Are UFO Sightings Just Misidentified Natural Occurrences?

[nismaratwork]

I think you misread the bold bit.

Please clarify.

 

[pftest]

Please clarify.

Ill rephrase it:

I do not believe that skepticism entails: "accepting any non-ET explanation".

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

Call it what you want: you're making an assumption based on anecdotal evidence.

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.

OK, so you set up a straw man that hasn't been mentioned AFAIK, and end with a bit of ad hominem. I can't wait to see where this is going.

How can anyone ever prove they have seen something?

Really? Photographs and videos help... you know, ones that aren't shot like the clipping Zapruder left on the cutting-room floor. Of course, there's plenty of video evidence for anything if you're gullible enough, so I guess I'd add that it has to be open to analysis.

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.

No, as I point out the testimony of eyewitnesses alone is not proof, it is anecdote... or something on a grander scale in some cases. That doesn't mean it cannot be proven, I'm just saying that the "getting tons of witnesses in a room" strategy doesn't fly in science. Hell... it rarely flies in court, and I like my proof of amazing claims to meet or exceed US justice standards for a criminal finding.

This goes for seeing anything.

In theory, yes, but in practice you scale the evidence required to the claim being made. So, if you tell me that you saw a wonderful sunset in Maine, in the woods... I COULD doubt you if I had some reason to, but why? If you then told me that you saw a moose, and I didn't know you personally, you've entered the realm of "probably not lying, but who knows?". If you tell me the moose talked to you, I want video, witnesses, and the moose. GET IT?! I know you do, because this argument has been re-iterated many times in threads you're in.

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.

OK, let's address this specific issue... reporting is different from proving. Your report would be enough to open an investigation if your story is good and you don't show signs of mental illness or drug abuse. If you claim to be able to show physical evidence, such as a broken window, or a neighbor who can vouch that objects are lost, I'd say again, you're in great shape.

If you saw a robbery, and the police find the "victim" has no missing items or evidence of burglary, you'd be cited for filing a false police report if this was a pattern.

Get 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.

In my experience the smear campaign is exclusively led and made of "true believers" representing their beliefs in the worst possible way. You can't honestly think that a paragraph here and there by Michael Shermer is somehow a match for "UFOoooooligists" on Larry King? You're complaining about an inequality that is arguably in your favor in terms of media coverage AND the number of people who believe.

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.

Are you saying this for the sake of convenience, or do you really believe that people are so easily categorized? You're establishing the absolute extremes of both sides as:

1.) Being equal... they're not. "believers" in everything from angels to aliens outnumber "non-believers". In fact, there is an enormous asymmetry which you should already know.

2.) Assuming that people fall into: "group thinkers", and "non-group thinkers". This is the old, "sheep and wolves" argument that's probably been made since grunts and pointing could communicate the idea.

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.

OK. So, now you have this elaborate straw man, in which you cast people engaged in the scientific process as ranting villains. The fact is that science, much like criminal law, is an adversarial process. Unfortunately skeptics tend to become jaded very quickly, as they are grossly outnumbered in most social situations. Meanwhile 'believers' feel that the adversarial process which is productive in every branch of science, is somehow intimidation and bullying in this one context.

You have constructed a very well crafted narrative, without a single shred of support beyond your own opinions on what people are like, and how you see yourself. What did the majority of your rambling post have to do with this supposed, "error in my analysis"?

 

[nismaratwork]

Ill rephrase it:

I do not believe that skepticism entails: "accepting any non-ET explanation".

Skepticism by definition has to be ultimately open to any possibility that can meet the standards of skepticism; that includes, "ET explanations".

 

[jreelawg]

nismaratwork;3097080]Call it what you want: you're making an assumption based on anecdotal evidence.

I'm pointing out where you misrepresented the facts in order to exaggerate the basis for your argument.

OK, so you set up a straw man that hasn't been mentioned AFAIK, and end with a bit of ad hominem. I can't wait to see where this is going.

I don't think you know what a straw man is. I'm taking issue with your preference that UFOs should only be reported if it can be proven. Maybe your still confused about what UFO stands for?

Really? Photographs and videos help... you know, ones that aren't shot like the clipping Zapruder left on the cutting-room floor. Of course, there's plenty of video evidence for anything if you're gullible enough, so I guess I'd add that it has to be open to analysis.

Photos and videos can be easily faked. I once made note that a demonstration showing that fact in which a person faked a picture and passed it off as real, looked very similar to the UFO that I saw. Aside from that, there are a bunch of claimed pictures of UFOs out there fake or real, how can you know for sure? As well, you have to consider the possibility that in some cases photographic evidence could be confiscated and kept top secret. This isn't a stretch wether it be evidence of a top secret military craft or an alien space craft.

In theory, yes, but in practice you scale the evidence required to the claim being made. So, if you tell me that you saw a wonderful sunset in Maine, in the woods... I COULD doubt you if I had some reason to, but why? If you then told me that you saw a moose, and I didn't know you personally, you've entered the realm of "probably not lying, but who knows?". If you tell me the moose talked to you, I want video, witnesses, and the moose. GET IT?! I know you do, because this argument has been re-iterated many times in threads you're in.

I know you get my simple point that you can't prove seeing something. Really a whole paragraph responding to that one line clear cut? Take the context and roll with it.

