UFO'S: A possible explanation [Archive]

jakesteele

12th June 2009, 04:53 AM

I will say that Phillip Klass did include some interesting explainations for UFOs. His electrical line theory is still debated. Ball lightening is rare, but I think if it's real it is usually just seen as whacky lightening.

THere are so many variables for UFOs. Most people are unfamiliar with what the night sky looks like. Rarely do amatuer astronomers see UFOs that they go "oh aliens!" Think of the thousands and thousands of amateur astronomers out there. Heck anyone can buy a telescope.

I always tell people that see UFOs a lot to join the local amateur astronomy club. Most towns have one. If you go out on a clear night and just really LOOK for 20 minutes you'll usually see something that makes you go "ok WHAT is THAT".

ALso big jump from UFO to alien traveller from outerspace. That's the problem. Aliens hyperjumping through worm holes to reach us hasn't been proven anymore than unicorns. Could by flying unicorns in those things (there is much historical evidence for unicorns as opposed to say aliens).

People that know the sky, don't see aliens flying around.

there are many people who 'know the sky' do see unexplainable sightings, that's why the amateur astronomer explanation is weak.

There have been many examples of pilots at all levels of skill and experience that have reported seeing UFOs. Also, there are planes of some sort in the air 24/7 that are flying at or near the approximate heights that UFOs do. They also have a much wider field of vision than astronomers do. But to you their word seems to mean nothing. But at the same time you will accept anecdotal evidence from amateur astronomers as being golden, as in the Phoenix Lights situation.

Here’s what I find ironic; if an amateur astronomer came to you and said they had seen a UFO, you would immediately go into the debunking mode and say something to this effect, “Well, he is an amateur after all. He can only look to the heavens for 8 hrs. max out of the day. And odds are high they haven’t received training in aircraft silhouette identification, etc.“ That’s a double standard. It’s like you’re making up two different sets of rules that benefit you and not the other guy. Here are the typical rationalizations that a CSIOPtic will give for UFO sightings:

1. ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENON

2. BALL LIGHTNING

3. SWAMP GAS

4. METEORS

5. MASS HALLUCINATION:

6. HOAX

7. WEATHER BALLOONS

8. FLARES (the new weather balloons)

9. FLOCK OF BIRDS

10. LIE

11. (anything I might have missed)

I always get a chuckle out of the James Randi style of debunking when it comes to UFOs (or anything, for that matter). You will never hear them say that it could also be a ‘for real’ alien UFO. It’s like trying to pull the eye teeth out of an angry gorilla’s mouth. A truly objective skeptic will say, “And, yes, folks, we can’t rule out the possibility that it was of alien origin.”

In other words, the simplest explanation is not always the best.

foxholeatheist

12th June 2009, 04:58 AM

Suddenly the burden of proof has shifted to the skeptics?

desertgal

12th June 2009, 05:03 AM

Got that, folks? When you hear about a UFO sighting, especially from a pilot, remember: Aliens first, simple explanations second. ;)

Cuddles

12th June 2009, 05:34 AM

there are many people who 'know the sky' do see unexplainable sightings, that's why the amateur astronomer explanation is weak.

Of course, that doesn't actually address what Kitty said at all. No-one claimed that they don't see things they may not be able to explain, she simply said they don't see aliens. This is because people who know what they're talking about know that there are always going to be plenty of mundane things that it's not possible to identify due to lack of information. For example, if you see a bright light in the sky but don't look any closer at the time or note where and when it was, you will never know what it actually was. That doesn't mean it was an alien, it simply means you don't have enough information.

That's the important difference between believers and sensible people. One will say "I saw something in the sky, but I don't have enough information to work out what it was.", the other will say "I saw something in the sky, and since I couldn't immediately tell what it was it can't possibly be anything normal and must have been an alien.".

On a related note, I think I actually saw my first weather balloon the other day. Fortunately we had binoculars handy and could make out an orange blob with a shiny thing underneath it, but it did look very strange to the naked eye since it was a very bright light in the middle of the day that couldn't be any astronomical phenomenon but didn't behave at all like an aircraft.

Spektator

12th June 2009, 06:05 AM

One evening on the local college campus a clump of students staring at the sky attracted my attention. They were staring at a bright UFO and were dazzled by the aerobatics it was doing--swooping and swaying and swinging.

I couldn't see the movements the students thought they saw. Fortunately, a physics teacher came strolling up and identified the UFO: it was Venus. Not swooping, swaying, or swinging at all--just very bright in the evening sky. The students didn't believe him, so he led us all to the physics building, broke out a four-inch telescope, and let us have turns looking at the planet (it was crescent-shaped). Even after that, some of the students were still insisting that the planet HAD been swooping around in the sky.

EHocking

12th June 2009, 07:31 AM

While skeptics do not attribute the alien explanation to ufo's, do they ever consider, or even praise explanations such as: Plasma Vortex's, Ball Lightning, Sprites, etc?I suggest that you read the Condon Report (http://www.ncas.org/condon/).

