GUARANTEED U.F.O. sighting...

[King of the Americas]

...'everytime'.

Well, I'll come down off that and say 99% of the time... You doubt my claim?

It is relatively 'easy' to capture an "unidentifed flying object" with a camera, film or photo.

Mount your camera, pointed at the Sun, and then shade all or most of the Sun with a dense object (like a building), except for its very most outter edge...then watch and wait, begin film, or start taking pictures.

I have very little doubt that you WILL see, film, or photograph 'something' that you can't identify.

Try it you might be surprised at what you capture.

;)

[Locknar]

Then again, you might not be suprised at all....

[paximperium]

...'everytime'.

Well, I'll come down off that and say 99% of the time... You doubt my claim?

It is relatively 'easy' to capture an "unidentifed flying object" with a camera, film or photo.

Mount your camera, pointed at the Sun, and then shade all or most of the Sun with a dense object (like a building), except for its very most outter edge...then watch and wait, begin film, or start taking pictures.

I have very little doubt that you WILL see, film, or photograph 'something' that you can't identify.

Try it you might be surprised at what you capture.

;)
Come on.

The Reptoid 2nd Armada is hiding the sun's glare using transdimensional cloaking field that can only be revealed by a camera. Everyone knows that.

[Drudgewire]

Then again, you might not be suprised at all....


Or you'll see many things you can identify as long as you understand jack spit about photography and in particular what happens within the camera when you point it at the sun.

Here's a hint or two (http://www.vrphotography.com/data/pages/askexperts/basics/pointatsun.html).

[MattC]

I'd also point out that me not comprehending something and it being unidentifiable to anyone else with greater knowledge of photography is completely uncorrelated. The idea that you can say "I don't understand <insert apparently complex thing here> so it's proof of <anything other than 'I don't understand'>" and believe it effective seems rather egotistical.

[Cuddles]

Of course, since the "something" wouldn't actually be flying, that would only be a UO at most. Which is less interesting, but involves less probes.

[Soapy Sam]

Choose any windy day.
Take a photo of the sky.
Examine enlarged image.
I'll bet you find two or three flying objects you can't identify.

Now photograph the gutter.
I bet there's a few things there you won't even want to identify.

[Lanzy]

Good grief, can't we just define UFO as "flying saucer"? Maybe other worldly or other demensional craft? This; "Look a UFO because I don't know what it is" if just goofy. When someone ways they saw a UFO I expect at least some belief in space people. Just say, Look, something I can't currently identify but I'm sure has an explanation if I just think about it.

[Correa Neto]

What exactly is the point of this thread? Its a parody thread, right? He´s not actually claiming lens flares are UFOs invisible to human eye, is he?

[EHocking]

...'everytime'.

Well, I'll come down off that and say 99% of the time... You doubt my claim?

It is relatively 'easy' to capture an "unidentifed flying object" with a camera, film or photo.

Mount your camera, pointed at the Sun, and then shade all or most of the Sun with a dense object (like a building), except for its very most outter edge...then watch and wait, begin film, or start taking pictures.

I have very little doubt that you WILL see, film, or photograph 'something' that you can't identify.

Try it you might be surprised at what you capture.

;)Wow, are you behind the times or what?

This from an Usenet post of mine - 07 Jan 1998 (http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/dbeb08755272efdb):


The technique is for filming UFO's and is attributed to John Bro.

In short, position yourself so that the sun is just blocked by an eave and
you can see the sun's 'corona'. What this area for some 5 to 10 minutes
(wear sunglasses) and soon you will see "UFO's" dashing around. This is not
an optical illusion, as you can set up a camcorder to record these objects.
I've seen some of the results and they are better than some of the best
frauds I've seen.
Hopefully someone on sci.skeptic will recognise this and be able to supply
an URL. I do have a JPEG of a sketch of the setup from the site if you're
interested. And will give full credit where credit is due if I can track
down the website.

ETA - in other words - "rods" etc.....

[King of the Americas]

Wow, are you behind the times or what?

This from an Usenet post of mine - 07 Jan 1998 (http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/dbeb08755272efdb):


The technique is for filming UFO's and is attributed to John Bro.