OK, let's address this specific issue... reporting is different from proving. Your report would be enough to open an investigation if your story is good and you don't show signs of mental illness or drug abuse. If you claim to be able to show physical evidence, such as a broken window, or a neighbor who can vouch that objects are lost, I'd say again, you're in great shape.

Back to my point about people who aren't interested in honest discourse, but rather have a specific belief to advocate. What I mean, is that you dedicate so much to attacking the observers credibility and practically nothing to observation itself, which I think is a side effect of the details being in contradiction to what you want to believe.

In my experience the smear campaign is exclusively led and made of "true believers" representing their beliefs in the worst possible way. You can't honestly think that a paragraph here and there by Michael Shermer is somehow a match for "UFOoooooligists" on Larry King? You're complaining about an inequality that is arguably in your favor in terms of media coverage AND the number of people who believe.

Your all mixed up. Are you hearing voices in your head? What did I say about inequality, or Michael Shermer, or Lary King? Aside from all of that rambling, why would the number of people who believe something be in my favor? After all that discussion about how I think a "believers first thinkers second" attitude clouds the arena where civil discussions should take place.

Are you saying this for the sake of convenience, or do you really believe that people are so easily categorized? You're establishing the absolute extremes of both sides as:

1.) Being equal... they're not. "believers" in everything from angels to aliens outnumber "non-believers". In fact, there is an enormous asymmetry which you should already know.

2.) Assuming that people fall into: "group thinkers", and "non-group thinkers". This is the old, "sheep and wolves" argument that's probably been made since grunts and pointing could communicate the idea.

Besides 1-being entirely irrelevant to the point I was making, you are hardly convincing without any evidence of your claim.

2-So you don't believe in group think?

OK. So, now you have this elaborate straw man, in which you cast people engaged in the scientific process as ranting villains. The fact is that science, much like criminal law, is an adversarial process. Unfortunately skeptics tend to become jaded very quickly, as they are grossly outnumbered in most social situations. Meanwhile 'believers' feel that the adversarial process which is productive in every branch of science, is somehow intimidation and bullying in this one context.

Here you go again drastically misrepresenting the meaning of my post trying to put words in my mouth, and all the while using an exaggerative tone. I can't tell if it is intended as an insult, or a desperate attempt to defend a failing thought process. It is clear I was pointing out the difficulty in having serious honest discourse with all the cultish lunes, and pseudo skeptics bombarding the discussions with nonsense.

You have constructed a very well crafted narrative, without a single shred of support beyond your own opinions on what people are like, and how you see yourself. What did the majority of your rambling post have to do with this supposed, "error in my analysis"?

The error in your analysis was the part in bold in the first paragraph. The rest wasn't really about your analysis particularly, but thinking about it further, I think some of my points say something about your style.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm pointing out where you misrepresented the facts in order to exaggerate the basis for your argument.



I don't think you know what a straw man is. I'm taking issue with your preference that UFOs should only be reported if it can be proven. Maybe your still confused about what UFO stands for?



Photos and videos can be easily faked. I once made note that a demonstration showing that fact in which a person faked a picture and passed it off as real, looked very similar to the UFO that I saw. Aside from that, there are a bunch of claimed pictures of UFOs out there fake or real, how can you know for sure? As well, you have to consider the possibility that in some cases photographic evidence could be confiscated and kept top secret. This isn't a stretch wether it be evidence of a top secret military craft or an alien space craft.




I know you get my simple point that you can't prove seeing something. Really a whole paragraph responding to that one line clear cut? Take the context and roll with it.



Back to my point about people who aren't interested in honest discourse, but rather have a specific belief to advocate. What I mean, is that you dedicate so much to attacking the observers credibility and practically nothing to observation itself, which I think is a side effect of the details being in contradiction to what you want to believe.



Your all mixed up. Are you hearing voices in your head? What did I say about inequality, or Michael Shermer, or Lary King? Aside from all of that rambling, why would the number of people who believe something be in my favor? After all that discussion about how I think a "believers first thinkers second" attitude clouds the arena where civil discussions should take place.




Besides 1-being entirely irrelevant to the point I was making, you are hardly convincing without any evidence of your claim.

2-So you don't believe in group think?



Here you go again drastically misrepresenting the meaning of my post trying to put words in my mouth, and all the while using an exaggerative tone. I can't tell if it is intended as an insult, or a desperate attempt to defend a failing thought process. It is clear I was pointing out the difficulty in having serious honest discourse with all the cultish lunes, and pseudo skeptics bombarding the discussions with nonsense.



The error in your analysis was the part in bold in the first paragraph. The rest wasn't really about your analysis particularly, but thinking about it further, I think some of my points say something about your style.

While I appreciate your stylistic points, I like to really relax when I write online, and for me that tends to get verbose. You're a real champ for sticking with it all the way through, despite it being riddled with "misrepresentations" and "exaggerations". Hey, speaking of those... which ones? I assume they're abundant, and you can easily support your claim.

As for the rest... really, what is there to say? I think I disagree with you on virtually every substantive point (those few you tried to make, or I inferred). BTW, should I take if from your statements above that you reject all photographic and video evidence of UFOs? I have to say, I think there are a lot of hoaxes, but there are so many shots of helicopters that I do believe some people sincerely try to gather evidence.