Below are a few introductory paragraphs,

"As indicated by its title, the emphasis of this study has been on attempting to learn from UFO reports anything that could be considered as adding to scientific knowledge. Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.

It has been argued that this lack of contribution to science is due to the fact that very little scientific effort has been put on the subject. We do not agree. We feel that the reason that there has been very little scientific study of the subject is that those scientists who are most directly concerned, astronomers, atmospheric physicists, chemists, and psychologists, having had ample opportunity to look into the matter, have individually decided that UFO phenomena do not offer a fruitful field in which to look for major scientific discoveries.
This conclusion is so important, and the public seems in general to have so little understanding of how scientists work, that some more comment on it seems desirable...."

Take especial note of the second paragraph. It applies just as well to other "woo" subjects as it does to this one.

Astrophotographer

12th June 2009, 07:51 AM

there are many people who 'know the sky' do see unexplainable sightings, that's why the amateur astronomer explanation is weak.

There have been many examples of pilots at all levels of skill and experience that have reported seeing UFOs. Also, there are planes of some sort in the air 24/7 that are flying at or near the approximate heights that UFOs do. They also have a much wider field of vision than astronomers do. But to you their word seems to mean nothing.

Yes, and there are plenty of pilots who have caused plane crashes because of pilot error. Pilots and astronomers can make errors in observations. Astronomers DO report UFOs but most of the reports presented by EXPERIENCED amateurs and pros are usually lights of an unknown nature and nothing like the reports you read on the internet. Often they turn out to be something mundane like a rocket launch, a fuel dump of a rocket in orbit, a low earth orbit satellite (or a very high orbit), etc. etc. I can give dozens of examples but you probably will not listen anyway.

But at the same time you will accept anecdotal evidence from amateur astronomers as being golden, as in the Phoenix Lights situation.

Not exactly. In the Phoenix situation (and lets not rehash the particulars in this thread), the testimony of Mitch Stanley agreed with what most of the eyewitnesses reported in the raw reports in the NUFORC database. There was also supporting testimony from others to indicate his observations were accurate. Since this was the case, it is far more likely that the Phoenix event had to do with a formation of aircraft than a huge wedge shaped object flying over the city with lights that turned invisible when it passed in front of the moon.

Here’s what I find ironic; if an amateur astronomer came to you and said they had seen a UFO, you would immediately go into the debunking mode and say something to this effect, “Well, he is an amateur after all. He can only look to the heavens for 8 hrs. max out of the day. And odds are high they haven’t received training in aircraft silhouette identification, etc.“ That’s a double standard. It’s like you’re making up two different sets of rules that benefit you and not the other guy.

How do you know how I would treat such a report? I have been listening to these UFO stories for years.The first thing I would do is get the particulars (time, date, direction of travel, angular speed, angles of elevation, magnitude, etc.) and see if I could offer an explanation. If I could not, I certainly would not suggest swamp gas. Sometimes I can offer an explanation and sometimes I can not. If I can not, it remain "unidentified" (not alien spaceship) because I was not there or don't have enough information to resolve it.

Feel free to keep that mind closed to possibilities. While you are at it, watch this video:http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8uei4_openmindedness_tech

jakesteele

12th June 2009, 08:58 AM

Suddenly the burden of proof has shifted to the skeptics?

I did not state that the burden of proof has shifted at all, I don't know how you got that out of my post

I am saying there is a tendency for CSIOPtics to have double standards. They have accepted that the antecdotal evidence of ameuter astronomers as part of the 'proof positive' because it gives them the 'evidence' for the Phoenix Lights. But if someone on the other side of the fence presents antecdotal evidence then it's some kind of fallacy...that's double standards.

I notice that nobody addressed my list of CSIOPtic explanations for UFO sightings. That must mean it pretty much covers all of the that you are willing to condiser. The point is that when these pat answers are given they always leave out one of the obvious...alien technology.

Occam's Razor is a great tool as a starting poin but it is not necessarily always the right solution/explanation.

Example: If a man's wife is murdered they look at the husband because of the statics. If the husband has an iron clad albi, they know one thing for sure; the husband didn't physically do it. That, in and of itself, does not rule out that the husband didn't hire someone to do it. That line of inquiry remains open. After the husband they look at immediate famly, friends, co-workers, etc. Then it becomes: Was she getting threatening phone calls, were there a strange man hanging around, etc. But in some cases the least likely answer is the correct one. Example: it could be a tragic coincidence like Bill Cosby's son or Michael Jordan's father.

Here is a perfect example of what I mean. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvEPeGPxeU.

The link is a History Channel program on Human Levitation. Go to about 1 minute 15 seconds and watch one of your guys step on his dick and screw the pooch at the same time.

You cannot open mindly dismiss or ignore an obvious possibility and consider yourself a True Skeptic.

Unlike a Bull

12th June 2009, 09:04 AM

I live in central Florida. Several times I've seen a huge flame rising into the sky. I, of course, immediately assumed it was the second coming Jesus and started with my emergency "last minute prayer of forgiveness and acceptance of Jesus" I have memorized in case of my own death or His second coming. It's good to have these kind of things planned out just in case.

