst of a psychotic episode. You see the full range of how even the healthy mind can react to relatively mild insults. For instance, you get some rare psychotic infusion-withdrawal reactions around Benzodiazapines, so you have a healthy mind being forcefully interrupted and disturbed by an external process.

I know you're not insane, and I know that most people who report seeing UFOs aren't (and given the frequency of reports, people seem undeterred). The fact is that "crazy" is amazingly easy to spot (not categorize, just spot) given experience... I think people are wired to believe what they see. A mind that trusts another over their own sensory experience is adapting intelligently, it's not natural for the most part.

People so rarely think they can, if only for a time, lose touch with reality... and that's EXTREME. Is it so much of a leap to say that, in the absence of evidence, eyewitnesses (whoever they may be) simply can't be enough. Finally... people ignore the fact that MOST UFO's are not 'U' anymore... they're identified. In a way, this entire experience is a bit like the missing link argument used by creationists: incremental, but infinite steps. Pure fallacy.

[FlexGunship]

I tend to be more interested in verbal accounts and correlation between multiple observers over pictures or videos which can easily be faked.


Irony? I can't tell.

More interested in verbal stories (or written stories), than photos and videos because photos and videos can be easily faked??

"UFOs killed the president."

You're right, that was much more difficult than faking a photo!

At least faking a photo requires conspiracy and hoax; but just rambling takes no effort at all. Just say whatever! And when someone calls you out on a detail, just change it! It's sooooo easy. Revisionist UFO reports are the reason you can never spot the "odd reflection" or "the string" in verbal cases.

[ecsspace]

At least faking a photo requires conspiracy and hoax; but just rambling takes no effort at all. Just say whatever! And when someone calls you out on a detail, just change it! It's sooooo easy. Revisionist UFO reports are the reason you can never spot the "odd reflection" or "the string" in verbal cases.

Yeah... look how many different "crash sites" have appeared over the years in the 'Roswell Incident'
UFO reports over the years do tend to suffer from lily gilders and/(or) too many straw-men chefs.

Before the days of UFO sightings (and the adoption of that acronym) media outlets carried stories of
great numbers of witnesses to religious-themed sightings; Lourdes, for an example.
It seems the popular 'strange' speculation has extraterrestrials superseding religious icons/dieties.

Except in foodstuffs. As far as I can recollect no one has ever made a
huge stink about seeing a grey alien's face in a potato chip.

[nismaratwork]

Yeah... look how many different "crash sites" have appeared over the years in the 'Roswell Incident'
UFO reports over the years do tend to suffer from lily gilders and/(or) too many straw-men chefs.

Before the days of UFO sightings (and the adoption of that acronym) media outlets carried stories of
great numbers of witnesses to religious-themed sightings; Lourdes, for an example.
It seems the popular 'strange' speculation has extraterrestrials superseding religious icons/dieties.

Except in foodstuffs. As far as I can recollect no one has ever made a
huge stink about seeing a grey alien's face in a potato chip.

re bold: Give them time... :biggrin:

[FlexGunship]

re bold: Give them time... :biggrin:

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d60/xxXblackcherrysoda/gif/funny.gif

[nismaratwork]

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d60/xxXblackcherrysoda/gif/funny.gif


http://happinessrx.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/animated.gif

[jreelawg]

Irony? I can't tell.

More interested in verbal stories (or written stories), than photos and videos because photos and videos can be easily faked??

"UFOs killed the president."

You're right, that was much more difficult than faking a photo!

At least faking a photo requires conspiracy and hoax; but just rambling takes no effort at all. Just say whatever! And when someone calls you out on a detail, just change it! It's sooooo easy. Revisionist UFO reports are the reason you can never spot the "odd reflection" or "the string" in verbal cases.

Photographic evidence, unless of an extremely high caliber, is pretty much completely useless due to the fact that first of all it can be easily faked, and that there are so many fakes out there, that it might be impossible to authenticate.

Another point is that there may be cases, specifically military, in which photographic evidence is withheld. The government has a strong case for with holding photographic evidence of UFO's in secret, because the implications of what they could be include their own black projects, foreign black projects, etc. If you look at many reports, it is often claimed that people with photographic evidence have been forced to hand it over to federal agents.