In short, position yourself so that the sun is just blocked by an eave and
you can see the sun's 'corona'. What this area for some 5 to 10 minutes
(wear sunglasses) and soon you will see "UFO's" dashing around. This is not
an optical illusion, as you can set up a camcorder to record these objects.
I've seen some of the results and they are better than some of the best
frauds I've seen.
Hopefully someone on sci.skeptic will recognise this and be able to supply
an URL. I do have a JPEG of a sketch of the setup from the site if you're
interested. And will give full credit where credit is due if I can track
down the website.

ETA - in other words - "rods" etc.....

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. I in no way meant to suggest that 'I' found this myself.

The "rods" I found with my camera were very interesting, both in size and activity.

I know I could in no way verify that these little 'objects' are E.T. piloted or controlled by inter-dimensional beings, but what I found was indeed interesting...

You should try it, if you haven't already.

[Drudgewire]

Yeah, I've been hearing about the rods at least since the late 90s. It's every bit the "proof" of UFOs that "mysterious orbs" are of ghosts.

[Horatius]

The "rods" I found with my camera were very interesting, both in size and activity.

I know I could in no way verify that these little 'objects' are E.T. piloted or controlled by inter-dimensional beings, but what I found was indeed interesting...

You should try it, if you haven't already.



What size did you determine them to be, and how did you do that?

[King of the Americas]

Yeah, I've been hearing about the rods at least since the late 90s. It's every bit the "proof" of UFOs that "mysterious orbs" are of ghosts.

What are "mysterious orbs", 'proof' of...?

Camera defects, light glinting off of something, what?

ARE all 'rods' created equal?

My point is that they are a 'something', rather than a 'nothing'.

[King of the Americas]

What size did you determine them to be, and how did you do that?

Very small...

None larger than a house fly.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Who needs the Sun or a camera? Just get someone to poke you in the eye. See those "orbs".

Sheesh. :boggled:

[Drudgewire]

Very small...

None larger than a house fly.


Which makes sense, because that's what they are.

Ever seen one of these pictures?

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/baja-star-trails-403588-ga.jpg


It's done by keeping the shutter on the camera open. What happens with moving images is with a constantly adjusting shutter, flies and moths create the appearance of rods.

Quoting the wiki:

On August 8-9 2005, China Central Television (CCTV) aired a two-part documentary about flying rods in China. It reported an incident which happened from May to June of the same year at Tonghua Zhenguo Pharmaceutical Company in Tonghua City, Jilin Province, which debunked the flying rods. Surveillance cameras in the facility's compound captured video footage of flying rods identical to those shown in Jose Escamilla's video. Getting no satisfactory answer to the phenomenon, the curious research staff of the facility, being scientists, decided that they would try to solve the mystery by attempting to catch these airborne creatures. Huge nets were set up and the same surveillance cameras then captured images of rods flying into the trap. When the nets were inspected, the "rods" were no more than regular moths and other ordinary flying insects. Subsequent investigations proved that the appearance of flying rods on video was an optical illusion created by the slower recording speed of the camera (done to save video space). This is the empirical evidence showing that the "rods" themselves can be captured, and that they do indeed prove to be ordinary animals.


Followed immediately by:


The History Channel series Monster Quest season 1, episode 111, first aired on January 9, 2008, includes footage where a "rod" is captured simultaneously by a traditional video camera and a high-speed camera. While the video recorded by the traditional camera showed a brightly-illuminated "rod" with multiple undulating wings, the high-speed video clearly showed a common moth flying across its field of view.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_(cryptozoology))

[Horatius]

Very small...

None larger than a house fly.



I was hoping you would say that.

[Drudgewire]

I was hoping you would say that.


I could have told him in my first post what they were but I was PRAYING for that set-up. :newlol

[Robert Oz]

It's amazing how many extra-terrestrials seem to be coming from Uranus. :D



(Sorry, I never get tired of Uranus jokes.)