Turns out I live near Kennedy space Center and they launch rockets and shuttles. So, that explains why there wasn't any Jesus in those flames.

I still say my prayer when I see them. Sure, the Space center theory explains every other sighting I've had but the next one could be Jesus.

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/imageviewer.cfm?mediaid=16085&mr=m&w=756&h=518&fn=02pp1124&sn=KSC-02pp-1124

That could be a Boeing Delta II rocket, or it could be Jesus. Just seeing the light, you don't have enough data to say which. So it's better to be safe and pray.

Edit: The image didn't post, so here's the link: link. (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/imageviewer.cfm?mediaid=16085&mr=m&w=756&h=518&fn=02pp1124&sn=KSC-02pp-1124)

Ersby

12th June 2009, 09:17 AM

I'm fascinated by UFOs, but in order to research them properly I'd have to learn about astronomy and meteorology and that's an awful lot of work. Especially seeing the paucity of most of the evidence out there.

jakesteele

12th June 2009, 09:17 AM

Got that, folks? When you hear about a UFO sighting, especially from a pilot, remember: Aliens first, simple explanations second. ;)

Attack of the giant Strawmam.

Ashles

12th June 2009, 09:29 AM

Also, there are planes of some sort in the air 24/7 that are flying at or near the approximate heights that UFOs do.
Wow, so UFOs suddenly have an average approximate flying height?

(Which is ironically the same as the average flying height of... aeroplanes. I feel I might have an explantion...)

jakesteele

12th June 2009, 09:30 AM

aaaaaaOf course, that doesn't actually address what Kitty said at all. No-one claimed that they don't see things they may not be able to explain, she simply said they don't see aliens. This is because people who know what they're talking about know that there are always going to be plenty of mundane things that it's not possible to identify due to lack of information.

Wow, does that mean ameuter astronomers know what they are talking about and highly skilled and experienced pilots who report UFO sightings don't know what they are talking about?

. For example, if you see a bright light in the sky but don't look any closer at the time or note where and when it was, you will never know what it actually was. That doesn't mean it was an alien, it simply means you don't have enough information.

And part of the "don't have enough information" also includes the possibility of something alien or way, way, incredibility advanced that the government is not revealing.

That's the important difference between believers and sensible people.

I don't think you are getting something. CSIOPtics are also true believers. They believe nothing is paranormal, UFO, etc.

One will say "I saw something in the sky, but I don't have enough information to work out what it was.", the other will say "I saw something in the sky, and since I couldn't immediately tell what it was it can't possibly be anything normal and must have been an alien.".

Jesus H. Christ, that is ********** up logic.

On a related note, I think I actually saw my first weather balloon the other day. Fortunately we had binoculars handy and could make out an orange blob with a shiny thing underneath it, but it did look very strange to the naked eye since it was a very bright light in the middle of the day that couldn't be any astronomical phenomenon but didn't behave at all like an aircraft.

jakesteele

12th June 2009, 09:39 AM

I suggest that you read the Condon Report (http://www.ncas.org/condon/).

I suggest you read the "Neuropsychology of Psuesoskeptics"

http://ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/the-neuropsychology-of-pseudo-skepticism/

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/Examskeptics/skepticism_suppressedscience.html

Below are a few introductory paragraphs,

"As indicated by its title, the emphasis of this study has been on attempting to learn from UFO reports anything that could be considered as adding to scientific knowledge. Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.

It has been argued that this lack of contribution to science is due to the fact that very little scientific effort has been put on the subject. We do not agree. We feel that the reason that there has been very little scientific study of the subject is that those scientists who are most directly concerned, astronomers, atmospheric physicists, chemists, and psychologists, having had ample opportunity to look into the matter, have individually decided that UFO phenomena do not offer a fruitful field in which to look for major scientific discoveries.
This conclusion is so important, and the public seems in general to have so little understanding of how scientists work, that some more comment on it seems desirable...."

Take especial note of the second paragraph. It applies just as well to other "woo" subjects as it does to this one.

The links above address not "true believer" woo woo, but rather, psuedoskeptic doo doo.

Cuddles

12th June 2009, 09:46 AM

aaaaaa

There are two points here. Firstly, the quote function really isn't difficult to use. Secondly, "CSIOPtic" is not a real word and I have no idea what you think it means. If you want to have a sensible conversation, you need to use the same language as the rest of us. In case you were wondering, that would be English.

Cainkane1

12th June 2009, 09:58 AM

EHocking

12th June 2009, 10:16 AM

The links above address not "true believer" woo woo, but rather, psuedoskeptic doo doo.Did you actually take the time to read the Condon report?

It addressed the topic of this thread "UFO'S: A possible explanation".

If you have some issue with the content of the report regarding the OP's question wrt and the thread topic, I'll be happy to participate in a civilised conversation.

And before you ask, no, I did not read your links. Feel free to discuss the paragraphs I quoted with your own objections to their content.

Astrophotographer

12th June 2009, 10:35 AM

I notice that nobody addressed my list of CSIOPtic explanations for UFO sightings. That must mean it pretty much covers all of the that you are willing to condiser.

