Are UFO Sightings Just Misidentified Natural Occurrences?

[ecsspace]

I see i have fans

As for the "mundane" explanations... i think anyone who has even glimpsed at some of the UFO cases from the UFO napster will admit that there is some pretty bafflingly weird stuff going on in the skies.

Or just some baffling weird stuff going on at UFO napster.
Remember, anyone can type anything.
There is more empirical evidence of that kind of behaviour
than there is evidence of the behaviour of aliens/whoever.

The faults lay not in the starships but in our selves.
(takes a bow) I know, I know, that was a good one; mucking up the Shakespeare quote.

 

[pftest]

Or just some baffling weird stuff going on at UFO napster.
Remember, anyone can type anything.

The ufo napster is here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2805

Have a look.

 

[nismaratwork]

Does that also mean that the senator's full name is John Edwards McGees? (Jnr?)
Now there is an example of deductive reasoning in action!

'ship-in-the-bottle math' is a term some friends of mine used to tease a guy who was convinced that
anything 'that looked good on paper' was executable in reality, eventually. Math was his cocaine.
Big fan of MC Escher, you betcha.

That's really fascinating stuff, but when you're trying to talk to other people who don't know you and your friend... well... you can see how it would seem absurd? If I might ask, because I think this might be a problem here that we can overcome, what's your first language? I don't mean this as an insult, I just think we might be talking across purposes... that or you're a fan of simple riddles in your language. The latter would be an unfortunate thing to see of course, so you can understand my caution?

 

[nismaratwork]

I see i have fans

As for the "mundane" explanations... i think anyone who has even glimpsed at some of the UFO cases from the UFO napster will admit that there is some pretty bafflingly weird stuff going on in the skies.

I think the crux of the argument that's been made OVER and over again in other threads is... NO... everyone doesn't and anyone doesn't believe that; you have your own defintion of what is "baffling" and "weird".

I think what you can say with confidence is that if you look at the UFO napster, you'll admit thee are some pretty baffled and weird people here on earth.

 

[pftest]

I think the crux of the argument that's been made OVER and over again in other threads is... NO... everyone doesn't and anyone doesn't believe that; you have your own defintion of what is "baffling" and "weird".

I think what you can say with confidence is that if you look at the UFO napster, you'll admit thee are some pretty baffled and weird people here on earth.

Of course... but where are the explanations?

A single example from the napster: the Illinois 2000 case

 

[nismaratwork]

Of course... but where are the explanations?

A single example from the napster: the Illinois 2000 case

I'm now forced to ask you a question:

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

OR

Are you circling the argument back for rhetorical purposes?


Really, I don't feel like I have a WIN in there... just a whole bunch of lose.


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

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

 

[pftest]

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

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

And this is just 1 single case i picked from the UFO napster, people. 1 case! We have no clue what it could possibly be, but surely it isn't baffling...

UFO topics often end up in very vague and general discussions about the flaws of human perception and interpretation, about how there are many mundane explanations, etc. Often this is no more than wishful thinking that is far removed from the data, the actual UFO cases. This is precisely the reason i dive into the specifics and pick an actual case.

Let the mundane and non-weird explanations be known...

 

[ecsspace]

...Or they correctly interpret stimuli, thus coming to conclusions other than those "cranks and weirdos" do?

Yeah, there is that peculiar occurrence from time to time; oft the rarer instance, seemingly.

 

[nismaratwork]

And this is just 1 single case i picked from the UFO napster, people. 1 case! We have no clue what it could possibly be, but surely it isn't baffling...

UFO topics often end up in very vague and general discussions about the flaws of human perception and interpretation, about how there are many mundane explanations, etc. Often this is no more than wishful thinking that is far removed from the data, the actual UFO cases. This is precisely the reason i dive into the specifics and pick an actual case.

Let the mundane and non-weird explanations be known...

I get the sense that you feel you won some kind of victory, which just says you missed the point entirely. Maybe that's being overly generous, but I'll leave that to mentors to decide: enough of this nonsense.

@ecsspace: Not really... we take in a vast array of sensory input, and for the most part effectively interpret it. When it comes to things that fly, naturally we land-bound hunter-gatherers wouldn't be aces at spotting it.

 

[ecsspace]

That's really fascinating stuff, but when you're trying to talk to other people who don't know you and your friend... well... you can see how it would seem absurd? If I might ask, because I think this might be a problem here that we can overcome, what's your first language? I don't mean this as an insult, I just think we might be talking across purposes... that or you're a fan of simple riddles in your language. The latter would be an unfortunate thing to see of course, so you can understand my caution?

