Are UFO Sightings Just Misidentified Natural Occurrences?

[nismaratwork]

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

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

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

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

 

[ecsspace]

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

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

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

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

 

[ecsspace]

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

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

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

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

 

[nismaratwork]

OK, I understand. Thanks for your patience ecsspace.

 

[ecsspace]

OK, I understand. Thanks for your patience ecsspace.

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

 

[pftest]

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

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

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

 

[nismaratwork]

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

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

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

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

 

[nismaratwork]

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

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

 

[jreelawg]

I'm now forced to ask you a question:

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

OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[pftest]

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

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

I think you misread the bold bit.

 

[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'.