[EHocking]

It's amazing how many extra-terrestrials seem to be coming from Uranus. :D



(Sorry, I never get tired of Uranus jokes.)Stop arsing about.
Some deeply probing questions are being assked here:boxedin:

[dudalb]

I LOVE this smiley and this thread is such a perfect fit for it:


:alien011:

[EHocking]

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. I in no way meant to suggest that 'I' found this myself.

The "rods" I found with my camera were very interesting, both in size and activity.

I know I could in no way verify that these little 'objects' are E.T. piloted or controlled by inter-dimensional beings, but what I found was indeed interesting...

You should try it, if you haven't already.My original usenet posts were to both sceptic and photography groups. I assure you it'd be a safe bet that I've looked into it. It was uninteresting 10 years ago and that hasn't changed.

Feel free to share any compelling stills or video that might sway my disinterest.

[Senex]

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/baja-star-trails-403588-ga.jpg


This is a photo of an armada of Klingons hiding near Uranus.

[Horatius]

My original usenet posts were to both sceptic and photography groups. I assure you it'd be a safe bet that I've looked into it. It was uninteresting 10 years ago and that hasn't changed.

Feel free to share any compelling stills or video that might sway my disinterest.


Read the later posts. It seems to me that KotA is having a bit of fun:


Very small...

None larger than a house fly.

[EHocking]

Read the later posts. It seems to me that KotA is having a bit of fun:Usually the fall back position when backpedalling,
My point is that they are a 'something', rather than a 'nothing'.

[Drudgewire]

Read the later posts. It seems to me that KotA is having a bit of fun:


He's been having it for a long time if that's the case. Read his post history. :boggled:

[Robert Oz]

Stop arsing about.
Some deeply probing questions are being assked here:boxedin:


I hear that the Earth has been protected from extra-terrestrials for centuries by the gases coming from Uranus. :jaw-dropp

[kittynh]

yeah but how do you tell a black hole from Uranus?

[King of the Americas]

Which makes sense, because that's what they are.

Ever seen one of these pictures?

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/baja-star-trails-403588-ga.jpg


It's done by keeping the shutter on the camera open. What happens with moving images is with a constantly adjusting shutter, flies and moths create the appearance of rods.

Quoting the wiki:




Followed immediately by:




Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_(cryptozoology))

Didn't one of those programs feature a fossil of an actual flying rod, from the pre-columbian period?

Maybe they just got smaller and faster?

Indeed, 'some' of them might just be bugs and slow camera speeds, but who's to say they just didn't evolve into something we have yet to pin down for examination...

I'll be the first one to admit that my camera is NOT up to snuff to further investigate.

[RoboTimbo]

Didn't one of those programs feature a fossil of an actual flying rod, from the pre-columbian period?

Maybe they just got smaller and faster?

Indeed, 'some' of them might just be bugs and slow camera speeds, but who's to say they just didn't evolve into something we have yet to pin down for examination...

I'll be the first one to admit that my camera is NOT up to snuff to further investigate.


It would be helpful if rods didn't look exactly like bugs flying through frame with a slow shutter speed. Or that could be some defense mechanism that they evolved so we couldn't tell the difference.

[EHocking]

didn't one of those programs feature a fossil of an actual flying rod, from the pre-columbian period?

Maybe they just got smaller and faster?

Indeed, 'some' of them might just be bugs and slow camera speeds, but who's to say they just didn't evolve into something we have yet to pin down for examination...

I'll be the first one to admit that my camera is not up to snuff to further investigate.

NO (tm)

[King of the Americas]

NO (tm)

How do you 'prove' something is extinct?

[Galaxie]

How do you 'prove' something is extinct?

What does that question have to do with "rods"?

They can't be extinct if they never actually existed, you know.

[EHocking]

How do you 'prove' something is extinct?What Galaxie said.

About the only sentence that was vaguely towards being correct was that if a fossil record existed it would, of course, be pre-columbian, since by definition, ALL fossils are.

So not only was it a trivial point, it was done in error in the first place.

The irony is that if you'd typed what you actually thought you had meant, you'd have been, again, incorrect.

[technoextreme]

Which makes sense, because that's what they are.

Ever seen one of these pictures?