Me speak English/American mid atlantic imitation hillbilly Appalachian dialect. Me speak heap good!
No insult taken, bwana. Not cross-purpose but multipurpose to reflect some aspect of multiple interpretations extant in universe of possibly unfathomable variety. Absurdity as an ever accumulating variable. Like modern art: your interpretation speak volumes of your perception of the world. That people are color blind can also mean that there other realms of perception blindness that could exist, not necessarily only in visual interpretive brain process. Wonder how often language is always entirely useful enough to correlate sharable data. Some deeply ingrained lessons were transferred to me via a good riddler, sank much deeper than ideas from droning lecturers.
Also knew someone else who used the term ship-in-the-bottle to refer to physics models, as a metaphor for something that was more elaborately complicated to build than was necessary, but was celebrated for the skill in the building. Then the ship-in-the-bottle model builders show them to each other and argue over whose ship was harder to build, and then argue whose ship would be the most seaworthy...were they not enclosed in the bottles. Not to mention the problem of scale.
It's a bit more cynical than I like to be...but I understood his perspective. His favorite saying: the construction of the wheel was accomplished without a slide rule.
But it's all about leprechauns.. err, I mean UFOs. Lots of reputable folks have seen leprechauns. But again there's that problem of scale.

 

[ecsspace]

Of course... but where are the explanations?

A single example from the napster: the Illinois 2000 case

You know, I remember that story. A guess might be it could have been from a family of vehicles called
'stealth blimps' Notice this statement from Illinois 2000:
"Two separate inquiries from NIDS to the Boeing St. Louis facility showed that Boeing does not conduct testing of military aircraft at their facility."

The statement says Boeing doesn't conduct testing. The military might've conducted the test, the military
isn't Boeing.

"According to Boeing, the facility conducts acceptance testing of newly manufactured (from the assembly line) aircraft during the day at the local commercial airport.

They said: 'Boeing conducts their tests during the day' this does not preclude the military from conducting
their tests at night.

"A Boeing spokesperson confirmed that there were no Boeing St. Louis derived aircraft flying around St. Louis and surrounding areas during the early morning (midnight to sunrise) dark hours of Jan 5, 2000."

I think the stealth blimp is (if real) a Lockheed Martin project. Boeing and Lockheed probably have some
informal sharing arrangements with their common client. Or, if it is a Boeing product being tested by the military<it was derived at another Boeing plant (other than St. Louis) but only tested at St. Louis.

 

[ecsspace]

I get the sense that you feel you won some kind of victory, which just says you missed the point entirely. Maybe that's being overly generous, but I'll leave that to mentors to decide: enough of this nonsense.

@ecsspace: Not really... we take in a vast array of sensory input, and for the most part effectively interpret it. When it comes to things that fly, naturally we land-bound hunter-gatherers wouldn't be aces at spotting it.

You are replying to the wrong party, or perhaps meant to reply to the post directly preceding the post you did reply to.
None of what was quoted above your entry that begins '@ecsspace...' was from of any of my original statements.

 

[nismaratwork]

Me speak English/American mid atlantic imitation hillbilly Appalachian dialect. Me speak heap good!
No insult taken, bwana. Not cross-purpose but multipurpose to reflect some aspect of multiple interpretations extant in universe of possibly unfathomable variety. Absurdity as an ever accumulating variable. Like modern art: your interpretation speak volumes of your perception of the world. That people are color blind can also mean that there other realms of perception blindness that could exist, not necessarily only in visual interpretive brain process. Wonder how often language is always entirely useful enough to correlate sharable data. Some deeply ingrained lessons were transferred to me via a good riddler, sank much deeper than ideas from droning lecturers.
Also knew someone else who used the term ship-in-the-bottle to refer to physics models, as a metaphor for something that was more elaborately complicated to build than was necessary, but was celebrated for the skill in the building. Then the ship-in-the-bottle model builders show them to each other and argue over whose ship was harder to build, and then argue whose ship would be the most seaworthy...were they not enclosed in the bottles. Not to mention the problem of scale.
It's a bit more cynical than I like to be...but I understood his perspective. His favorite saying: the construction of the wheel was accomplished without a slide rule.
But it's all about leprechauns.. err, I mean UFOs. Lots of reputable folks have seen leprechauns. But again there's that problem of scale.

