Are UFO Sightings Just Misidentified Natural Occurrences?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MotoH
  • Start date Start date
Click For 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.
  • #91
pftest said:
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:

TheFreeDictionary said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #93
nismaratwork said:
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...
 
  • #94
pftest said:
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?
 
  • #95
pftest said:
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?
 
  • #96
pftest said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #97
nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #98
nismaratwork said:
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?
 
  • #99
ecsspace said:
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.
 
  • #100
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?

He did that with me, too (nismaratwork)
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
9K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
14K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
15K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
4K