It would at least, be something beyond the current sketches-on-napkins, conspiracy theorizing, and your brand of utterly baseless non-logic which reaches a pinnacle in your response:

Your all mixed up. Are you hearing voices in your head? What did I say about inequality, or Michael Shermer, or Lary King? Aside from all of that rambling, why would the number of people who believe something be in my favor? After all that discussion about how I think a "believers first thinkers second" attitude clouds the arena where civil discussions should take place.

Well... you didn't, I brought them up in a response to what you said. I didn't realize that I could only use topics you'd already brought up... although I love how in your second round of ad hominem junk you end with a call to civil discussion. You can understand I'm sure, if I don't take that seriously when you fail to address ANY substance, and instead try to start a fight.


No takers. Unlike pftest, I've already read plenty of your "logical arguments", and they end in you disappearing for a few days and a locked thread. No thank you. If you have something substantive rather than stylistic, I'm in, but until then I can't tell you how tired I am of this kind predictable belligerence.

 

[jreelawg]

As for the rest... really, what is there to say? I think I disagree with you on virtually every substantive point (those few you tried to make, or I inferred). BTW, should I take if from your statements above that you reject all photographic and video evidence of UFOs? I have to say, I think there are a lot of hoaxes, but there are so many shots of helicopters that I do believe some people sincerely try to gather evidence.

I tend to be more interested in verbal accounts and correlation between multiple observers over pictures or videos which can easily be faked.

Well... you didn't, I brought them up in a response to what you said. I didn't realize that I could only use topics you'd already brought up... although I love how in your second round of ad hominem junk you end with a call to civil discussion. You can understand I'm sure, if I don't take that seriously when you fail to address ANY substance, and instead try to start a fight.

Just tired of you claiming I said or made points that I didn't and using the things I didn't say to make personal attacks against me.

I guess it all started because I quoted you on something where I thought you were misrepresenting the case to exaggerate your point, and while I was at it, I included an essay about my take on a social phenomena in relation to UFO's. I didn't mean to address the whole thing to you, and it may have sounded like I was attacking you specifically when I wasn't. But in the process maybe I put a few kinks in some of your common arguments and evoked a fight or flight response.

Without it being personal, and it wasn't, my original post deserves some thought maybe? Are UFO observers afraid they will be labeled crazy if they report what they see? Will one side call them crazy, and the other tell them it was reptilians from another dimension? Where do they go to have a rational discussion about it where the room won't be clouded by either side?

Also just to clarify, I'm not saying there is a divide between non-believers and believers. Being a non-believer is different than believing the non-existence. If you believe the non-existence, than you are a believer. The divide is generally between believers and believers.

Ask yourself, are you a believer, a believer, or a non-believer?

 

[nismaratwork]

I tend to be more interested in verbal accounts and correlation between multiple observers over pictures or videos which can easily be faked.



Just tired of you claiming I said or made points that I didn't and using the things I didn't say to make personal attacks against me.

I guess it all started because I quoted you on something where I thought you were misrepresenting the case to exaggerate your point, and while I was at it, I included an essay about my take on a social phenomena in relation to UFO's. I didn't mean to address the whole thing to you, and it may have sounded like I was attacking you specifically when I wasn't. But in the process maybe I put a few kinks in some of your common arguments and evoked a fight or flight response.

Without it being personal, and it wasn't, my original post deserves some thought maybe? Are UFO observers afraid they will be labeled crazy if they report what they see? Will one side call them crazy, and the other tell them it was reptilians from another dimension? Where do they go to have a rational discussion about it where the room won't be clouded by either side?

I guess I'm more interested in the facts: what are people seeing, what do they BELIEVE they're seeing, what are those things that can't be explained, and why do people continue to believe what they saw even after they've been definitively proven wrong?

Science circumvents that by relying on a process which attempts to strain that out. Yes, it requires a measure of confrontation, but as Flex so eloquently pointed out... it beats alchemy!

Look, I spend a good portion of my year talking to people on the verge of, or in the midst of a psychotic episode. You see the full range of how even the healthy mind can react to relatively mild insults. For instance, you get some rare psychotic infusion-withdrawal reactions around Benzodiazapines, so you have a healthy mind being forcefully interrupted and disturbed by an external process.

I know you're not insane, and I know that most people who report seeing UFOs aren't (and given the frequency of reports, people seem undeterred). The fact is that "crazy" is amazingly easy to spot (not categorize, just spot) given experience... I think people are wired to believe what they see. A mind that trusts another over their own sensory experience is adapting intelligently, it's not natural for the most part.

People so rarely think they can, if only for a time, lose touch with reality... and that's EXTREME. Is it so much of a leap to say that, in the absence of evidence, eyewitnesses (whoever they may be) simply can't be enough. Finally... people ignore the fact that MOST UFO's are not 'U' anymore... they're identified. In a way, this entire experience is a bit like the missing link argument used by creationists: incremental, but infinite steps. Pure fallacy.

 

[FlexGunship]

I tend to be more interested in verbal accounts and correlation between multiple observers over pictures or videos which can easily be faked.

Irony? I can't tell.

More interested in verbal stories (or written stories), than photos and videos because photos and videos can be easily faked??

"UFOs killed the president."

You're right, that was much more difficult than faking a photo!

At least faking a photo requires conspiracy and hoax; but just rambling takes no effort at all. Just say whatever! And when someone calls you out on a detail, just change it! It's sooooo easy. Revisionist UFO reports are the reason you can never spot the "odd reflection" or "the string" in verbal cases.