Nonsense. You are assuming too much. I dismissed your list for many reasons. The first is that your list was far too limited. There are so many possible explanations for UFOs that you can not make a hard and fast list.

foxholeatheist

12th June 2009, 11:20 AM

I am saying there is a tendency for CSIOPtics to have double standards. They have accepted that the antecdotal evidence of ameuter astronomers as part of the 'proof positive' because it gives them the 'evidence' for the Phoenix Lights. But if someone on the other side of the fence presents antecdotal evidence then it's some kind of fallacy...that's double standards.

The example you give was backed up not only by "ameuter (sic) astronomers" but also by The US Air Force (namely the the 104th Fighter Squadron), conflicting eyewitness reports, and even a hoaxer (http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2008/04/22/20080422abrk-strangelights0422.html). NEXT!

You are right that it would be a double standard. Skeptics typically do not do that. They tend to leave the outside chance that something really amazing is going on. I know I do. It would be amazing if the lights were Elvis. Or Aliens. Or Unicorns. But it's more likely that the null explanation- the explanation that nothing paranormal is going on- is the correct explanation.

So the burden of proof rests solely on those that claim something paranormal is happening.

Wanna know what I think? I think that a bunch of the UFO reports are really UFOs- stuff in the sky which I cannot tell you what it is. The US Airforce is cooking all kinds of crazy stuff out in the deserts back there. These claims do have interesting evidence, like contrails and funding for blackops and the like. Cool stuff.

Check it out, if we're voting on visiting aliens then I am for it. But my emotions have nothing to do with the fact of the matter and the facts are is that nothing unexplainable has happened.

I notice that nobody addressed my list of CSIOPtic explanations for UFO sightings. That must mean it pretty much covers all of the that you are willing to condiser. The point is that when these pat answers are given they always leave out one of the obvious...alien technology.

Should we also consider the second coming of Jesus, Elvis, Joe Strummer, The Easter Bunny, Santa... I mean those lights could have been Santa doing a dry run. Elvis we know exists, aliens not so much. He's got one point up already and plus he was The King.

Believe me man, if there was good solid evidence of actual extra-terrestrial contact no one would be more exited than I.

Occam's Razor is a great tool as a starting poin but it is not necessarily always the right solution/explanation.

True. So LGM's zipping around the jaw droppingly beautiful American Southwest is a likely explanation? How?

Example: If a man's wife is murdered they look at the husband because of the statics. If the husband has an iron clad albi, they know one thing for sure; the husband didn't physically do it. That, in and of itself, does not rule out that the husband didn't hire someone to do it. That line of inquiry remains open. After the husband they look at immediate famly, friends, co-workers, etc. Then it becomes: Was she getting threatening phone calls, were there a strange man hanging around, etc. But in some cases the least likely answer is the correct one. Example: it could be a tragic coincidence like Bill Cosby's son or Michael Jordan's father.

Huh?

The link is a History Channel program on Human Levitation. Go to about 1 minute 15 seconds and watch one of your guys step on his dick and screw the pooch at the same time.

Can't watch youtube because I'm in Iraq but if this is the same program that shows goofy ****nuts bouncing around claiming that they are levitating then one bumbling skeptic is not enough to convince me. Again, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

By the way, what in holy hell do you mean by "your guys"?

You cannot open mindly dismiss or ignore an obvious possibility and consider yourself a True Skeptic.

Sure, it's a possibility but so is Elvis. I dismiss Elvis for a number of reasons, does that make me any less of a skeptic?

In any case, again, if there are aliens visiting Earth no one would be more excited than me. If it were up to a vote I am for it.

jakesteele

12th June 2009, 11:32 AM

Y[QUOTE]es, and there are plenty of pilots who have caused plane crashes because of pilot error.

What does that have to do with the color of the moon?
We're talking about sightings and anecdotal evidence and the double standards that CSIOPtics use. Once again, you're saying that your anecdota levidence is righteous but the other guy's antecdotal evidence is bunk.

Pilots and astronomers can make errors in observations. Astronomers DO report UFOs but most of the reports presented by EXPERIENCED amateurs and pros are usually lights of an unknown nature and nothing like the reports you read on the internet. Often they turn out to be something mundane like a rocket launch, a fuel dump of a rocket in orbit, a low earth orbit satellite (or a very high orbit), etc. etc. I can give dozens of examples but you probably will not listen anyway.

Not exactly. In the Phoenix situation (and lets not rehash the particulars in this thread), the testimony of Mitch Stanley agreed with what most of the eyewitnesses reported in the raw reports in the NUFORC database. There was also supporting testimony from others to indicate his observations were accurate. Since this was the case, it is far more likely that the Phoenix event had to do with a formation of aircraft than a huge wedge shaped object flying over the city with lights that turned invisible when it passed in front of the moon.

How do you know how I would treat such a report?