If someone took a clear picture or video of a real alien craft, covert government or enemy government craft, which could somehow be authenticated scientifically, it would be expected that you would not see it or hear about it. National security would have a strong incentive as well as capability to suppress such evidence, and there is no reason to expect it to get out less some kind of wikileak.

People can just make stuff up, but what would be the chance, that dozens perhaps hundreds of people over a large area would conspire to just make up consistent reports of UFO sightings which correlate?

Your joke about the UFO report you just faked being easier than faking a photo, really is a joke. Either way, photographic or verbal, a UFO story or report can be faked. The only way I could make any kind of opinion on the authenticity of either would be to conduct interviews, or watch interviews and get some kind of feel for if they seam honest, as well as to establish wether there are correlations which boost credibility. You could have posted a photo of a couple of pixelated lights and claimed it was a UFO, and your credibility would be the same as your texted report.

[jreelawg]

Yeah... look how many different "crash sites" have appeared over the years in the 'Roswell Incident'
UFO reports over the years do tend to suffer from lily gilders and/(or) too many straw-men chefs.

Before the days of UFO sightings (and the adoption of that acronym) media outlets carried stories of
great numbers of witnesses to religious-themed sightings; Lourdes, for an example.
It seems the popular 'strange' speculation has extraterrestrials superseding religious icons/dieties.

Except in foodstuffs. As far as I can recollect no one has ever made a
huge stink about seeing a grey alien's face in a potato chip.

There is a sect of people who make ET theories part of a religion or alternative interpretation of religious origins. What does it really have to do with UFO reports though? It helps if your advocating the disbelief in UFO report credibility to shift focus from a serious discussion stemming from the best extent of info you have to work with, to the area in which you have nothing to work with except sarcasm and cynicism.

In Roswell, wasn't it the Airforce which initially claimed they recovered a flying saucer and then retracted the statement? If nothing else, there must be some explanation for why they reported what they did, all you can do I guess is wonder?

It isn't hard however to introduce variables which could be consistent with most conclusions and allow for multiple people to think they found wreckage at different supposed crash sites without them being inaccurate or dishonest in their accounts.

I think maybe the trouble is that too many UFO skeptics rely on circular logic or fallacies as arguments when attempting to broadly debunk UFOs in general. Probably based primarily on the fact that attempting such a feat is futile. The best a person has is their own experiences, iffy information and their own intuition, not much else. People get lazy or just like to just BS or have a shallow superficial conversation about the issue sometimes forget the meaninglessness of the fruits of that conversation.

The most appropriate response to the UFO phenomena in terms of skepticism is just that there is no solid proof of any broad conclusion. Playing an adversarial role in a personal battle against people of different beliefs is fine, but not good or useful skepticism. Especially if your advocating other specific beliefs which are without proof. Are some who claim to be really skeptics? Do they just have a contradictory belief system to protect, or are they just doing it for spite?

[jreelawg]

....
"Flying saucers" have be known to be an actuality since the possibility of their construction was proven in plans drawn up by German engineers toward the end of WW2.

George Klein, a German engineer, stated recently that though many people believe the the "flying saucer" to be a to be a postwar development, they were actually in the planning stage in German aircraft factories as early as 1941.

......

Durring the experiment, Klein reported, the "flying saucer" reached an altitude of 12,400 meters within 3 minutes and a speed of 2,200 kilometers per hour. ...


ENGINEER CLAIMS 'SAUCER' PLANS ARE IN SOVIET HANDS; SIGHTINGS IN AFRICA, IRAN,
8-18-1953

http://www.foia.cia.gov/

Just for fun go to the CIA freedom of information web site and search unidentified flying object and read some of the declassified documents. Some reports worth reading can be found under this title,

SIGHTINGS OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS OVER SPAIN AND AFRICA, JULY - O CTOBER - 1952
http://www.foia.cia.gov/

[Radrook]

I don't find it hard to believe that governments have decided to withold information for the sake of national security. We could have an asteroid scheduled to hit earth and the governments won't reveal it either for the sake of keeping the population from panicking and perhaps endangering the survival of a few in well-prepared underground silos. After all, human reaction to impending certain doom or perceived serious threat to their general security is anything but rational.