 

[ecsspace]

At least faking a photo requires conspiracy and hoax; but just rambling takes no effort at all. Just say whatever! And when someone calls you out on a detail, just change it! It's sooooo easy. Revisionist UFO reports are the reason you can never spot the "odd reflection" or "the string" in verbal cases.

Yeah... look how many different "crash sites" have appeared over the years in the 'Roswell Incident'
UFO reports over the years do tend to suffer from lily gilders and/(or) too many straw-men chefs.

Before the days of UFO sightings (and the adoption of that acronym) media outlets carried stories of
great numbers of witnesses to religious-themed sightings; Lourdes, for an example.
It seems the popular 'strange' speculation has extraterrestrials superseding religious icons/dieties.

Except in foodstuffs. As far as I can recollect no one has ever made a
huge stink about seeing a grey alien's face in a potato chip.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yeah... look how many different "crash sites" have appeared over the years in the 'Roswell Incident'
UFO reports over the years do tend to suffer from lily gilders and/(or) too many straw-men chefs.

Before the days of UFO sightings (and the adoption of that acronym) media outlets carried stories of
great numbers of witnesses to religious-themed sightings; Lourdes, for an example.
It seems the popular 'strange' speculation has extraterrestrials superseding religious icons/dieties.

Except in foodstuffs. As far as I can recollect no one has ever made a
huge stink about seeing a grey alien's face in a potato chip.

re bold: Give them time...

 

[FlexGunship]

re bold: Give them time...

 

[nismaratwork]

 

[jreelawg]

Irony? I can't tell.

More interested in verbal stories (or written stories), than photos and videos because photos and videos can be easily faked??

"UFOs killed the president."

You're right, that was much more difficult than faking a photo!

At least faking a photo requires conspiracy and hoax; but just rambling takes no effort at all. Just say whatever! And when someone calls you out on a detail, just change it! It's sooooo easy. Revisionist UFO reports are the reason you can never spot the "odd reflection" or "the string" in verbal cases.

Photographic evidence, unless of an extremely high caliber, is pretty much completely useless due to the fact that first of all it can be easily faked, and that there are so many fakes out there, that it might be impossible to authenticate.

Another point is that there may be cases, specifically military, in which photographic evidence is withheld. The government has a strong case for with holding photographic evidence of UFO's in secret, because the implications of what they could be include their own black projects, foreign black projects, etc. If you look at many reports, it is often claimed that people with photographic evidence have been forced to hand it over to federal agents.

If someone took a clear picture or video of a real alien craft, covert government or enemy government craft, which could somehow be authenticated scientifically, it would be expected that you would not see it or hear about it. National security would have a strong incentive as well as capability to suppress such evidence, and there is no reason to expect it to get out less some kind of wikileak.

People can just make stuff up, but what would be the chance, that dozens perhaps hundreds of people over a large area would conspire to just make up consistent reports of UFO sightings which correlate?

Your joke about the UFO report you just faked being easier than faking a photo, really is a joke. Either way, photographic or verbal, a UFO story or report can be faked. The only way I could make any kind of opinion on the authenticity of either would be to conduct interviews, or watch interviews and get some kind of feel for if they seam honest, as well as to establish wether there are correlations which boost credibility. You could have posted a photo of a couple of pixelated lights and claimed it was a UFO, and your credibility would be the same as your texted report.

 

[jreelawg]

Yeah... look how many different "crash sites" have appeared over the years in the 'Roswell Incident'
UFO reports over the years do tend to suffer from lily gilders and/(or) too many straw-men chefs.

Before the days of UFO sightings (and the adoption of that acronym) media outlets carried stories of
great numbers of witnesses to religious-themed sightings; Lourdes, for an example.
It seems the popular 'strange' speculation has extraterrestrials superseding religious icons/dieties.

Except in foodstuffs. As far as I can recollect no one has ever made a
huge stink about seeing a grey alien's face in a potato chip.

There is a sect of people who make ET theories part of a religion or alternative interpretation of religious origins. What does it really have to do with UFO reports though? It helps if your advocating the disbelief in UFO report credibility to shift focus from a serious discussion stemming from the best extent of info you have to work with, to the area in which you have nothing to work with except sarcasm and cynicism.

In Roswell, wasn't it the Airforce which initially claimed they recovered a flying saucer and then retracted the statement? If nothing else, there must be some explanation for why they reported what they did, all you can do I guess is wonder?

It isn't hard however to introduce variables which could be consistent with most conclusions and allow for multiple people to think they found wreckage at different supposed crash sites without them being inaccurate or dishonest in their accounts.

I think maybe the trouble is that too many UFO skeptics rely on circular logic or fallacies as arguments when attempting to broadly debunk UFOs in general. Probably based primarily on the fact that attempting such a feat is futile. The best a person has is their own experiences, iffy information and their own intuition, not much else. People get lazy or just like to just BS or have a shallow superficial conversation about the issue sometimes forget the meaninglessness of the fruits of that conversation.

The most appropriate response to the UFO phenomena in terms of skepticism is just that there is no solid proof of any broad conclusion. Playing an adversarial role in a personal battle against people of different beliefs is fine, but not good or useful skepticism. Especially if your advocating other specific beliefs which are without proof. Are some who claim to be really skeptics? Do they just have a contradictory belief system to protect, or are they just doing it for spite?