OK, so English is your first language, I'm sorry if I offended you. You have a very interesting way of stringing together words and concepts. You point out that my view of the world is revealed in how I interpret things, but I'd add that how people express themselves can be quite revealing too. I can appreciate a unique style; the question is: can you communicate clearly without the riddles?


Oh, and regarding your last post, only that portion AFTER the "@yourname" portion applies to you... so... that works well.

 

[ecsspace]

OK, so English is your first language, I'm sorry if I offended you. You have a very interesting way of stringing together words and concepts. You point out that my view of the world is revealed in how I interpret things, but I'd add that how people express themselves can be quite revealing too. I can appreciate a unique style; the question is: can you communicate clearly without the riddles?


Oh, and regarding your last post, only that portion AFTER the "@yourname" portion applies to you... so... that works well.

"No insult taken, bwana" means you didn't offend me.

 

[pftest]

You know, I remember that story. A guess might be it could have been from a family of vehicles called
'stealth blimps' Notice this statement from Illinois 2000:
"Two separate inquiries from NIDS to the Boeing St. Louis facility showed that Boeing does not conduct testing of military aircraft at their facility."

The statement says Boeing doesn't conduct testing. The military might've conducted the test, the military
isn't Boeing.

"According to Boeing, the facility conducts acceptance testing of newly manufactured (from the assembly line) aircraft during the day at the local commercial airport.

They said: 'Boeing conducts their tests during the day' this does not preclude the military from conducting
their tests at night.

"A Boeing spokesperson confirmed that there were no Boeing St. Louis derived aircraft flying around St. Louis and surrounding areas during the early morning (midnight to sunrise) dark hours of Jan 5, 2000."

I think the stealth blimp is (if real) a Lockheed Martin project. Boeing and Lockheed probably have some
informal sharing arrangements with their common client. Or, if it is a Boeing product being tested by the military<it was derived at another Boeing plant (other than St. Louis) but only tested at St. Louis.

Good points. At the very least its clear that there actually was a gigantic weird object flying around in the area, and you don't irrationally suggest it was venus. Heres a video with the 911 calls, the eyewitnesses (including several police officers), their descriptions and drawings, a picture that one of them took, and a reconstruction of the event: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6483818398061077731#

 

[nismaratwork]

"No insult taken, bwana" means you didn't offend me.

Yes, I'm aware of that... very much the African (Swahili) version of the Arabic: "Sheikh".

pftest: When you hear, "see Venus", are you thinking that people are just stargazing, see the planet, and come to a truly outrageous conclusion? It doesn't occur to you that it's in the context of weather conditions that can cause INTENSE atmospheric lensing, which HAS been proven to occur, even on grand scales such as entire metropolitan areas.

Again, the issue here is not what one self-described skeptic said, but an example of why the proof of WHAT needs to come from those making the claim. Anything else leads to beliefs that are based on truly confused information and assumptions.

 

[pftest]

pftest: When you hear, "see Venus", are you thinking that people are just stargazing, see the planet, and come to a truly outrageous conclusion? It doesn't occur to you that it's in the context of weather conditions that can cause INTENSE atmospheric lensing, which HAS been proven to occur, even on grand scales such as entire metropolitan areas.

Feel free to provide sources that demonstrate that venus can be distorted to make it look like what the eyewitnesses describe. I think what you are suggesting about the capabilities of atmospherical conditions, is somewhat twisted out of proportion (to put it mildly ) and has no grounding in reality. For example, you cannot simply claim that natural atmospherical conditions can make venus can take the form of a giant footballfield-sized mickey mouse either. Remember, we are no longer talking about UFO sightings in general, but about a specific case. I did this precisely to put the supposedly existing mundane explanations to the test.

 

[nismaratwork]

Feel free to provide sources that demonstrate that venus can be distorted to make it look like what the eyewitnesses describe. I think what you are suggesting about the capabilities of atmospherical conditions, is somewhat twisted out of proportion (to put it mildly ) and has no grounding in reality. For example, you cannot simply claim that natural atmospherical conditions can make venus can take the form of a giant footballfield-sized mickey mouse either. Remember, we are no longer talking about UFO sightings in general, but about a specific case. I did this precisely to put the supposedly existing mundane explanations to the test.

1.) Atmospherical isn't a WORD. Normally I wouldn't comment, but you have it spelled correctly in the the post you quote.

2.) This isn't a contest: concepts of burden of proof are established elsewhere, and here. When people are asking you in a post, it's usually because they're not reporting you for the same reason. Take. The. Hint.