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/baja-star-trails-403588-ga.jpg


It's done by keeping the shutter on the camera open. What happens with moving images is with a constantly adjusting shutter, flies and moths create the appearance of rods.

Quoting the wiki:




Followed immediately by:




Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_(cryptozoology))
Actually that is the wrong explanation for some of this phenomenon. Some of the weird rods are lens artifacts. I'll dredge the swift article up but you can get perfectly focused pictures with rods depending on either the light source or the lens system because of reflections in the lens system.

[fuelair]

It's amazing how many extra-terrestrials seem to be coming from Uranus. :D



(Sorry, I never get tired of Uranus jokes.)So, what's the difference between your mouth and Uranus? Uranus is clean!!:D

[fuelair]

yeah but how do you tell a black hole from Uranus?
I didn't know black holes were from Uranus!:confused::jaw-dropp

[TjW]

Very small...

None larger than a house fly.

If watching something the size of a house fly seems small to you, what would you call a large UFO? Houses are pretty darn big.

[King of the Americas]

What does that question have to do with "rods"?

They can't be extinct if they never actually existed, you know.

I think you missed the fact that "flying rods" DID exist, albeit a VERY VERY long time ago.

I'm looking for an image, or a good link...

[Galaxie]

I think you missed the fact that "flying rods" DID exist, albeit a VERY VERY long time ago.

I'm looking for an image, or a good link...

Oh, so it's a fact now? :rolleyes:

[Senex]

Actually that is the wrong explanation for some of this phenomenon. Some of the weird rods are lens artifacts. I'll dredge the swift article up but you can get perfectly focused pictures with rods depending on either the light source or the lens system because of reflections in the lens system.

Lens artifacts -- or skid marks?

[MRC_Hans]

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. I in no way meant to suggest that 'I' found this myself.

The "rods" I found with my camera were very interesting, both in size and activity.

I know I could in no way verify that these little 'objects' are E.T. piloted or controlled by inter-dimensional beings, but what I found was indeed interesting...

You should try it, if you haven't already.Those objects are insects, dandelion seeds, and other small flying stuff that is illuminated by the sun. Sunlight is diffracted off their surfaces making them look bright. Normally, you will not see them because they are drowned out by the glare of the sun, but if you shield that....

You can do the same with a spotlight at night (stand in the beam at some distance from the spotlight, mask out the spotlight itself).

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

How do you 'prove' something is extinct?You don't. But if you never observe one, or a dead one, or excrements form one, or any other evidence of one, you have the right to assume it is not there.

Hans

[EHocking]

I think you missed the fact that "flying rods" DID exist, albeit a VERY VERY long time ago.

I'm looking for an image, or a good link...You won't find a good photo or link, because the "evidence" from Swartz that is bandied about by UFO proponents is pure fantasy on his part.

Further, he adds to his fantasy by misrepresenting the facts behind his fossil "evidence" and compounds it by the usual "bleever" trick of selectively misquoting scientific evidence to suit his belief. Naturally, all the sites that quote him, bleevers all, apply absolutely no critical investigation of his claims, but merely repeat his fantasy as fact.

Because it more suits a bleever to misrepresent facts, data and science to support their fantasy that it is for them to honestly investigate such "evidence".

[RoboTimbo]

I think you missed the fact that "flying rods" DID exist, albeit a VERY VERY long time ago.

I'm looking for an image, or a good link...


You are the one who is stating as fact that flying rods existed, you should be providing the evidence for why you believe that this is true.

By the way, just exactly how did you arrive at your conclusion without any evidence?

[Drudgewire]

I think you missed the fact that "flying rods" DID exist, albeit a VERY VERY long time ago.


They'd still be here today if only unicorns hadn't found them so delicious and driven them to extinction. :(

[Correa Neto]

I am eagerly awaiting the fossil evidence for such species...

Hopefully it will not be a pic of Rod Stewart...

[Galaxie]

They'd still be here today if only unicorns hadn't found them so delicious and driven them to extinction. :(

The unicorns were patsies. It was the bigfeets I tells ya! :eek:

[King of the Americas]

You are the one who is stating as fact that flying rods existed, you should be providing the evidence for why you believe that this is true.