[nismaratwork]

I don't find it hard to believe that governments have decided to withold information for the sake of national security. We could have an asteroid scheduled to hit earth and the governments won't reveal it either for the sake of keeping the population from panicking and perhaps endangering the survival of a few in well-prepared underground silos. After all, human reaction to impending certain doom or perceived serious threat to their general security is anything but rational.

And? Beyond your ability to believe in massive conspiracies, what's your point? The reports jreelawg thinks are so telling are hosted on the CIA website... the mystery deepens!

:rofl:

[jreelawg]

The reports jreelawg thinks are so telling are hosted on the CIA website... the mystery deepens!

:rofl:

The reports jreelawg thinks are worth reading....

Do you disagree with that thought? Is it worth your time to read them? Otherwise what's your point?

note: Searching 'Unidentified Flying Saucers" at CIA freedom of information, will yield both the declassified documents an some others in your search results. Searching the whole title didn't work for me.

[nismaratwork]

The reports jreelawg thinks are worth reading....

Do you disagree with that thought? Is it worth your time to read them? Otherwise what's your point?

My point... was not directed at you is the end of that sentence. Read over this thread and others, I'm not PASSIVE aggressive. I just won't vouch for those reports, but the fact remains that you believe they are worth reading, and the fact remains that they're hosted on cia.gov.

A better question might be: if you find those reports worth reading, why do you? What conclusions do they lead you to?

edit: seriously man, look on THIS page:... the pic I posted! I'm not exactly keeping my cards close to the vest.

[FlexGunship]

Do you disagree with that thought? Is it worth your time to read them? Otherwise what's your point?

I don't want to speak for Nismar, but we've been over the legitimacy of reports that are reproduced in government archives. The simple fact that someone wrote it down and kept it doesn't make it significant any more than if it appeared in a newspaper.

[jreelawg]

What's up with the amount of early 50's flying saucer reports describing an emission of red and green flames?

[FlexGunship]

What's up with the amount of early 50's flying saucer reports describing an emission of red and green flames?

What about 'em?

This is the type of non-sequitur thats makes it difficult for people to have a really in-depth conversation with you. Not only did you NOT refute any of the points mentioned, you casually introduced a new topic with no references. (EDIT: I'm really not even sure if you know that you're doing it.)

You're a little bit below "contradiction."

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_X6xLBx8toFI/TR95LJKdlyI/AAAAAAAAAaY/qybb82Zb62s/s640/disagreement-hierarchy.jpg

You haven't quite gotten to attacking the point that I'm trying to make, which is: "simply placing a report in a government archive does not make it more legitimate than if it were not there."

[jreelawg]

What about 'em?

This is the type of non-sequitur thats makes it difficult for people to have a really in-depth conversation with you. Not only did you NOT refute any of the points mentioned, you casually introduced a new topic with no references. (EDIT: I'm really not even sure if you know that you're doing it.)

You're a little bit below "contradiction."

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_X6xLBx8toFI/TR95LJKdlyI/AAAAAAAAAaY/qybb82Zb62s/s640/disagreement-hierarchy.jpg

You haven't quite gotten to attacking the point that I'm trying to make, which is: "simply placing a report in a government archive does not make it more legitimate than if it were not there."

A high percentage of the "flying saucer" sightings referenced in the 1950's CIA documents describe seeing red and green flames emitting from the saucers. I'm not trying to make a point out of this, just offering up the info for discussion. I think I started the subject of a specific set of "flying Saucer reports" before you brought back your subject.

I would like to have an in depth conversation about the reports I presented. You guys should read them so we can do that.

I don't really need to bother with your point that declassified CIA reports from the 50's are no better than any other report from any other source. I remain unchanged in my position that the documents I presented are worth reading. You can decide for yourself based on the content of the documents what value they have.

[nismaratwork]

I don't want to speak for Nismar, but we've been over the legitimacy of reports that are reproduced in government archives. The simple fact that someone wrote it down and kept it doesn't make it significant any more than if it appeared in a newspaper.

