- #106
alt
Gold Member
- 222
- 0
FlexGunship said:What are the rest? Illusions? Hoaxes?
.. don't forget advanced military technology.
The more serious ones are that, IMO.
FlexGunship said:What are the rest? Illusions? Hoaxes?
alt said:.. don't forget advanced military technology.
The more serious ones are that, IMO.
FlexGunship said:Isn't that card a little overplayed lately? My last job was with as an engineer at an aerospace defense contractor, and, yes, there was classified stuff, but it's just applications of current technology in very clever ways.
I assure you, as of 2010, there are no aircraft that operate on anti-gravity, or that can make 90-degree instant turns.
alt said:No doubt. And that does not exclude the possibility (probability IMO) that there is novel technology in use, not yet known to you.
You are not aware of the existence of something, and you assure me that it doesn't exist ?
PS - It is you who speaks of anti gravity - not I. I'm simply saying advanced technology.
FlexGunship said:Yes, yes... hyperbole. Useful for demonstrating a point, not useful for extracting specifics. I'm just saying that even the most fanciful military projects were developed based on clever applications of technology that was common knowledge. So postulating that objects with impossible behaviors are due to military projects is not a very productive line of thought.
EDIT: I'm suggesting that we should be postulating that objects with impossible behaviors are illusions, confusions, or hoaxes.
alt said:I suppose we need to cut to the chase at some point.
(Incidently, 'tis you who gave yourself a prize for idiotic discussion a few posts up, so don't be too quick to call mine hyperbole).
alt said:Take the Iran incident for instance. If there was proof either way, it would have long being tendered by now, by either side. But it hasn't (which leads me to wonder - what is the purpose of these threads, anyway ?).
FlexGunship said:Firstly, I called my own example "hyperbole" not your's.
Secondly, at least I openly admitted I was wrong. I suggest you find other examples on this forum.
Oddly, I think most of us would have to disagree. It seems like we came to a pretty definitive conclusion. Given the unreliability of the pilot's testimony (missile-lock and eject scenarios), the inexperience with the equipment (only acquired U.S. radar, missile, and fighter technology 4 years earlier), and the history of high ranking military officials to deny any mistakes, I think we've got this one wrapped up.
Proof? No. But a series of normal events is much more likely than a single outrageous event.
alt said:Nevertheless, outrageous events happen, and you could say your above, everytime one did.
alt said:You should have included a pic of Alice Cooper!
alt said:I disagree. I think it's a high candidate for advanced military technology...
FlexGunship said:"[Sire,] je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace)
FlexGunship said:Heh, he was picking up golf clubs one time at the shop I used to go to.
alt said:He restated and developed the nebular hypothesis of the origin of the solar system and was one of the first scientists to postulate the existence of black holes and the notion of gravitational collapse.
OUTRAGEOUS !
FlexGunship said:And did it all without postulating secret military aircraft!
When the claim is something like "executed a 90 degree turn" or "accelerated instantly", it isn't just technologically hard to fathom, it is an explicit violation of the laws of physics. So in order to accept the witness account, you have to accept two extrordinary events simultaneously as evidence for each other. That's not scientifically acceptable. So yes, if you're thinking scientifically you must reject, out of hand, such eyewitness accounts.alt said:You are not aware of the existence of something, and you assure me that it doesn't exist ?
PS - It is you who speaks of anti gravity - not I. I'm simply saying advanced technology.
russ_watters said:When the claim is something like "executed a 90 degree turn" or "accelerated instantly", it isn't just technologically hard to fathom, it is an explicit violation of the laws of physics. So in order to accept the witness account, you have to accept two extrordinary events simultaneously as evidence for each other. That's not scientifically acceptable. So yes, if you're thinking scientifically you must reject, out of hand, such eyewitness accounts.
russ_watters said:Pilots are often seen as "experts" by UFO advocates, but experts in what? It isn't like flight training includes courses in astronomy - pilots are not necessarily qualified to identify objects in the sky (does "in the sky" imply "in the atmosphere"...?). UFO reports from pilots are often chock-full of obvious false conclusions about what is being seen, just like reports from laypeople. They talk about distance, altitude, speed, size - all things they can't possibly know from what they see. These are conclusions/illusions generated in their heads, not observations. One thing astronomers are good at that others are not necessarily good at is understanding what they are actually seeing and overriding the brain's attempts to assign distance/altitude/speed/size to what they see. For example, when yous eee an object moving in the night sky, odds are good it is either a plane or a satellite. But while either may cover the same chunk of your field of view in the same time (and that time can be highly variable), the satellite is traveling 20x higher and faster.
If anything, I get the impression that the training pilots get conditions them to attempt to assess distance, altitude, speed, and size even without the information required to do that. That can make them worse even than laypeople when it comes to UFO sightings.
alt said:a) everyone who has ever seen a UFO has halucinated / made a mistake, or
b) aliens from another world, from somewhere within that 13.7bly universe that we're supposed to be in the centre of, found us in space, and just so happened to be coincident to our present existence in a 13.7b year time frame as well (a laughably miniscule probability) .. and then frigged around with some planes ..
[...]
Can you think of any others, other than 'stoopid hallucinating people' ?
russ_watters said:The pigeons thing reminds me of another compelling piece of evidence: the vast proliferation of low-cost/high-quality imaging equipment has not improved the signal to noise ratio of the sightings. This implies that the noise is the signal being analyzed.
russ_watters said:It is a bit like when anti-Einstein crackpots use the error margins in the various repeats of the MMx as "evidence" that there is an ether drift. It just doesn't work that way: if the evidence is not of sufficient quality to separate the effect from the noise, then it simply can't be said to be showing the claimed effect.