3.) A simple moisture-laden atmospheric boundary between two wildly differing air-densities creates extreme lensing. You've seen examples in "hit shimmers" on roads, and how they distort objects on the horizon. Well... this is a lot more wide-spread, in the sky, and the distant object is both bright and FAR FAR more distant than what we see on the horizon.

I don't know if you're so unfamiliar with optics and meteorology that these are foreign concepts, or if this is more of your... playing... around. Either way, here's the olive branch: http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/mirages/Wollaston.html

I'm done trying to reason with you until I have some iota that you're more than a crackpot who dances on the razor edge of the this site's rules.

 

[nismaratwork]

Good points. At the very least its clear that there actually was a gigantic weird object flying around in the area, and you don't irrationally suggest it was venus. Heres a video with the 911 calls, the eyewitnesses (including several police officers), their descriptions and drawings, a picture that one of them took, and a reconstruction of the event: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6483818398061077731#

You don't know what a source is... do you? You can't just site a mix of real images (of what... hm) third and worst-hand testimony, and a DRAMATIC RECREATION.

 

[pftest]

1.) Atmospherical isn't a WORD. Normally I wouldn't comment, but you have it spelled correctly in the the post you quote.

2.) This isn't a contest: concepts of burden of proof are established elsewhere, and here. When people are asking you in a post, it's usually because they're not reporting you for the same reason. Take. The. Hint.

3.) A simple moisture-laden atmospheric boundary between two wildly differing air-densities creates extreme lensing. You've seen examples in "hit shimmers" on roads, and how they distort objects on the horizon. Well... this is a lot more wide-spread, in the sky, and the distant object is both bright and FAR FAR more distant than what we see on the horizon.

I don't know if you're so unfamiliar with optics and meteorology that these are foreign concepts, or if this is more of your... playing... around. Either way, here's the olive branch: http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/mirages/Wollaston.html

I'm done trying to reason with you until I have some iota that you're more than a crackpot who dances on the razor edge of the this site's rules.

Atmospherical:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atmospherical

Btw, it is well known that mirages are only seen on or near the horizon, they vanish beyond a certain degree, and they certainly do not fly over peoples heads and appear the way they did to all the eyewitnesses. Again, this suggestion of what atmospherical conditions are capable of is not grounded in reality.

As for the burden of proof: if someone claims that a particular atmospherical condition can explain a UFO sighting, then the burden is upon him of course. In a skepticism and debunking forum, you can expect people to be skeptical.

 

[nismaratwork]

Atmospherical:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atmospherical

Btw, it is well known that mirages are only seen on or near the horizon, they vanish beyond a certain degree, and they certainly do not fly over peoples heads and appear the way they did to all the eyewitnesses. Again, this suggestion of what atmospherical conditions are capable of is not grounded in reality.

As for the burden of proof: if someone claims that a particular atmospherical condition can explain a UFO sighting, then the burden is upon him of course. In a skepticism and debunking forum, you can expect people to be skeptical.

re: bold: You're factually incorrect here, and I'm down to fact-check and report with you. Do you have any support or citations for your erroneous claim in bold? You're actually contradicting the link you could have read about reflection and optics...


re: atmospherical: It's a neologism accepted as secondary in common usage in one (non internet) dictionary I could find. This is what the site you cited has to say on the subject of its etymology: http://dictionary.reference.com/etymology/atmospherical . Just in case none of that stuck: without engaging in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, you might want to argue less on this point, and research more. The proper term is, "Atmospheric"...
...Which is actually the first thing YOUR link spells out:

at·mos·pher·ic (tm-sfrk, -sfîr-) also at·mos·pher·i·cal (--kl)

Still, it exists, so you have that... now if only you were so willing and able to provide evidence for the other claims you've made... Oh well.

 

[pftest]

You don't know what a source is... do you? You can't just site a mix of real images (of what... hm) third and worst-hand testimony, and a DRAMATIC RECREATION.

The video has some of the original taped conversations between several police officers and the 911 center, the police officers themselves, 2 civilian eyewitnesses, a photograph, drawings of the object (at least some of which were done immediately after the event by a police officer). That in itself makes it a valuable source.

The reconstruction was done by sigma animations:

A Full-Service Forensic Engineering and Scientific Consulting Firm

For over 45 years, DJS Associates, Inc. has been a trusted source for quality forensic consulting and state-of-the-art litigation support services through the time-tested and highly effective DJS Approach: Collecting Data, Preserving Evidence, Identifying Experts, Analyzing Information, Rendering Thorough and Ethical Conclusions, and Demonstrating Results.