Oh speak away, I agree. I'd also add that reading the triangle was like gazing into two mirrors faced perfectly at 180deg! It's so real... like it keeps happening that exact way only with tiny variations ad infinitum... That's the best thing since 'The Flake Equation'.

[nismaratwork]

What's up with the amount of early 50's flying saucer reports describing an emission of red and green flames?

Flying cows, lighting their burps to propel themselves through the starry night. The occasional crash accounts for cattle mutilations.

edit: Sorry, I just realized how implausible that is. Still, it's hard to explain a lot of what happened in the early fifties; Transorbital Lobotomy for instance, peaked in the late 40's and early 50's... should we look at that and conclude that an outbreak of unique mental illness occurred, or was it mostly a social phenomenon driven by a few "true believers"?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Reviews-lobotomy.jpg

[jreelawg]

That's the best thing since 'The Flake Equation'.

Except that the Flake equation sits pretty low on that triangle, arguably on the first level (name calling). What you have in the "Flake Equation" is a fancy humorous equation which offers nothing except a complicated way of saying some people are flakes.

[nismaratwork]

Except that the Flake equation sits pretty low on that triangle, arguably on the first level (name calling). What you have in the "Flake Equation" is a fancy humorous equation which offers nothing except a complicated way of saying some people are flakes.

Ooooooh... well when you put it that way:

It's the best thing since 'The Flake Equation', and your disdain for it.


edit:
evidence for my cow-theory?!

YOU decide!
http://www.tonyrogers.com/humor/images/flying_cow.jpg

[FlexGunship]

Except that the Flake equation sits pretty low on that triangle, arguably on the first level (name calling). What you have in the "Flake Equation" is a fancy humorous equation which offers nothing except a complicated way of saying some people are flakes.

Is that actually how you view it? Yes, it is kind of funny. But, is there a SINGLE variable that you would adjust? I really mean that. I want to know which number you would change.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSykFQvtD6xeAdPpSHhPI9ShuHlljkv_ IfPNvGtJN9ogllLzJKA

I think of it as an incredibly powerful explanatory device. Yes, it's sad that it's called the "Flake Equation" but that's more because of its parallel to the "Drake Equation" than because people are flakes.

[nismaratwork]

Is that actually how you view it? Yes, it is kind of funny. But, is there a SINGLE variable that you would adjust? I really mean that. I want to know which number you would change.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSykFQvtD6xeAdPpSHhPI9ShuHlljkv_ IfPNvGtJN9ogllLzJKA

I think of it as an incredibly powerful explanatory device. Yes, it's sad that it's called the "Flake Equation" but that's more because of its parallel to the "Drake Equation" than because people are flakes.

:approve:

Me likey.

[jreelawg]

Flying cows, lighting their burps to propel themselves through the starry night. The occasional crash accounts for cattle mutilations.

edit: Sorry, I just realized how implausible that is. Still, it's hard to explain a lot of what happened in the early fifties; Transorbital Lobotomy for instance, peaked in the late 40's and early 50's... should we look at that and conclude that an outbreak of unique mental illness occurred, or was it mostly a social phenomenon driven by a few "true believers"?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Reviews-lobotomy.jpg

These type of practices don't surprise me for the time given the type of people who ran the mainstream psychology show back then. Explaining the phenomena might be a matter of a lack of ethics within the field rather than a few believers. A lobotomy was a crude inhumane solution.