FlexGunship said:First of all, that's a hugely false dichotomy (or trichotomy, since you're proposing an alternative). I would phrase it as "illusion, confusion, hallucination, or hoax." That seems to cover every possible case.
And I can't think of a more biased thing to say than "stupid hallucinating people."
It's a common experience of the human condition. We're relying on dumb light receptors passing electrical impulses, sometimes noisy and full of out-of-context information, and relying on a rather clumsily assembled interpretation center at the back of our brain where we compare the signals to other signals that we've seen in the past.
Often, we come up with false matches. And I mean often. The fact that some of these false matches are interpreted as military craft or alien spaceships is also entirely expected since the only frame of reference we are give is through pop culture; movies, music, pictures, and books.
UFO sightings are exactly the type of hallucination you would expect to happen often with this recipe.
Andre said:You forgot phlogiston contrarian.
But I guess this thread has run it's course?
Pythagorean said:Though I am still perplexed about this scenario. If the members of the Iranian Air Force were all lying (or group hallucinating) then there's an interesting story there anyway about humans.
FlexGunship said:Furthermore, if most are simply cases of confusion or illusion, with a few cases of hallucination and hoax, why wouldn't we just admit that they all could be? And until something compelling arises, we will depart from the wild speculation.
jreelawg said:Why does everyone need to agree with you? Have you considered that your opinions are nothing more than speculation?
FlexGunship said:See, I literally cannot find a way to sympathize with this type of thinking. I'm sorry. To speculate an extraordinary explanation for a mundane event is not scientific-thinking. I mean, this website is literally named after science. These are the forums in which intellectual discussion should be encouraged in the most vigorous manner.
I fully acknowledge that some of the sightings could truly have extraordinary explanations. That being said, there is no reason to believe those explanations right now. It's not a matter of opinion; really. Your choice of words seems to indicate we are discussing favorite bands, or best movies; something where everyone is equally entitled to have an opinion. But that's not the case.
Here we are discussing objective reality. The truth of human existence. The mere fact that we are so willing to accept such wild explanations for events that simply don't call for them should be a warning flag to everyone. I know precisely what evidence I would have to see to prove to me that a particular sighting is not a case of confusion, illusion, hallucination, or hoax. I know exactly what it would take.
But instead, we have a group here that freely accepts even the flimsiest precursor to evidence as "enough." This is not scientific discourse and it is not scientific thinking. Science is the best tool we have to understanding reality, and we need to resist the urge to throw it away or make exceptions when it is in danger of ruining our fun.
Don't get me wrong, I love UFO shows (HBO had the best series, and I have every episode), and I like watching Ghost Hunters, and Destination Truth. But I don't mistake it for scientific content; it's entertainment. There should be a lesson behind these shows: look how easily even the brightest humans are fooled. None of us are exempt from the plight of unreasonable thinking.
We need to admit that it's okay to think about it (fun, in fact), but that it's just not true. Not yet anyway. There is no evidence that UFOs are anything spectacular or unusual. The sheer number of reports should indicate to us how mundane and commonplace this experience is for humans; how easy it is for us to be tricked by our own senses.
FlexGunship said:No, alt is still talking. Can someone else take a whack at this for a while.
By the way, "illusion, confusion, hallucination, and hoax" is hardly a quatrotomy (quadchotomy?). Illusion describes thousands of possible experiences. Confusion describes ever more! This is an entire spectrum of human interaction with reality and none of it requires aliens or super-high-tech secret military aircraft.
How is that not more reasonable? You need nothing extraordinary to explain it. Furthermore, if most are simply cases of confusion or illusion, with a few cases of hallucination and hoax, why wouldn't we just admit that they all could be? And until something compelling arises, we will depart from the wild speculation.
The best human observer is hardly better than a mediocre video camera. Both can be easily fooled, but at least the video camera's memory of the event doesn't degrade over time, and it's not subject to re-interpretation.
jreelawg said:Your ruling out scientific possibilities on the basis of "wildness". I consider where you draw the line, a matter of taste not substance. I've been anticipating the next argument to be Hitler believed in UFO's, and he's a socialist.
The young fellow turned to me and said “WOW! Did you see that? A UFO just flew across the Big Dipper!” “Yes” I replied, “That happens occasionally up here, and it turns out that they are not UFOs, but pigeons.” I then launched into an explanation ...
this young fellow was not having anything that I was telling him. He knew what he saw (well perceived actually) and he certainly did not see any pigeon. It was written all over his face, the absolute disbelief at what he was hearing. ...
The expression on his face gradually changed from disbelief, through comprehension, to Eureka! as he was trying to figure out what was happening. He then took a step backwards, pointed a finger at me, and shouted “YOU’RE PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!”...
And so he turned and walked away, apparently secure in the knowledge of two things. Firstly, there are Flying Saucers visiting us, and secondly, there is a grand conspiracy afoot to keep this knowledge from the general public
alt said:OK - in sum, you have a low estimation of human capabilities and potentials, I have a high one.
jreelawg said:Your ruling out scientific possibilities on the basis of "wildness". I consider where you draw the line, a matter of taste not substance. I've been anticipating the next argument to be Hitler believed in UFO's, and he's a socialist.
FlexGunship said:It really reads like a very hum-drum military gaff. I'm sure the same thing happened plenty of times in the U.S. we just didn't go bragging about it or kept a slightly better secret.