Are UFO Sightings Just Misidentified Natural Occurrences?

[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 Hawking 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_universe.html

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Stephen Hawking 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_universe.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 Hawking 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_universe.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.

 

[pftest]

Stephen Hawking 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 Hawking 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 Hawking 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_universe.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

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

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: https://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

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

 

[nismaratwork]

Of course... but where are the explanations?

A single example from the napster: the Illinois 2000 case

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 isn't 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 isn't 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

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 don't 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 ) 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 ) 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 don't 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 don't 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 don't know anything about stealth blimps or even if they exist (aliens too btw), so I am 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)