Canadian experiments
The experiments were exported to Canada when the CIA recruited Scottish psychiatrist Donald Ewen Cameron, creator of the "psychic driving" concept, which the CIA found particularly interesting. Cameron had been hoping to correct schizophrenia by erasing existing memories and reprogramming the psyche. He commuted from Albany, New York to Montreal every week to work at the Allan Memorial Institute of McGill University and was paid $69,000 from 1957 to 1964 to carry out MKULTRA experiments there. In addition to LSD, Cameron also experimented with various paralytic drugs as well as electroconvulsive therapy at thirty to forty times the normal power. His "driving" experiments consisted of putting subjects into drug-induced coma for weeks at a time (up to three months in one case) while playing tape loops of noise or simple repetitive statements. His experiments were typically carried out on patients who had entered the institute for minor problems such as anxiety disorders and postpartum depression, many of whom suffered permanently from his actions.[32] His treatments resulted in victims' incontinence, amnesia, forgetting how to talk, forgetting their parents, and thinking their interrogators were their parents.[33] His work was inspired and paralleled by the British psychiatrist William Sargant at St Thomas' Hospital, London, and Belmont Hospital, Surrey, who was also involved in the Intelligence Services and who experimented extensively on his patients without their consent, causing similar long-term damage.[34]
It was during this era that Cameron became known worldwide as the first chairman of the World Psychiatric Association as well as president of the American and Canadian psychiatric associations. Cameron had also been a member of the Nuremberg medical tribunal in 1946–47.[35]
Naomi Klein states in her book The Shock Doctrine that Cameron's research and his contribution to the MKUltra project was actually not about mind control and brainwashing, but about designing "a scientifically based system for extracting information from 'resistant sources.' In other words, torture...Stripped of its bizarre excesses, Dr. Cameron's experiments, building upon Donald O. Hebb's earlier breakthrough, laid the scientific foundation for the CIA's two-stage psychological torture method."[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA#Canadian_experiments

[nismaratwork]

These type of practices don't surprise me for the time given the type of people who ran the mainstream psychology show back then.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA#Canadian_experiments

Well that's either missing, or ignoring my point, but then again I gave you flying cows so, OK.


The UFO craze of the 50's is no less surprising given the post-war reality of undiagnosed (and barely defined) PTSD, and other issues. Once again, under mass sightings see Flex's post regarding the miracle of the sun. Blue and Green is not a strange thing to see in the night sky, but how a country full of people interprets it?... another matter.

Maybe a better question is: Why have the descriptions of "UFO's" changed to keep pace with expectations of upcoming technology, or the best of the day? Are we being visited by FLEET of ETs? Can the military keep amazing secrets about programs, but they forget to turn off the big flashing lights at night?

OR... do we just go back to what we KNOW, which is that eyewitness reports SUCK. Look at that photo... that is what you get when zeal, ignorance, and arrogance gets you; it's what happens when even bright and (some) well intentioned people make assumptions and abandon science. ist Klar?

[jreelawg]

ENGINEER CLAIMS 'SAUCER' PLANS ARE IN SOVIET HANDS; SIGHTINGS IN AFRICA, IRAN,
8-18-1953

http://www.foia.cia.gov/

Just for fun go to the CIA freedom of information web site and search unidentified flying object and read some of the declassified documents. Some reports worth reading can be found under this title,

SIGHTINGS OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS OVER SPAIN AND AFRICA, JULY - O CTOBER - 1952
http://www.foia.cia.gov/

After all the subject changing pointless ramblings and bad jokes, I still haven't heard any responses to the content of the information presented. Nisimar had some fun ridiculing me, flex posted some kind of pyramid, and ever since it seams clear there is very little interest in having a quality discussion or debate about UFO claims. I understand that by now Nisimar is probably just being a little sarcastic, overtly occupying level one of the pyramid.

[nismaratwork]

After all the subject changing pointless ramblings and bad jokes, I still haven't heard any responses to the content of the information presented. Nisimar had some fun ridiculing me, flex posted some kind of pyramid, and ever since it seams clear there is very little interest in having a quality discussion or debate about UFO claims. I understand that by now Nisimar is probably just being a little sarcastic, overtly occupying level one of the pyramid.

I'd love to refute your central point (top of the pyramid) if you offered one... oh wait, now we're back at burden of proof, and you prefer to just throw out a link and say, "discuss" in a rough voice. :tongue:

So, if you have a case, make it and we can actually START on the pyramid: right now you're still at the "footsie" stage, hence the deeply serious response you garner.

[jreelawg]

I'd love to refute your central point (top of the pyramid) if you offered one... oh wait, now we're back at burden of proof, and you prefer to just throw out a link and say, "discuss" in a rough voice. :tongue:

So, if you have a case, make it and we can actually START on the pyramid: right now you're still at the "footsie" stage, hence the deeply serious response you garner.