Because CSIOPtics are very predicable. You guys always apply the same 11 or 12 point cookie cutter template to all
all instances even being so bold as to include all of the alleged and/or multiple witness sightings since the beginning of time

I have been listening to these UFO stories for years.The first thing I would do is get the particulars (time, date, direction of travel, angular speed, angles of elevation, magnitude, etc.) and see if I could offer an explanation. If I could not, I certainly would not suggest swamp gas. Sometimes I can offer an explanation and sometimes I can not. If I can not, it remain "unidentified" (not alien spaceship) because I was not there or don't have enough information to resolve it.

Feel free to keep that mind closed to possibilities. While you are at it, watch this video:

How in God's name did you come up with that StrawMan nonsense? You're the one who mind is closed to certall of the possibilities fre to keep that mind that is not open to all of the possibilities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvEPeGPxeU

While you're at it, watch this video, it is a prime example of what I mean about the CSIOPtic version of debunking. It's one of your guys who already had his mind made up beforehand and bent and warped the scenario to conform to his reality map in order to maintain the structural integrity of his cognitive closure

jakesteele

12th June 2009, 11:33 AM

jakesteele

12th June 2009, 11:40 AM

Wow, so UFOs suddenly have an average approximate flying height?

(Which is ironically the same as the average flying height of... aeroplanes. I feel I might have an explantion...)

I said at or near the approximate heights of planes. I didn't say anything about the 'average' height", you did. I believe that's either a Straw Man or a red herring. I know, it's a Straw Man fishing for a red herring.

It's like when airplanes have flown side by side with alleged UFOs. But you still won't give up the ghost and say one of the possibilities, although the least likely, is a UFO, will you?

jakesteele

12th June 2009, 11:59 AM

There are two points here. Firstly, the quote function really isn't difficult to use. Secondly, "CSIOPtic" is not a real word and I have no idea what you think it means. If you want to have a sensible conversation, you need to use the same language as the rest of us. In case you were wondering, that would be English.

Sorry, but when I hit the submit button it said something to the effect that I didn't have enough letters, so it wouldn't allow it.

CSIOPtic is a neologism, a phrase that I've coined. It's a politically correct way of saying psuedo-skeptic.

I find it very ironic that you accuse me of not using a real world when you guys use the neologism, woo woo. That's not a real word either, but you hear it over and over on this site. So maybe you should take your own advise and start talking English.

foxholeatheist

12th June 2009, 12:04 PM

http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/woo

Sorry. It is a real world, er, word.

jakesteele

12th June 2009, 12:05 PM

I've read that many UFO sightings come after tectonic activity such as an earthquake or a volcanic eruption and what we are seeing may be what scientists call plasma. I once saw a volcano near Mexico City have a minor eruption and perfect UFO'S came out of the dome. Then they went back in. Strange behaviour for a other worldly craft to be doing.

I'm sure there are sightings after tectonics, etc. But I know there are many sightings that occur independent of tectonics.

Come on, give it up. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is usually the best. But Occam's Beard (neologism) says, "The simplest insn't always the best." That's a tool any sefl-respecting skeptic would have in their tool box.

I just want to hear you say it one time: A for real, UFO of alien origon is also a possibility, isn't it?

foxholeatheist

12th June 2009, 12:07 PM

Then it wouldn't be a UFO then would it? It would be a SPACESHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

paximperium

12th June 2009, 12:14 PM

Come on, give it up. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is usually the best. But Occam's Beard (neologism) says, "The simplest insn't always the best." That's a tool any sefl-respecting skeptic would have in their tool box.
Looks like you don't even know what Occam's Razor is:
William Ockham (c. 1285–1349) is remembered as an influential nominalist but his popular fame as a great logician rests chiefly on the maxim attributed to him and known as Occam's razor: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem or "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Astrophotographer

12th June 2009, 12:46 PM

What does that have to do with the color of the moon?
We're talking about sightings and anecdotal evidence and the double standards that CSIOPtics use. Once again, you're saying that your anecdota levidence is righteous but the other guy's antecdotal evidence is bunk.

Sigh...Pilots are just susceptible to errors in judgement for objects in the sky as anybody else. If a pilot can make a mistake flying a plane, he certainly can mistake a star, meteor, balloon for a UFO.

Because CSIOPtics are very predicable. You guys always apply the same 11 or 12 point cookie cutter template to all all instances even being so bold as to include all of the alleged and/or multiple witness sightings since the beginning of time.

That's a load and you probably know this. List all UFO explanations ever given and show how they fit into these 11-12 cookie cutter templates. I will bust that line with the 2004 Mexican USAF FLIR footage. They were oil well fires. That is not in your list (unless you want the blanket other, which means there are a lot more than 11-12 potential explanations).

How in God's name did you come up with that StrawMan nonsense? You're the one who mind is closed to certall of the possibilities fre to keep that mind that is not open to all of the possibilities.

