Are UFO Sightings Just Misidentified Natural Occurrences?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MotoH
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the prevalence of UFO sightings, particularly in industrialized nations, and the skepticism surrounding claims from indigenous peoples. Participants debate whether the constant exposure to UFO imagery and reports makes individuals more prone to misidentifying natural occurrences as UFOs. Some argue that the psychological phenomenon known as "availability heuristic" plays a role in this susceptibility. Others note that genuine sightings may be more common in less developed countries due to fewer distractions in the sky, leading to clearer reports. The conversation also touches on the nature of UFO reports, distinguishing between misidentified objects and genuine sightings, and the challenges of corroborating eyewitness accounts without substantial evidence. The debate highlights the tension between scientific skepticism and the intrigue surrounding unexplained phenomena, with some participants expressing a belief in extraterrestrial visitation despite the lack of concrete evidence.
  • #101
pftest said:
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.

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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
pftest said:
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.
 
  • #103
pftest said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #104
FlexGunship said:
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, weren't 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).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105
pftest said:
I see you missed part of the conversation. Remember, weren't 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?
 
  • #106
nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #107
pftest said:
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?
 
  • #108
nismaratwork said:
You didn't answer the question: will you answer it, or should I not bother to continue to ask?
I don't have a mundane explanation. I am 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).
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #109
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 into 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/
 
  • #110
pftest said:
I don't have a mundane explanation. I am 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).
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.
 
  • #111
  • #112
.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.
 
  • #113
Radrook said:
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

Radrook said:
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.

Radrook said:
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.

Radrook said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #114
pftest said:
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:
Venus02.jpg


Not Venus:
rio-ufo-light-show.jpg
 
  • #115
nismaratwork said:
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 don't 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 I've ever heard :biggrin:
 
  • #116
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 into 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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #117
nismaratwork said:
edit: Seriously, I've had more structured and serious conversations with acid-casualties who were institutionalized.

Familiar territory?
 
  • #118
pftest said:
I don't 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 I've 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.
 
  • #119
ecsspace said:
Familiar territory?

Yes it is, although ironically not in the way I suspect you'd like to imply.
 
  • #120
FlexGunship said:
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:
[/PLAIN]http://www.rense.com/1.imagesC/Venus02.jpg_1.jpg[/PLAIN]

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

2e1txs1.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #121
nismaratwork said:
Yes it is, although ironically not in the way I suspect you'd like to imply.

They weren't one-way conversations?
 
  • #122
ecsspace said:
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?
 
  • #123
pftest said:
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.
 
  • #124
pftest said:
Not venus:

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).
 
  • #125
ecsspace said:
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.
 
  • #126
nismaratwork said:
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'
 
  • #127
nismaratwork said:
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...
 
  • #128
nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #129
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:
 
Last edited:
  • #130
ecsspace said:
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 said:
Well... the nice thing about circular logic is how it arrives in such roundabout manner...

ecsspace said:
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.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7CSDGSkwaeldhJiUeRh-OhlxSfecYvs159kNb69UCVonmH9m5.jpg
 
  • #131
nismaratwork said:
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 got to watch that John Edward stuff..
Sorry, sorry John McGee. Jr. I mean.
 
  • #132
ecsspace said:
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 got to 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?
 
Last edited:
  • #133
nismaratwork said:
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?
 
  • #134
ecsspace said:
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.
 
  • #135
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.
 
  • #136
nismaratwork said:
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?
 
  • #137
ecsspace said:
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.
 
  • #138
nismaratwork said:
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?
 
  • #139
ecsspace said:
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.
 
  • #140
nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #141
ecsspace said:
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.
 
  • #142
nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #143
nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #144
OK, I understand. Thanks for your patience ecsspace.
 
  • #145
nismaratwork said:
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
 
  • #146
nismaratwork said:
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).
 
  • #147
pftest said:
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?
 
  • #148
ecsspace said:
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).
 
  • #149
nismaratwork said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #150
nismaratwork said:
pftest said:
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.
 
Back
Top