 

[jreelawg]

...
"Flying saucers" have be known to be an actuality since the possibility of their construction was proven in plans drawn up by German engineers toward the end of WW2.

George Klein, a German engineer, stated recently that though many people believe the the "flying saucer" to be a to be a postwar development, they were actually in the planning stage in German aircraft factories as early as 1941.

...

Durring the experiment, Klein reported, the "flying saucer" reached an altitude of 12,400 meters within 3 minutes and a speed of 2,200 kilometers per hour. ...

ENGINEER CLAIMS 'SAUCER' PLANS ARE IN SOVIET HANDS; SIGHTINGS IN AFRICA, IRAN,
8-18-1953

http://www.foia.cia.gov/

Just for fun go to the CIA freedom of information website and search unidentified flying object and read some of the declassified documents. Some reports worth reading can be found under this title,

SIGHTINGS OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS OVER SPAIN AND AFRICA, JULY - O CTOBER - 1952
http://www.foia.cia.gov/

 

[Radrook]

I don't find it hard to believe that governments have decided to withold information for the sake of national security. We could have an asteroid scheduled to hit Earth and the governments won't reveal it either for the sake of keeping the population from panicking and perhaps endangering the survival of a few in well-prepared underground silos. After all, human reaction to impending certain doom or perceived serious threat to their general security is anything but rational.

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't find it hard to believe that governments have decided to withold information for the sake of national security. We could have an asteroid scheduled to hit Earth and the governments won't reveal it either for the sake of keeping the population from panicking and perhaps endangering the survival of a few in well-prepared underground silos. After all, human reaction to impending certain doom or perceived serious threat to their general security is anything but rational.

And? Beyond your ability to believe in massive conspiracies, what's your point? The reports jreelawg thinks are so telling are hosted on the CIA website... the mystery deepens!

 

[jreelawg]

Q

The reports jreelawg thinks are so telling are hosted on the CIA website... the mystery deepens!

The reports jreelawg thinks are worth reading...

Do you disagree with that thought? Is it worth your time to read them? Otherwise what's your point?

note: Searching 'Unidentified Flying Saucers" at CIA freedom of information, will yield both the declassified documents an some others in your search results. Searching the whole title didn't work for me.

 

[nismaratwork]

The reports jreelawg thinks are worth reading...

Do you disagree with that thought? Is it worth your time to read them? Otherwise what's your point?

My point... was not directed at you is the end of that sentence. Read over this thread and others, I'm not PASSIVE aggressive. I just won't vouch for those reports, but the fact remains that you believe they are worth reading, and the fact remains that they're hosted on cia.gov.

A better question might be: if you find those reports worth reading, why do you? What conclusions do they lead you to?

edit: seriously man, look on THIS page:... the pic I posted! I'm not exactly keeping my cards close to the vest.

 

[FlexGunship]

Do you disagree with that thought? Is it worth your time to read them? Otherwise what's your point?

I don't want to speak for Nismar, but we've been over the legitimacy of reports that are reproduced in government archives. The simple fact that someone wrote it down and kept it doesn't make it significant any more than if it appeared in a newspaper.

 

[jreelawg]

What's up with the amount of early 50's flying saucer reports describing an emission of red and green flames?

 

[FlexGunship]

What's up with the amount of early 50's flying saucer reports describing an emission of red and green flames?

What about 'em?

This is the type of non-sequitur that's makes it difficult for people to have a really in-depth conversation with you. Not only did you NOT refute any of the points mentioned, you casually introduced a new topic with no references. (EDIT: I'm really not even sure if you know that you're doing it.)

You're a little bit below "contradiction."

You haven't quite gotten to attacking the point that I'm trying to make, which is: "simply placing a report in a government archive does not make it more legitimate than if it were not there."

 

[jreelawg]

What about 'em?

This is the type of non-sequitur that's makes it difficult for people to have a really in-depth conversation with you. Not only did you NOT refute any of the points mentioned, you casually introduced a new topic with no references. (EDIT: I'm really not even sure if you know that you're doing it.)

You're a little bit below "contradiction."

You haven't quite gotten to attacking the point that I'm trying to make, which is: "simply placing a report in a government archive does not make it more legitimate than if it were not there."

A high percentage of the "flying saucer" sightings referenced in the 1950's CIA documents describe seeing red and green flames emitting from the saucers. I'm not trying to make a point out of this, just offering up the info for discussion. I think I started the subject of a specific set of "flying Saucer reports" before you brought back your subject.

I would like to have an in depth conversation about the reports I presented. You guys should read them so we can do that.

I don't really need to bother with your point that declassified CIA reports from the 50's are no better than any other report from any other source. I remain unchanged in my position that the documents I presented are worth reading. You can decide for yourself based on the content of the documents what value they have.

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't want to speak for Nismar, but we've been over the legitimacy of reports that are reproduced in government archives. The simple fact that someone wrote it down and kept it doesn't make it significant any more than if it appeared in a newspaper.

Oh speak away, I agree. I'd also add that reading the triangle was like gazing into two mirrors faced perfectly at 180deg! It's so real... like it keeps happening that exact way only with tiny variations ad infinitum... That's the best thing since 'The Flake Equation'.