By the way, just exactly how did you arrive at your conclusion without any evidence?

I'd like to apologise...

My memory has not served me very well, in regards to this subject.

I recalled those appearing on this show, about "rods", holding up what they said were models created using fossil remains, of what was supposed to be "flying rods". They were about 2-3 feet in length, and didn't look very aerodynamic.

My memory was they they HAD found fossils of these creatures...

After a few searches, I could find no such thing, so I must be wrong about what the programs featured.

That said, without such evidence available, one could ONLY conclude that these "rods" don't exist. Those that appear in my camera footage may only be photographic anomolies.

The whole point of beginning this post, was to 'prove' that unidentified flying objects DO exist, and that anyone can easily capture them with amature equipment.

If you'll do as my initial post suggests, you'll see that I am correct.

You might be able to theorize what these rod actually are, based on their size, and what flyings insects are native to your filming area, but I think it would still be difficult to positively determine each and every object your equipment captures.

The point underlying this whole post, is that it is EASY to capture a U.F.O. on film or in a video, but that this isn't the same thing as saying you have evidence of something other worldly, or something as of yet undiscovered.

Without something 'physical' to positively identify something, how could you determine what ANY object is?

I mean if you were to capture a real flying saucer, with a video camera, how could anyone say without a doubt that the object captured was something real?

Even with the best analysis, all one could hope to conclude, was that you didn't know what it was...

Given we have no physical evidence of flying saucers, a video featuring one, would do nothing to confirm anything.

[Correa Neto]

Well, you have in your hands evidence that memory can fail and create details. May give you some interesting perspectives on the accuracy of recollections say, from an UFO sighting which happened years ago, don't you think?

[EHocking]

I'd like to apologise...

My memory has not served me very well, in regards to this subject.

I recalled those appearing on this show, about "rods", holding up what they said were models created using fossil remains, of what was supposed to be "flying rods". They were about 2-3 feet in length, and didn't look very aerodynamic.

My memory was they they HAD found fossils of these creatures...

After a few searches, I could find no such thing, so I must be wrong about what the programs featured.
Your memory isn't quite as bad as you thought, you've merely been mislead, i.e. this is the quote that is most perpetuated by bleevers and most probably relates to the show you saw,

"Swartz points out 'If you look at the fossil record, there is only one creature that ever lived that had the rod mode of locomotion, and this was the dominant predator of the time called anamalocaris, which lived in the sea during the Cambrian evolutionary expansion 400 million years ago.' According to Swartz 'the creature propelled itself by a row of plates or fins that vibrated in a similar manner to the membranes seen on rods, it is possible that anamalocaris is the evolutionary ancestor of rods.'"
That said, without such evidence available, one could ONLY conclude that these "rods" don't exist. Those that appear in my camera footage may only be photographic anomolies.

The whole point of beginning this post, was to 'prove' that unidentified flying objects DO exist, and that anyone can easily capture them with amature equipment.

If you'll do as my initial post suggests, you'll see that I am correct. If you had only left that statement, I would be wholly agreeing with you. Unidentified Objects being the operative phrase.

But, most of the issue is not being taken with the claim that the Bros technique produces interesting anomalies, this is undisputed and easily demonstrated, the problem is that you seem to be buying the UFOers claim that "UFOs often hide by placing themselves directly in front of the sun,...With the Bro technique, you can still catch them on film." (http://www.rense.com/general11/NK.HTM)

And then compound the reaction you'll get here by declaring that these, possibly photographic, anomalies are rods. e.g.
You might be able to theorize what these rod actually are, based on their size, and what flyings insects are native to your filming area, but I think it would still be difficult to positively determine each and every object your equipment captures. Again, it's possible that unicorns exist, but the probability is that they don't. Your jump from blurred dots captured on video to the declaration that we are viewing rods is, mostly, what you're getting called on in this thread.

The point underlying this whole post, is that it is EASY to capture a U.F.O. on film or in a video, but that this isn't the same thing as saying you have evidence of something other worldly, or something as of yet undiscovered. While you seem to recognise this fact, you've continued to refer to the photographic anomalies as "rods", with the implication that these "rods" are other than terrestrial in nature.

