Are UFO Sightings Just Misidentified Natural Occurrences?

[pftest]

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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?

 

[pftest]

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

 

[pftest]

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/

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

I just found this long newspaper article on the case, also with many eyewitness descriptions. Heres a bit from the first page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

 

[Radrook]

.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.

 

[FlexGunship]

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[FlexGunship]

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:

Not Venus:

 

[pftest]

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

 

[nismaratwork]

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!

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

 

[ecsspace]

edit: Seriously, I've had more structured and serious conversations with acid-casualties who were institutionalized.

Familiar territory?

 

[nismaratwork]

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

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

Familiar territory?

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

 

[pftest]

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:

 

[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.