 

[nismaratwork]

What's up with the amount of early 50's flying saucer reports describing an emission of red and green flames?

Flying cows, lighting their burps to propel themselves through the starry night. The occasional crash accounts for cattle mutilations.

edit: Sorry, I just realized how implausible that is. Still, it's hard to explain a lot of what happened in the early fifties; Transorbital Lobotomy for instance, peaked in the late 40's and early 50's... should we look at that and conclude that an outbreak of unique mental illness occurred, or was it mostly a social phenomenon driven by a few "true believers"?

[PLAIN]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Reviews-lobotomy.jpg

 

[jreelawg]

That's the best thing since 'The Flake Equation'.

Except that the Flake equation sits pretty low on that triangle, arguably on the first level (name calling). What you have in the "Flake Equation" is a fancy humorous equation which offers nothing except a complicated way of saying some people are flakes.

 

[nismaratwork]

Except that the Flake equation sits pretty low on that triangle, arguably on the first level (name calling). What you have in the "Flake Equation" is a fancy humorous equation which offers nothing except a complicated way of saying some people are flakes.

Ooooooh... well when you put it that way:

It's the best thing since 'The Flake Equation', and your disdain for it.


edit:
evidence for my cow-theory?!

YOU decide!

 

[FlexGunship]

Except that the Flake equation sits pretty low on that triangle, arguably on the first level (name calling). What you have in the "Flake Equation" is a fancy humorous equation which offers nothing except a complicated way of saying some people are flakes.

Is that actually how you view it? Yes, it is kind of funny. But, is there a SINGLE variable that you would adjust? I really mean that. I want to know which number you would change.

I think of it as an incredibly powerful explanatory device. Yes, it's sad that it's called the "Flake Equation" but that's more because of its parallel to the "Drake Equation" than because people are flakes.

 

[nismaratwork]

Is that actually how you view it? Yes, it is kind of funny. But, is there a SINGLE variable that you would adjust? I really mean that. I want to know which number you would change.

I think of it as an incredibly powerful explanatory device. Yes, it's sad that it's called the "Flake Equation" but that's more because of its parallel to the "Drake Equation" than because people are flakes.

Me likey.

 

[jreelawg]

Flying cows, lighting their burps to propel themselves through the starry night. The occasional crash accounts for cattle mutilations.

edit: Sorry, I just realized how implausible that is. Still, it's hard to explain a lot of what happened in the early fifties; Transorbital Lobotomy for instance, peaked in the late 40's and early 50's... should we look at that and conclude that an outbreak of unique mental illness occurred, or was it mostly a social phenomenon driven by a few "true believers"?

[PLAIN]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Reviews-lobotomy.jpg[/QUOTE]

These type of practices don't surprise me for the time given the type of people who ran the mainstream psychology show back then. Explaining the phenomena might be a matter of a lack of ethics within the field rather than a few believers. A lobotomy was a crude inhumane solution.

Canadian experiments
The experiments were exported to Canada when the CIA recruited Scottish psychiatrist Donald Ewen Cameron, creator of the "psychic driving" concept, which the CIA found particularly interesting. Cameron had been hoping to correct schizophrenia by erasing existing memories and reprogramming the psyche. He commuted from Albany, New York to Montreal every week to work at the Allan Memorial Institute of McGill University and was paid $69,000 from 1957 to 1964 to carry out MKULTRA experiments there. In addition to LSD, Cameron also experimented with various paralytic drugs as well as electroconvulsive therapy at thirty to forty times the normal power. His "driving" experiments consisted of putting subjects into drug-induced coma for weeks at a time (up to three months in one case) while playing tape loops of noise or simple repetitive statements. His experiments were typically carried out on patients who had entered the institute for minor problems such as anxiety disorders and postpartum depression, many of whom suffered permanently from his actions.[32] His treatments resulted in victims' incontinence, amnesia, forgetting how to talk, forgetting their parents, and thinking their interrogators were their parents.[33] His work was inspired and paralleled by the British psychiatrist William Sargant at St Thomas' Hospital, London, and Belmont Hospital, Surrey, who was also involved in the Intelligence Services and who experimented extensively on his patients without their consent, causing similar long-term damage.[34]
It was during this era that Cameron became known worldwide as the first chairman of the World Psychiatric Association as well as president of the American and Canadian psychiatric associations. Cameron had also been a member of the Nuremberg medical tribunal in 1946–47.[35]
Naomi Klein states in her book The Shock Doctrine that Cameron's research and his contribution to the MKUltra project was actually not about mind control and brainwashing, but about designing "a scientifically based system for extracting information from 'resistant sources.' In other words, torture...Stripped of its bizarre excesses, Dr. Cameron's experiments, building upon Donald O. Hebb's earlier breakthrough, laid the scientific foundation for the CIA's two-stage psychological torture method."[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA#Canadian_experiments

 

[nismaratwork]

These type of practices don't surprise me for the time given the type of people who ran the mainstream psychology show back then.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA#Canadian_experiments

Well that's either missing, or ignoring my point, but then again I gave you flying cows so, OK.


The UFO craze of the 50's is no less surprising given the post-war reality of undiagnosed (and barely defined) PTSD, and other issues. Once again, under mass sightings see Flex's post regarding the miracle of the sun. Blue and Green is not a strange thing to see in the night sky, but how a country full of people interprets it?... another matter.

