Are UFO Sightings Just Misidentified Natural Occurrences?

[ecsspace]

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

They weren't one-way conversations?

 

[nismaratwork]

They weren't one-way conversations?

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

 

[nismaratwork]

Not venus:

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

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

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

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


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

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

 

[ecsspace]

Not venus:

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

 

[nismaratwork]

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

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

 

[ecsspace]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

[ecsspace]

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

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

 

[ecsspace]

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

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

 

[nismaratwork]

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

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

 

[FlexGunship]

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

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

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

Total information content = zero.

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

 

[ecsspace]

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

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

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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

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

jeepers, fellas, that was a close one... we 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?

 

[ecsspace]

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

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

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

 

[nismaratwork]

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

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

UFO = Unidentified Flying Object.. not...

ET's, which would be aliens.

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


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

 

[nismaratwork]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ecsspace]

UFO = Unidentified Flying Object.. not...

ET's, which would be aliens.

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


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

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

 

[nismaratwork]

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

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

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

 

[ecsspace]

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

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

 

[nismaratwork]

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

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

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

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

 

[ecsspace]

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

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

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

 

[nismaratwork]

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

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

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

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

 

[ecsspace]

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

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

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

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

 

[ecsspace]

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

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

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

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

 

[nismaratwork]

OK, I understand. Thanks for your patience ecsspace.

 

[ecsspace]

OK, I understand. Thanks for your patience ecsspace.

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

 

[pftest]

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

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

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

 

[nismaratwork]

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

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

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

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

 

[nismaratwork]

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

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

 

[jreelawg]

I'm now forced to ask you a question:

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

OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[pftest]

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

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

I think you misread the bold bit.