I have yet to read a single UFO report that can be used as proof of an alien spaceship. Have you? I examine the actual evidence that is presented. Have you? I hear a UFO report and want to know more and not just accept that it is an alien spaceship? Do you? I would like to know what causes UFO reports? Do you? Are you blindly assuming every UFO report is an alien spaceship? Are you willing to dismiss an explanation because it contradicts what you want to believe? This is the definition of being close-minded. I at least look at possibilities. Like I said, just because a UFO report can not be readily identified does not mean it is an alien spaceship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvEPeGPxeU

I am not sure what this has to do with UFOs.

I Ratant

12th June 2009, 01:00 PM

I've seen Venus at noon on a clear day.
The only UFO I've seen turned out to be an An-2, flying around Palmdale many years ago.
All of us that watch the sky for real would LOVE to see and identify a genuine UFO as something extraterrestial.
We don't hold our breath, nor mourn the demise of Weekly World News with its non-stop "gen-u-wine" sightings by various Jethros around the world.

jakesteele

12th June 2009, 01:16 PM

Did you actually take the time to read the Condon report?

It addressed the topic of this thread "UFO'S: A possible explanation".

If you have some issue with the content of the report regarding the OP's question wrt and the thread topic, I'll be happy to participate in a civilised conversation.

And before you ask, no, I did not read your links. Feel free to discuss the paragraphs I quoted with your own objections to their content.

Did you actually take the time to read the Condon report?

It addressed the topic of this thread "UFO'S: A possible explanation".

If you have some issue with the content of the report regarding the OP's question wrt and the thread topic, I'll be happy to participate in a civilised conversation.

And before you ask, no, I did not read your links. Feel free to discuss the paragraphs I quoted with your own objections to their content.

Jeez, I hardly know where to start on this one. I guess I'll start with a neologism: Psych-Fallacy, which means a psychological/emotional predisposition to interpret and distort reality in a number of different ways. All people do this but some do it more rigidly, dogmatically and fundamentalistically than others.

First thing I see is Contempt Prior to Investigation about my links coupled with the good old Double Standards; I must read yours but you don't have to read mine...bunk science, I say! (bunk science will hereinafter be referred to as BS).

I'll start with this. You are chastising me because you don't think I read the Condon Report, yet you refuse to read my links. Is that not a Double Standard?

As far as a civilized conversation about "OP's question wrt and the thread topic", I don't follow that. Is that the Condon Report you're referring to? If so, you're trying to pull my replies off to another angle.

My original post is about how CSIOPtics accept the anecdotal evidence of two amateur astronomers, yet you won't give any weight or credence to highly qualified anecdotal evidence that doesn't fit into your reality map.
The part of your reality map pertaining to UFOs consists only of the points below and you won't address them directly. Is that all of your explanations? Did I leave anything out?

Also, I would ask this question of you: do you honestly think absolutely, beyond all doubt, that the possibility of alien spacecraft doesn't exist?

UFO sightings:

1. ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENON

2. BALL LIGHTNING

3. SWAMP GAS

4. METEORS

5. MASS HALLUCINATION:

6. HOAX

7. WEATHER BALLOONS

8. FLARES (the new weather balloons)

9. FLOCK OF BIRDS

10. LIE

11. (anything I might have missed)

One other thing, I did read some of the report. It was simply too long to read all of it, but I got the gist of it.

Also, if you don't think I'm civilized, you have the option of not replying back to me.

paximperium

12th June 2009, 01:27 PM

Looks like Jakesteele is still making up "psych-fallacies" when he can't find the actual fallacy involved and the irony of your definition is truly hilarious. You really need to look at how that applies to your "psych-fallacy".

Also, I would ask this question of you: do you honestly think absolutely, beyond all doubt, that the possibility of alien spacecraft doesn't exist? Most skeptics would say, there is a small chance that UFOs could be alien spacecraft but in all likelihood no. That's what skepticism is about, critical thinking.

Astrophotographer

12th June 2009, 02:04 PM

My original post is about how CSIOPtics accept the anecdotal evidence of two amateur astronomers, yet you won't give any weight or credence to highly qualified anecdotal evidence that doesn't fit into your reality map.
The part of your reality map pertaining to UFOs consists only of the points below and you won't address them directly. Is that all of your explanations? Did I leave anything out?

Also, I would ask this question of you: do you honestly think absolutely, beyond all doubt, that the possibility of alien spacecraft doesn't exist?

Define "highly qualified anecdotal evidence".

Actually it was only one astronomer and his mother. Of course, you can say he is lying about what he saw. The point being in this case is that he did not report something extraordinary. If he had, then I would be skeptical of his claim. Instead, his observations fit nicely into a probable explanation. This is something you do not want to entertain.

This is all about probabilities. Is it probable that an alien civilization is creating UFO reports or is it more likely that witnesses might mistake some phenomena for an alien spaceship. Even UFO proponents will admit that about 75-95% of all UFO reports are explainable as misperception and hoaxes. What makes you think the remaining 5-25% are not? What makes those remaining cases so special that we must conclude they are something extraordinary? Isn't it more likely the witness allowed himself to get so excited about seeing something strange that they exaggerated the story a bit? I can give you examples but just look at the Condon link somebody posted previously. Go to the section on witness perception by Dr. Hartmann. There are excellent examples there.

jakesteele

12th June 2009, 02:32 PM

jakesteele

12th June 2009, 02:35 PM

Nonsense. You are assuming too much. I dismissed your list for many reasons. The first is that your list was far too limited. There are so many possible explanations for UFOs that you can not make a hard and fast list.