Without something 'physical' to positively identify something, how could you determine what ANY object is?Astronomers do it all the time. It merely takes critical analyses of the available data.
I mean if you were to capture a real flying saucer, with a video camera, how could anyone say without a doubt that the object captured was something real?

Even with the best analysis, all one could hope to conclude, was that you didn't know what it was...Obversely, you can also conclude what it isn't, and by ruling out possibilities at least come to a determination of it's probable origin.
Given we have no physical evidence of flying saucers, a video featuring one, would do nothing to confirm anything.I'm afraid that, personally, I'd be sceptical in the extreme of video evidence until physical evidence was supplied.

Before you shoot me down for that, I don't apply this scepticism selectively. For instance being a keen birdwatcher for most of my life (see sig) , I have seriously doubts that the evidence presented by Cornell (http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/evidence/)to date shows that a bird thought extinct, the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, has indeed be rediscovered. The original video from 2004 is intriguing, but not compelling in my mind, indeed, if I was to be downright crotchety, it is hardly better than the video evidence put forward for the existence of bigfoot or UFOs. Further, this first evidence of the bird has, again in my estimation, not been augmented with much more, and certainly not much better evidence for the existence of the IBWP despite 4 years of dedicated searching.

It's not a matter of belief, or of wishful thinking (in my case of the rediscovery of the IBWP), it is solely a matter of providing incontrovertible physical evidence.

[RoboTimbo]

I'd like to apologise...

My memory has not served me very well, in regards to this subject.

I recalled those appearing on this show, about "rods", holding up what they said were models created using fossil remains, of what was supposed to be "flying rods". They were about 2-3 feet in length, and didn't look very aerodynamic.

My memory was they they HAD found fossils of these creatures...

After a few searches, I could find no such thing, so I must be wrong about what the programs featured.

Ah, I remember the show you're referring to. It's a MonsterQuest episode titled (from memory here) Unidentified Flying Creatures.

That said, without such evidence available, one could ONLY conclude that these "rods" don't exist. Those that appear in my camera footage may only be photographic anomolies.

The whole point of beginning this post, was to 'prove' that unidentified flying objects DO exist, and that anyone can easily capture them with amature equipment.

If you'll do as my initial post suggests, you'll see that I am correct.

Fair enough.

You might be able to theorize what these rod actually are, based on their size, and what flyings insects are native to your filming area, but I think it would still be difficult to positively determine each and every object your equipment captures.

If I don't rule out each and every one that appears, are you saying that they could still be rods?


The point underlying this whole post, is that it is EASY to capture a U.F.O. on film or in a video, but that this isn't the same thing as saying you have evidence of something other worldly, or something as of yet undiscovered.


Or you're not saying that?


Without something 'physical' to positively identify something, how could you determine what ANY object is?

I mean if you were to capture a real flying saucer, with a video camera, how could anyone say without a doubt that the object captured was something real?

Even with the best analysis, all one could hope to conclude, was that you didn't know what it was...

Given we have no physical evidence of flying saucers, a video featuring one, would do nothing to confirm anything.

I guess we'll leave it there.

[Cuddles]

Before you shoot me down for that, I don't apply this scepticism selectively. For instance being a keen birdwatcher for most of my life (see sig) , I have seriously doubts that the evidence presented by Cornell (http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/evidence/)to date shows that a bird thought extinct, the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, has indeed be rediscovered. The original video from 2004 is intriguing, but not compelling in my mind, indeed, if I was to be downright crotchety, it is hardly better than the video evidence put forward for the existence of bigfoot or UFOs. Further, this first evidence of the bird has, again in my estimation, not been augmented with much more, and certainly not much better evidence for the existence of the IBWP despite 4 years of dedicated searching.

It's not a matter of belief, or of wishful thinking (in my case of the rediscovery of the IBWP), it is solely a matter of providing incontrovertible physical evidence.