DJS Associates, Inc. features nationally recognized, board-certified forensic consultants with over 45 years of specific experience in accident investigation, reconstruction, highway safety, and traffic engineering, including expert testimony. State-of-the-art data collection and analysis technology utilized includes High-Definition Surveying (HDS), Event Data Recorder Download, and computerized collision reconstruction and simulation programs.

Computer animation engineering specialists utilizing state-of-the-art technology to create precise, court-accepted animations and simulations. The animation engineers of DJS Associates, Inc. incorporate cutting-edge technology such as High-Definition Surveying (HDS), 3D Modeling, Photogrammetry and Computer Reverse Projection Photogrammetry.

DJS Associates, Inc. provides an innovative, groundbreaking, state-of-the-art storage, inspection and conference facility. Secure, indoor storage space available for all types and sizes of evidence including large items such as passenger vehicles, heavy trucks and buses. Clean and well-equipped indoor inspection area complete with adjacent conference room with Internet access and an aerial viewing platform. Services such as Event Data Recorder download, High-Definition Surveying (HDS) laser scanning, photography and videography available.

 

[pftest]

re: bold: You're factually incorrect here, and I'm down to fact-check and report with you. Do you have any support or citations for your erroneous claim in bold? You're actually contradicting the link you could have read about reflection and optics...

Click on your own link. Then click on "inferior mirage". Behold:

Another common misconception is that the miraged image can fill a large part of the sky, as in this old drawing. Hogwash! Mirages NEVER look like that! They're always confined to a narrow strip of sky — less than a finger's width at arm's length — at the horizon.

re: atmospherical: It's a neologism accepted as secondary in common usage in one (non internet) dictionary I could find. This is what the site you cited has to say on the subject of its etymology: http://dictionary.reference.com/etymology/atmospherical . Just in case none of that stuck: without engaging in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, you might want to argue less on this point, and research more. The proper term is, "Atmospheric"...

Whatever floats your boat...

 

[nismaratwork]

Click on your own link. Then click on "inferior mirage". Behold:



Whatever floats your boat...

That is by definition, a MIRAGE... as I said, an example of the effect being talked of, and one I described in detail! There is a reason I talked about "Atmospheric Lensing", and not "mirages". I used a mirage as a toy example that I thought someone without an understanding of optics might start with.

Remember #2? THIS IS NOT A CONTEST. UFO's don't become what you want them to be, or what the fellow who implicated Venus wants them to be. This is SUPPOSED to be about debate which leads to an exchange of ideas... which is impossible if you're unwilling or unable to honestly debate.


Finally... re: "atmospherical"... put it on your CV... have fun with it. Yet another example made of you taking the oppositional process of debate and making it simple oppositional behavior. Now, for extra credit, why is "oppositional" a correct usage, but "atmospherical is dog poo?

 

[nismaratwork]

The video has some of the original taped conversations between several police officers and the 911 center, the police officers themselves, 2 civilian eyewitnesses, a photograph, drawings of the object (at least some of which were done immediately after the event by a police officer). That in itself makes it a valuable source.

The reconstruction was done by sigma animations:

I understand all of that... it still isn't a valid source. I get it... you think this is some legalistic nonsense and part of keeping down the truth... whatever that may be. Its NOT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Fleischmann.E2.80.93Pons_experiment

This isn't just about lights in the sky: this is about how science is done, what constitutes evidence, and standards that you and I are subject to, but don't have a vote it. You don't have to like, or even participate in that kind of debate... you clearly see it as overly restrictive... however it's also an option to reconsider.

You believe what you're talking about... so... why can't or WON'T you produce evidence to match the claims?

 

[ecsspace]

Good points. At the very least its clear that there actually was a gigantic weird object flying around in the area, and you don't irrationally suggest it was venus. Here's a video with the 911 calls, the eyewitnesses (including several police officers), their descriptions and drawings, a picture that one of them took, and a reconstruction of the event: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6483818398061077731#