Did you notice #11 where I said, "anything I might have missed"?

Astrophotographer

12th June 2009, 02:44 PM

Did you notice #11 where I said, "anything I might have missed"?

Yes I did but that blows your claim out of the water. Using "anything I missed" means an infinite number of possibilities. That is a lot more than 11-12 "cookie cutter templates" for explaining UFO reports.

EHocking

12th June 2009, 03:43 PM

...One other thing, I did read some of the report. It was simply too long to read all of it, but I got the gist of it.I've read the entire thing. All of the points you raised are addressed in it. It is not an easy read, because it is thorough.

And no, given the evidence presented over the years and taking the pragmatic approach such as the Condon Report does, I'm hard pressed to believe that aliens with the technology to travel light years across the universe would merely buzz hicks in the middle of nowhere or create crop circles rather than having the ability to instigate communications in a manner comprehensible to the planet they had visited.

jakesteele

12th June 2009, 09:54 PM

[QUOTE=foxholeatheist;4806452]The example you give was backed up not only by "ameuter (sic) astronomers" but also by The US Air Force (namely the the 104th Fighter Squadron), conflicting eyewitness reports, and even a hoaxer (http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2008/04/22/20080422abrk-strangelights0422.html). NEXT!

First off, goodluck and Godpseed on your Iraq thing. Regardless of whether I agree with the decision to go over there, I fully support the troops. A tip of the hat to you and the others.

First of all, the astronomers give anecdotal evidence that you take as gospel, as though it is beyond dispute. You don’t question it. If the same guys said they saw an alien spacecraft, you would be all over them like a blanket. You would dismiss their claims outright.

I would really like to believe the pilots, but the government has a long history of lying to the people; sometimes righteously for national security, but many times for nefarious reasons. I’m not saying they are necessarily lying about this, but I always take their official reports with a grain of salt. But that’s just me.

The point I keep driving home is that the anecdotal astronomers statement are given much more weight than that of highly skilled and experienced pilots that know all about Venus, etc. If two amateurs, as claimed, don’t get fooled by that stuff then that same logic would certainly extend to skilled and experienced pilots, radar guys, etc.

So the burden of proof rests solely on those that claim something paranormal is happening.

That’s the “tilted playing field” gambit, assuming that somehow criticism does not bear any burden of proof. If you say definitively, in black and white/all or nothing terms, that something doesn’t exist or didn’t happen, you are stating an absolute. All absolutes bear the burden of proof.

Please keep in mind that CSIOPtics do not practice passive skepticism, they practice aggressive skepticism. It’s one thing to say, “personally, I’m of the opinion that there are no UFOs/God/paranormal, etc., I just don’t see any evidence that would convince me otherwise.” It’s another thing entirely to take a verbally aggressive stance and hurl harsh invectives at people like woo woo, nutter, kook, etc. and make black and white/all or nothing statements like, “There are absolutely no UFOs/God(s)/paranormal, etc.” When it comes to matters like these, if you can’t tell someone definitely what is, then you are in no position to tell them definitely what it isn’t; it’s only your opinion. The burden is now on you.

Personally, I agree that the “null” is usually by far the most likely when it comes to UFOs, but in light of all the expert testimony to the contrary about UFOs in general, the “null” is not necessarily the only explanation. Hence, Ocaam’s Beard (the simplest explanation isn’t always the best.)

And that brings us back to what I first said about the anecdotal evidence of the amateur astronomers. Somehow you think theirs carries a lot of weight, but trained commercial and military pilots, radar guys’s anecdotal evidence carries none. That is the double standard I have been talking about all along.

Should we also consider the second coming of Jesus, Elvis, Joe Strummer, The Easter Bunny, Santa... I mean those lights could have been Santa doing a dry run. Elvis we know exists, aliens not so much. He's got one point up already and plus he was The King.

No, you shouldn’t consider Elvis, etc. in this context. You’re comparing apples to oranges. In your mind you lump them all together, but many credible people don’t.

I’ve got all of Elvis’s records, though.

Can't watch youtube because I'm in Iraq but if this is the same program that shows goofy ****nuts bouncing around claiming that they are levitating then one bumbling skeptic is not enough to convince me. Again, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

The section I directed you to was Joe Nickell of CSIOPS. He is spefically addressing a guy nicknamed “The Flying Friar”. History records, correctly or not, I don’t care, show that this guy was witnessed by hundreds of people many, many times. One of his famous levitations was allegedly levitating from the back of the church up to a balcony high enough to clear the railing with his feet going up over the railing. It’s a leap that the best high jumper could even come close to making.