Maybe a better question is: Why have the descriptions of "UFO's" changed to keep pace with expectations of upcoming technology, or the best of the day? Are we being visited by FLEET of ETs? Can the military keep amazing secrets about programs, but they forget to turn off the big flashing lights at night?

OR... do we just go back to what we KNOW, which is that eyewitness reports SUCK. Look at that photo... that is what you get when zeal, ignorance, and arrogance gets you; it's what happens when even bright and (some) well intentioned people make assumptions and abandon science. ist Klar?

 

[jreelawg]

ENGINEER CLAIMS 'SAUCER' PLANS ARE IN SOVIET HANDS; SIGHTINGS IN AFRICA, IRAN,
8-18-1953

http://www.foia.cia.gov/

Just for fun go to the CIA freedom of information website and search unidentified flying object and read some of the declassified documents. Some reports worth reading can be found under this title,

SIGHTINGS OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS OVER SPAIN AND AFRICA, JULY - O CTOBER - 1952
http://www.foia.cia.gov/

After all the subject changing pointless ramblings and bad jokes, I still haven't heard any responses to the content of the information presented. Nisimar had some fun ridiculing me, flex posted some kind of pyramid, and ever since it seams clear there is very little interest in having a quality discussion or debate about UFO claims. I understand that by now Nisimar is probably just being a little sarcastic, overtly occupying level one of the pyramid.

 

[nismaratwork]

After all the subject changing pointless ramblings and bad jokes, I still haven't heard any responses to the content of the information presented. Nisimar had some fun ridiculing me, flex posted some kind of pyramid, and ever since it seams clear there is very little interest in having a quality discussion or debate about UFO claims. I understand that by now Nisimar is probably just being a little sarcastic, overtly occupying level one of the pyramid.

I'd love to refute your central point (top of the pyramid) if you offered one... oh wait, now we're back at burden of proof, and you prefer to just throw out a link and say, "discuss" in a rough voice.

So, if you have a case, make it and we can actually START on the pyramid: right now you're still at the "footsie" stage, hence the deeply serious response you garner.

 

[jreelawg]

I'd love to refute your central point (top of the pyramid) if you offered one... oh wait, now we're back at burden of proof, and you prefer to just throw out a link and say, "discuss" in a rough voice.

So, if you have a case, make it and we can actually START on the pyramid: right now you're still at the "footsie" stage, hence the deeply serious response you garner.

I brought up the commonality of 50's reports describing saucers with red and green flames. Your response had something to do with flying farting cows.

What I would have expected from a proper skeptic would be some insight on a phenomena which might be responsible or something of that nature. At some point you stopped being a proper skeptic and started burying topics and subjects in ridicule.

 

[nismaratwork]

I brought up the commonality of 50's reports describing saucers with red and green flames. Your response had something to do with flying farting cows.

What I would have expected from a proper skeptic would be some insight on a phenomena which might be responsible or something of that nature. At some point you stopped being a proper skeptic and started burying topics and subjects in ridicule.

I'm sorry, what was your point in bringing up those cases?

 

[FlexGunship]

What's up with the amount of early 50's flying saucer reports describing an emission of red and green flames?

What about 'em?

I'm sorry, what was your point in bringing up those cases?

Jreelawg, we've gone in circles. Please explain the historical significance of these reports. Why are these more important that, say, a modern mass-sighting? Because of the age? This stuff just isn't compelling. It's more of the same.

 

[alt]

There is a sect of people who make ET theories part of a religion or alternative interpretation of religious origins. What does it really have to do with UFO reports though? It helps if your advocating the disbelief in UFO report credibility to shift focus from a serious discussion stemming from the best extent of info you have to work with, to the area in which you have nothing to work with except sarcasm and cynicism.

In Roswell, wasn't it the Airforce which initially claimed they recovered a flying saucer and then retracted the statement? If nothing else, there must be some explanation for why they reported what they did, all you can do I guess is wonder?

It isn't hard however to introduce variables which could be consistent with most conclusions and allow for multiple people to think they found wreckage at different supposed crash sites without them being inaccurate or dishonest in their accounts.

I think maybe the trouble is that too many UFO skeptics rely on circular logic or fallacies as arguments when attempting to broadly debunk UFOs in general. Probably based primarily on the fact that attempting such a feat is futile. The best a person has is their own experiences, iffy information and their own intuition, not much else. People get lazy or just like to just BS or have a shallow superficial conversation about the issue sometimes forget the meaninglessness of the fruits of that conversation.

The most appropriate response to the UFO phenomena in terms of skepticism is just that there is no solid proof of any broad conclusion. Playing an adversarial role in a personal battle against people of different beliefs is fine, but not good or useful skepticism. Especially if your advocating other specific beliefs which are without proof. Are some who claim to be really skeptics? Do they just have a contradictory belief system to protect, or are they just doing it for spite?

Re bolded; I've always wondered about that. Perhaps it was deliberate confusion ?

 

[nismaratwork]

Re bolded; I've always wondered about that. Perhaps it was deliberate confusion ?

Given the institutional paranoia at that time, the post-war environment, it could have been NOTHING, and still I think the government would have led with hysteria, then shut down all info.

It could have been a balloon carrying a payload they didn't want known (remember, this is after Japan tried to use LTA craft as weapons during WWII), or just the left hand not knowing what the right is doing.