I brought up the commonality of 50's reports describing saucers with red and green flames. Your response had something to do with flying farting cows.

What I would have expected from a proper skeptic would be some insight on a phenomena which might be responsible or something of that nature. At some point you stopped being a proper skeptic and started burying topics and subjects in ridicule.

[nismaratwork]

I brought up the commonality of 50's reports describing saucers with red and green flames. Your response had something to do with flying farting cows.

What I would have expected from a proper skeptic would be some insight on a phenomena which might be responsible or something of that nature. At some point you stopped being a proper skeptic and started burying topics and subjects in ridicule.

I'm sorry, what was your point in bringing up those cases?

[FlexGunship]

What's up with the amount of early 50's flying saucer reports describing an emission of red and green flames?

What about 'em?

I'm sorry, what was your point in bringing up those cases?

Jreelawg, we've gone in circles. Please explain the historical significance of these reports. Why are these more important that, say, a modern mass-sighting? Because of the age? This stuff just isn't compelling. It's more of the same.

[alt]

There is a sect of people who make ET theories part of a religion or alternative interpretation of religious origins. What does it really have to do with UFO reports though? It helps if your advocating the disbelief in UFO report credibility to shift focus from a serious discussion stemming from the best extent of info you have to work with, to the area in which you have nothing to work with except sarcasm and cynicism.

In Roswell, wasn't it the Airforce which initially claimed they recovered a flying saucer and then retracted the statement? If nothing else, there must be some explanation for why they reported what they did, all you can do I guess is wonder?

It isn't hard however to introduce variables which could be consistent with most conclusions and allow for multiple people to think they found wreckage at different supposed crash sites without them being inaccurate or dishonest in their accounts.

I think maybe the trouble is that too many UFO skeptics rely on circular logic or fallacies as arguments when attempting to broadly debunk UFOs in general. Probably based primarily on the fact that attempting such a feat is futile. The best a person has is their own experiences, iffy information and their own intuition, not much else. People get lazy or just like to just BS or have a shallow superficial conversation about the issue sometimes forget the meaninglessness of the fruits of that conversation.

The most appropriate response to the UFO phenomena in terms of skepticism is just that there is no solid proof of any broad conclusion. Playing an adversarial role in a personal battle against people of different beliefs is fine, but not good or useful skepticism. Especially if your advocating other specific beliefs which are without proof. Are some who claim to be really skeptics? Do they just have a contradictory belief system to protect, or are they just doing it for spite?

Re bolded; I've always wondered about that. Perhaps it was deliberate confusion ?

[nismaratwork]

Re bolded; I've always wondered about that. Perhaps it was deliberate confusion ?

Given the institutional paranoia at that time, the post-war environment, it could have been NOTHING, and still I think the government would have led with hysteria, then shut down all info.

It could have been a balloon carrying a payload they didn't want known (remember, this is after Japan tried to use LTA craft as weapons during WWII), or just the left hand not knowing what the right is doing.

For example, when you see a death toll rise and fall as a crisis is being examined 'LIVE' on the news... you don't assume people are coming back to life and dying, you probably assume that the news is getting poor initial info. Given the media of the day, it WAS a pretty fast retraction/correction.

So, could it have been a lie? Sure... but there's no reason to believe it needed to be, or even malicious. After all, if the USAF told the COMPLETE truth as they saw it, until they realized they were bozos for an hour or two, and then told the truth again, but accurately this time... it would be what you see from people, AND groups.

edit: Of course, having "flip-flopped"... who believes then now, right? I think in the end, that's why Roswell just isn't a good example of UFO... in part because it didn't "F" much, and wasn't "U" for very long.

[jreelawg]

Well, according to the declassified CIA document, it was reported by a German engineer that flying saucers were developed by the Nazis, claiming that the first experimental flight took place in 1945. This report could have been disinformation or something, who knows? But, if it is true, then the reported recovery of a flying saucer crash in 1947 by the Air Force would make chronological sense. Perhaps the Air Force initially reported it because they weren't privy to knowledge of a secret flying saucer project?

On the other hand, maybe they just wanted to use the opportunity to make people think they had the so called "flying saucer technology", and so reported it?

