Are UFO Sightings Just Misidentified Natural Occurrences?

[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.