For example, when you see a death toll rise and fall as a crisis is being examined 'LIVE' on the news... you don't assume people are coming back to life and dying, you probably assume that the news is getting poor initial info. Given the media of the day, it WAS a pretty fast retraction/correction.

So, could it have been a lie? Sure... but there's no reason to believe it needed to be, or even malicious. After all, if the USAF told the COMPLETE truth as they saw it, until they realized they were bozos for an hour or two, and then told the truth again, but accurately this time... it would be what you see from people, AND groups.

edit: Of course, having "flip-flopped"... who believes then now, right? I think in the end, that's why Roswell just isn't a good example of UFO... in part because it didn't "F" much, and wasn't "U" for very long.

 

[jreelawg]

Well, according to the declassified CIA document, it was reported by a German engineer that flying saucers were developed by the Nazis, claiming that the first experimental flight took place in 1945. This report could have been disinformation or something, who knows? But, if it is true, then the reported recovery of a flying saucer crash in 1947 by the Air Force would make chronological sense. Perhaps the Air Force initially reported it because they weren't privy to knowledge of a secret flying saucer project?

On the other hand, maybe they just wanted to use the opportunity to make people think they had the so called "flying saucer technology", and so reported it?

Or, maybe they were just confused and hysteric and thought a spy balloon or weather balloon was a flying saucer until things got cleared up?

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, according to the declassified CIA document, it was reported by a German engineer that flying saucers were developed by the Nazis, claiming that the first experimental flight took place in 1945. This report could have been disinformation or something, who knows? But, if it is true, then the reported recovery of a flying saucer crash in 1947 by the Air Force would make chronological sense. Perhaps the Air Force initially reported it because they weren't privy to knowledge of a secret flying saucer project?

On the other hand, maybe they just wanted to use the opportunity to make people think they had the so called "flying saucer technology", and so reported it?

Or, maybe they were just confused and hysteric and thought a spy balloon or weather balloon was a flying saucer until things got cleared up?

The kind of "flying saucer" technology that was being experimented with (verified, not conjecture) was basic flying-wing design, that naturally failed due to aerodynamic instability, and no fly-by-wire for quite some time to come. Those objects are identified, and AFAIK only one really flew at all... before crashing.

Otherwise, when people start talking about WWII, Nazis, and flying saucers without new evidence, I tend to just tune out. Nothing personal, but you said it,

This report could have been disinformation or something, who knows?

Everything after that is a very interesting, but utterly unsupported conjectures and fantasies.

 

[jreelawg]

The kind of "flying saucer" technology that was being experimented with (verified, not conjecture) was basic flying-wing design, that naturally failed due to aerodynamic instability, and no fly-by-wire for quite some time to come. Those objects are identified, and AFAIK only one really flew at all... before crashing.

Otherwise, when people start talking about WWII, Nazis, and flying saucers without new evidence, I tend to just tune out. Nothing personal, but you said it, "This report could have been disinformation or something, who knows?". Everything after that is a very interesting, but utterly unsupported conjectures and fantasies.

If the report were truthful, then it would not have been those kind of "flying saucers" discussed.

Well, it's technically more supported than your theory that they were just confused.

 

[nismaratwork]

If the report were truthful, then it would not have been those kind of "flying saucers" discussed.

Well, it's technically more supported than your theory that they were just confused.

Neither are supported in the least.

If I give you a hundred anecdotal reports to support my claim, and you give me a workable alternate theory... we're EVEN... or rather we're both losers. Hence:

This report could have been disinformation or something, who knows?

Everything after that is a very interesting, but utterly unsupported conjectures and fantasies.

 

[jreelawg]

Neither are supported in the least.

If I give you a hundred anecdotal reports to support my claim, and you give me a workable alternate theory... we're EVEN... or rather we're both losers. Hence:

Well we have one 1953 claim by a supposed German engineer that the NAZI's developed the flying saucer first experimentally tested in 1945. We have the US air force claiming to recover a crashed flying saucer in 1947. And we have thousands of reports around the world of supposed flying saucer observations. I never claimed any specific level of credibility. Call it what you want, that is the information we have.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well we have one 1953 claim by a supposed German engineer that the NAZI's developed the flying saucer first experimentally tested in 1945. We have the US air force claiming to recover a crashed flying saucer in 1947. And we have thousands of reports around the world of supposed flying saucer observations. I never claimed any specific level of credibility. Call it what you want, that is the information we have.

...And? What do you make of this information?

I feel it's insufficient to support the claims, and of low quality in terms of evidentiary value.

Then again, I'm not presenting it for examination, you are... so what do you conclude upon examination, as the skeptic you say that you are?

 

[Smiley LUVA]

How do people know if there is UFOs? Do they have scientific prof? They would have to show me before they start telling us the exist! They can't. They don't. Only Area 51 does. And if they can't show us how can we believe them. How can they get people to believe them. Nothing is right anymore.

 

[Drakkith]

How do people know if there is UFOs? Do they have scientific prof? They would have to show me before they start telling us the exist! They can't. They don't. Only Area 51 does. And if they can't show us how can we believe them. How can they get people to believe them. Nothing is right anymore.

There is not sufficient evidence that alien spacecraft exist anywhere, even area 51.

 

[Redbelly98]

It looks like this discussion had run its course over a year ago.