Oh yeah, I'm familiar with the Illinois 2000 incident. Did some digging on it after seeing the Discovery channel (or whichever Discovery network aired it) program about it. The three different cops, the photo, the drawings, sure. Leaning towards (not 'definite') it being a stealth blimp test. The well-parsed replies from 'Boeing' kind of confirm. Maybe even the same craft that caused all the brouhaha w/ 'Phoenix Lights' (the 'lights' themselves being flares dropped by a confirmed Maryland National Guard flight, purposefully to distract most of the city inhabitant's attention to the flares and away from the blimp test. Funny in how all the arm-waving It was only shown once how those descending lights all managed to 'wink out' at the point where they would have dropped below the line of sight as defined by the hilly horizon beneath where they appeared.)
My general feeling is that if 'aliens' really are visiting we may not be able to recognize them, like trying to get a polar bear to describe the team from the university who comes out to put the radio tracking collar on him. Or the pet dogs in a typical family suburb neighborhood all getting together to try to figure out what a television is: there is one in every home, their masters pay a lot of attention to it, the dogs themselves see it and might be able to recognize some images on the screen, but they would never be able to grasp it's use or purpose.
If 'aliens' exist, we are the dogs unable to grasp what they are doing. I feel that if the Illinois cops really saw something otherworldly not all three of them would come forward. Probably an actual experience with real alien craft might be closer to what is depicted in that movie 'Fire In The Sky' - so instinctually weird and creepy you mind seeks to reject what you see whether you want it to or not. It could be too traumatic, even if benign.

 

[pftest]

That is by definition, a MIRAGE... as I said, an example of the effect being talked of, and one I described in detail! There is a reason I talked about "Atmospheric Lensing", and not "mirages". I used a mirage as a toy example that I thought someone without an understanding of optics might start with.

Then once again i must ask:

Feel free to provide sources that demonstrate that venus can be distorted to make it look like what the eyewitnesses describe.

 

[pftest]

I understand all of that... it still isn't a valid source. I get it... you think this is some legalistic nonsense and part of keeping down the truth... whatever that may be. Its NOT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Fleischmann.E2.80.93Pons_experiment

This isn't just about lights in the sky: this is about how science is done, what constitutes evidence, and standards that you and I are subject to, but don't have a vote it. You don't have to like, or even participate in that kind of debate... you clearly see it as overly restrictive... however it's also an option to reconsider.

You believe what you're talking about... so... why can't or WON'T you produce evidence to match the claims?

I think you have me confused with someone else. I just posted a link to a case in the UFO napster and asked if you could find a mundane explanation. Its all fine to keep the discussion very general and vague, but how about we take a look at an actual UFO case for a change?

 

[pftest]

Oh yeah, I'm familiar with the Illinois 2000 incident. Did some digging on it after seeing the Discovery channel (or whichever Discovery network aired it) program about it. The three different cops, the photo, the drawings, sure. Leaning towards (not 'definite') it being a stealth blimp test. The well-parsed replies from 'Boeing' kind of confirm. Maybe even the same craft that caused all the brouhaha w/ 'Phoenix Lights' (the 'lights' themselves being flares dropped by a confirmed Maryland National Guard flight, purposefully to distract most of the city inhabitant's attention to the flares and away from the blimp test. Funny in how all the arm-waving It was only shown once how those descending lights all managed to 'wink out' at the point where they would have dropped below the line of sight as defined by the hilly horizon beneath where they appeared.)
My general feeling is that if 'aliens' really are visiting we may not be able to recognize them, like trying to get a polar bear to describe the team from the university who comes out to put the radio tracking collar on him. Or the pet dogs in a typical family suburb neighborhood all getting together to try to figure out what a television is: there is one in every home, their masters pay a lot of attention to it, the dogs themselves see it and might be able to recognize some images on the screen, but they would never be able to grasp it's use or purpose.
If 'aliens' exist, we are the dogs unable to grasp what they are doing. I feel that if the Illinois cops really saw something otherworldly not all three of them would come forward. Probably an actual experience with real alien craft might be closer to what is depicted in that movie 'Fire In The Sky' - so instinctually weird and creepy you mind seeks to reject what you see whether you want it to or not. It could be too traumatic, even if benign.

I don't know anything about stealth blimps or even if they exist (aliens too btw), so I am not going to speculate on that (though i once read a paper on PF that compared humans on Earth with a gorilla reservation in the jungle). I just think that whatever the explanation is, it should match the eyewitness reports as closely as possible.

 

[ecsspace]

I think you have me confused with someone else. I just posted a link to a case in the UFO napster and asked if you could find a mundane explanation. Its all fine to keep the discussion very general and vague, but how about we take a look at an actual UFO case for a change?

He did that with me, too (nismaratwork)

 

[ecsspace]

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

 

[FlexGunship]

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.

 

[pftest]

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).

 

[nismaratwork]

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?