While I generally agree, taking only the current physical evidence into account ignores other important components of skepticism. For these examples, past evidence and prior probability are very important. There is no good evidence that aliens have ever visited Earth, or for any of the other wooish explanations given for UFOs such as in this thead. However, there is evidence that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker once existed. There is further evidence that species once though extinct sometimes turn out not to be, and even if this were not the case it could easily be deduced by the fact that we do not have knowledge of every lifeform everywhere on Earth.

While the current evidence, in this case videos of UFOs and woodpeckers, might be of the same standard, it does not follow that we should be equally skeptical of both. A blurry UFO video is just one among thousands of others and really says nothing about the existence of whatever it is supposed to be evidence of. On the other hand, while a blurry video of an Ivory Billed Woodpecker certainly doesn't prove that it still exists, it does provide evidence in its favour.

[EHocking]

While I generally agree, taking only the current physical evidence into account ignores other important components of skepticism. For these examples, past evidence and prior probability are very important. There is no good evidence that aliens have ever visited Earth, or for any of the other wooish explanations given for UFOs such as in this thead. However, there is evidence that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker once existed. There is further evidence that species once though extinct sometimes turn out not to be, and even if this were not the case it could easily be deduced by the fact that we do not have knowledge of every lifeform everywhere on Earth.

While the current evidence, in this case videos of UFOs and woodpeckers, might be of the same standard, it does not follow that we should be equally skeptical of both. A blurry UFO video is just one among thousands of others and really says nothing about the existence of whatever it is supposed to be evidence of. On the other hand, while a blurry video of an Ivory Billed Woodpecker certainly doesn't prove that it still exists, it does provide evidence in its favour.I certainly have no issue with your summary above, except that you've taken the implication that I am equally sceptical of each example.

I certainly don't put the "evidence" for ET UFOs and BF in the same category as IBWP, I only used it to demonstrate that my scepticism is catholic in nature.

But because of that catholic approach, I do maintain that the video evidence Cornell have presented is not compelling to me. The audio evidence of tree "knocks" is even less compelling, but at least Cornell admits that this evidence is not up to a standard that they can place great confidence in (they have no IBWP recordings to compare recent ones to).

Expert or not, they can be wrong as I have had personal experience with, so being very aware of arguments by authority, I like to read all of the evidence and conclusions put forward and come to my own conclusions.

As a follow up to the discussion on physical evidence, I have a greater confidence, for instance, that the Australian Night Parrot (http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/night-parrot.html) is probably not extinct than I do that an IBWP was correctly identified in 2004. I only use this example because I have a background with it. It was my father's life long yearning to rediscover this parrot. He believes he may well have sighted one after it's rediscovery, but being a man who's honest with himself has always put if forward as "a possible sighting", if not even down to wishful thinking.

So yes, there certainly is precedent for the rediscovery of species formally thought to be extinct but (for me at least) the proof is in the physical pudding. At least we have bodies that are very probably that of the Night Parrot, while we have no physical evidence for recent sightings of the IBWP.

In that sense, at least, I agree with KoA that "mere" video of BF or ET would not have me convinced to the possibility of their existence. The only conclusion I am comfortable with on the IBWP video is, "requires further investigation". I don't know if I can fully agree that it provides evidence in favour of it's rediscovery, so in a small way it shifts (for me) ever so slightly towards being as useful as blobsquatch videos, I'm afraid.

[King of the Americas]

Without 'something' to lok at, examine close, and indeed 'test' against...you photos, video, or digital recordings are evidence of anything 'quantifiable'...

They ARE however, unidentified flying ... somethings ...

What was really weird about the flight patterns I witnessed, it was at is the thing was literially floating gentle like, on a breeze, and then it zoomed out of the field almost invisible, and in different directions, regardless of the wind's direction. Interesting stufff, really.

[EHocking]

Without 'something' to lok at, examine close, and indeed 'test' against...you photos, video, or digital recordings are evidence of anything 'quantifiable'...I find it difficult to parse any of that...

They ARE however, unidentified flying ... somethings ...That was not in dispute.
What was really weird about the flight patterns I witnessed, it was at is the thing was literially floating gentle like, on a breeze, and then it zoomed out of the field almost invisible, and in different directions,Ever watched a butterfly? Flight is random as all hell. Similarly wasps, small beetles etc etc. A dust mote in a "still" room even moreso with no "visible" reason for it's motion.regardless of the wind's direction. Interesting stufff, really.No. Not really...