Or, maybe they were just confused and hysteric and thought a spy balloon or weather balloon was a flying saucer until things got cleared up?

[nismaratwork]

Well, according to the declassified CIA document, it was reported by a German engineer that flying saucers were developed by the Nazis, claiming that the first experimental flight took place in 1945. This report could have been disinformation or something, who knows? But, if it is true, then the reported recovery of a flying saucer crash in 1947 by the Air Force would make chronological sense. Perhaps the Air Force initially reported it because they weren't privy to knowledge of a secret flying saucer project?

On the other hand, maybe they just wanted to use the opportunity to make people think they had the so called "flying saucer technology", and so reported it?

Or, maybe they were just confused and hysteric and thought a spy balloon or weather balloon was a flying saucer until things got cleared up?

The kind of "flying saucer" technology that was being experimented with (verified, not conjecture) was basic flying-wing design, that naturally failed due to aerodynamic instability, and no fly-by-wire for quite some time to come. Those objects are identified, and AFAIK only one really flew at all.... before crashing.

Otherwise, when people start talking about WWII, Nazis, and flying saucers without new evidence, I tend to just tune out. Nothing personal, but you said it, This report could have been disinformation or something, who knows?

Everything after that is a very interesting, but utterly unsupported conjectures and fantasies.

[jreelawg]

The kind of "flying saucer" technology that was being experimented with (verified, not conjecture) was basic flying-wing design, that naturally failed due to aerodynamic instability, and no fly-by-wire for quite some time to come. Those objects are identified, and AFAIK only one really flew at all.... before crashing.

Otherwise, when people start talking about WWII, Nazis, and flying saucers without new evidence, I tend to just tune out. Nothing personal, but you said it, "This report could have been disinformation or something, who knows?". Everything after that is a very interesting, but utterly unsupported conjectures and fantasies.

If the report were truthful, then it would not have been those kind of "flying saucers" discussed.

Well, it's technically more supported than your theory that they were just confused.

[nismaratwork]

If the report were truthful, then it would not have been those kind of "flying saucers" discussed.

Well, it's technically more supported than your theory that they were just confused.

Neither are supported in the least.

If I give you a hundred anecdotal reports to support my claim, and you give me a workable alternate theory... we're EVEN... or rather we're both losers. Hence:

This report could have been disinformation or something, who knows?Everything after that is a very interesting, but utterly unsupported conjectures and fantasies.

[jreelawg]

Neither are supported in the least.

If I give you a hundred anecdotal reports to support my claim, and you give me a workable alternate theory... we're EVEN... or rather we're both losers. Hence:

Well we have one 1953 claim by a supposed German engineer that the NAZI's developed the flying saucer first experimentally tested in 1945. We have the US air force claiming to recover a crashed flying saucer in 1947. And we have thousands of reports around the world of supposed flying saucer observations. I never claimed any specific level of credibility. Call it what you want, that is the information we have.

[nismaratwork]

Well we have one 1953 claim by a supposed German engineer that the NAZI's developed the flying saucer first experimentally tested in 1945. We have the US air force claiming to recover a crashed flying saucer in 1947. And we have thousands of reports around the world of supposed flying saucer observations. I never claimed any specific level of credibility. Call it what you want, that is the information we have.

...And? What do you make of this information?

I feel it's insufficient to support the claims, and of low quality in terms of evidentiary value.

Then again, I'm not presenting it for examination, you are... so what do you conclude upon examination, as the skeptic you say that you are?

[Smiley LUVA]

How do people know if there is UFOs? Do they have scientific prof? They would have to show me before they start telling us the exist! They can't. They don't. Only Area 51 does. And if they can't show us how can we believe them. How can they get people to believe them. Nothing is right anymore.

[Drakkith]

How do people know if there is UFOs? Do they have scientific prof? They would have to show me before they start telling us the exist! They can't. They don't. Only Area 51 does. And if they can't show us how can we believe them. How can they get people to believe them. Nothing is right anymore.

There is not sufficient evidence that alien spacecraft exist anywhere, even area 51.

[Redbelly98]

It looks like this discussion had run its course over a year ago.