[King of the Americas]

[QUOTE=EHocking;4198816]I find it difficult to parse any of that...[QUOTE]

Scientifically speaking, phots do NOT = 'evidence'.

Without the actual physical specimine in front of you to 'test' against, you don't have proof of anything.

I apologise for my poorly written remark.

That sentence should have said: "Without 'something' to look at, examine closely, and indeed 'test' against...your photos, video, or digital recordings aren't evidence of anything 'quantifiable'..."

[MattusMaximus]

UFOs do exist.

Every time you observe something in the sky - and you don't know what it is - you are observing a UFO.

Hence the 'U' in UFO - it means unidentified.

The question needs to be rephrased as follows: Is there any evidence that alien spacecraft have been observed?

I would have to answer, rather firmly, no.

[EHocking]

[quote=EHocking;4198816]I find it difficult to parse any of that...[quote]

Scientifically speaking, phots do NOT = 'evidence'.Without the actual physical specimine in front of you to 'test' against, you don't have proof of anything.

I apologise for my poorly written remark.

That sentence should have said: "Without 'something' to look at, examine closely, and indeed 'test' against...your photos, video, or digital recordings aren't evidence of anything 'quantifiable'..."
I disagree.

And so does NASA (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/index.cfm) as well as a number of scientific institutions that analyse optical and radio telescope data.

Or do you deny that these images represent physical bodies that are, indeed, quantifiable?

Quality of evidence makes quite a differences.
As Cuddles previously pointed out, "it does not follow that we should be equally skeptical [of different evidence sources]".

[Cuddles]

I certainly have no issue with your summary above, except that you've taken the implication that I am equally sceptical of each example.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything about you in particular. I just started off trying to make a quick point and got a bit carried away.

[EHocking]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything about you in particular. I just started off trying to make a quick point and got a bit carried away.To be sure. You need only look at my posts for examples of staying on topic and not getting carried away . . . :D

[King of the Americas]

[quote=King of the Americas;4198967][quote=EHocking;4198816]I find it difficult to parse any of that...
I disagree.

And so does NASA (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/index.cfm) as well as a number of scientific institutions that analyse optical and radio telescope data.

Or do you deny that these images represent physical bodies that are, indeed, quantifiable?

Quality of evidence makes quite a differences.
As Cuddles previously pointed out, "it does not follow that we should be equally skeptical [of different evidence sources]".

So, are you saying it is impossible to 'mis-interpret' the 'data' collected by these optical and radio telescopes?

I mean, until we actually landed on and explored Mars, how accurate did we think our images were?

Did we learn anything 'new', by the physical collection and analysis of the soil, its atmosphere, and weather patterns?

Moreover, when dealing with other star systems, how much 'theory' is involved?

You can't tell me that more wouldn't be garnered by seeing and even touching these things, up close?

U.F.O.'s piloted by non-human entites may well exist, and video and photographic evidence 'may' help to develope theories about their origins, but I DON'T think they are proof positive evidence of 'exactly' what that thing is...

[mikeyx]

...'everytime'.

Well, I'll come down off that and say 99% of the time... You doubt my claim?

It is relatively 'easy' to capture an "unidentifed flying object" with a camera, film or photo.

Mount your camera, pointed at the Sun, and then shade all or most of the Sun with a dense object (like a building), except for its very most outter edge...then watch and wait, begin film, or start taking pictures.

I have very little doubt that you WILL see, film, or photograph 'something' that you can't identify.

Try it you might be surprised at what you capture.

;)

Theres an angle along I91 adjacent to the approach to Bradley Airport that if you see a 747 coming in against the sun, it looks like a saucer hovering just so many fuzzy video you see with MUFON and others.

[I Ratant]

Orbs!
Apparently dying, and falling to the ground to accumulate in what science terms "inches"!

[CORed]

Atually, I have very little trouble identifying lens or body flare, even when some idiot claims it's an extraterrestrial spacecraft, an angel, or the Virgin Mary.