Joe’s explanation,rationalization is this, “Someone who is extremely agile, and I think he probably had some unusual athletic abilities, could in a few quick bounds, moving very fast, could hit a step and then move on up to the altar and then on higher up to a balcony.” He’s making two assumptions: 1. that someone agile/athletic enough could make this prodigious leap, and 2. that the Flying Flyer was agile/athletic enough to pull it off. Why didn’t he just get the best high jumpers and gymnasts he could find to test his theory?

By the way, what in holy hell do you mean by "your guys"?

By ‘your guys’, I’m referring to what I call a CSIOPtics, which is someone who has adopted the Amazing Randi’s/CSIOPS style of debunkery.

lightfire22000

12th June 2009, 10:12 PM

There was an Air Force base near my house and I once saw, when I was nine, what I swore was a UFO because it looked like a spaceship from a video game(Star Wars:Shadows of the Empire.) It was later confirmed to have been a stealth bomber. To be fair, it was a UFO to me.

I have a medical condition that is characterized by what medical experts call synesthesia. I will see flashes of light sometimes; often when sounds, especially in music, are playing. I have occasionally seen flashes that resemble things I've seen on the X-Files. It's possible that they too have a medical condition.

jakesteele

12th June 2009, 10:25 PM

Looks like Jakesteele is still making up "psych-fallacies" when he can't find the actual fallacy involved and the irony of your definition is truly hilarious. You really need to look at how that applies to your "psych-fallacy".

Psych-fallacy is easy. First off, I am being facetious when I use the term. It address the psychological predispositions of the human mind; biases, blind spots, selective perception, reality tunnels, bias filters, illusory superiority and a whole lot of others.

What I'm addressing is someone who fancies themselves as logical, rational and objective but falls prey to all the foibles of the unconscious mind but will usually adamantly deny it.

Most skeptics would say, there is a small chance that UFOs could be alien spacecraft but in all likelihood no. That's what skepticism is about, critical thinking.

Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. I agree with that completely. That's all I was looking for. Thank you for being up front about it.

MikeSun5

12th June 2009, 10:52 PM

And no, given the evidence presented over the years and taking the pragmatic approach such as the Condon Report does, I'm hard pressed to believe that aliens with the technology to travel light years across the universe would merely buzz hicks in the middle of nowhere or create crop circles rather than having the ability to instigate communications in a manner comprehensible to the planet they had visited.

Exactly! I've been saying that for years. So these advanced beings traversed the galaxy to come draw pictures in our corn? What would their motivation be to stop here? Would Bill Gates land his helicopter at the Wal-Mart? I think not. I think if martians wanted to talk to us, we'd know. If they wanted to remain hidden, we'd have no idea and wouldn't even be having this discussion. I saw something weird in the sky once, and have tried to explain it scientifically for a while. I can't. It was a UFO - or more accurately, a ULITS (Unidentified Light In The Sky). Never once did I think I saw an alien craft.

Back to the OP, I doubt a lot of that atmospheric phenomena could really be confused for UFOs. Sprites and elves only really last for fractions of a second and happen above the clouds, making them practically invisible to people. Ball lightning could possibly account for a few sightings I guess, but reports of ball lightning seem rarer than UFO sightings. I'd lean more towards manmade aircraft for a lot of sightings...

Patricio Elicer

12th June 2009, 11:28 PM

Please keep in mind that CSIOPtics do not practice passive skepticism, they practice aggressive skepticism.

Yes, that's true sometimes. But the "aggressive skepticism" is a response to the aggression against human intelligence committed by UFO/paranormal enthusiasts.

The claim of aliens traversing the light years, with all the technical difficulties it implies, coming to Earth to crash, is an insult to human intelligence.

The claims that aliens use craft that expell smoke, that need runways to land, that have windows, aliens that don't want to reveal their presence but use lights at night, that "abduct" thousand of people, that have been playing the mystery game on us for decades, etc, ..... are such a big nonsense and such a big aggression to human intelligence, that well deserve an aggressive reaction.

And more importantly, because such a nonsense promotes disinformation, especially on the young who are more prone to fall for that, and who are led to believe that those things are real.

Vortigern99

12th June 2009, 11:30 PM

"Experimental military aircraft" is one possible explanation that I've noted has not been raised yet. The idea would seem to explain many otherwise inexplicable sightings, especially given that the AF -- any nation's AF -- would be unlikely to disclose their military secrets. And who could blame them? That's why they call them "secrets". ;)

I guess this one goes under #11 alongside "burning oil rigs", "dust or ice particles on the camera lens", "the known phenomenon of visual hallucination", "gradual and accidental memory embellishment", and any other reasonable, logical and more probable scenarios than "alien visitation" the author of the list neglected to mention.

But yes, that last one certainly is a possibility too. Now what?

Robster, FCD

12th June 2009, 11:34 PM

MikeSun5

12th June 2009, 11:42 PM

jakesteele

13th June 2009, 12:24 AM

Define "highly qualified anecdotal evidence".

I think you know exactly what I mean, but I'll go through the drill one more time. "Highly qualified" means private, commercial or military pilots who have had years of training and experience. The exact opposite of amateur.

Actually it was only one astronomer and his mother. Of course, you can say he is lying about what he saw. The point being in this case is that he did not report something extraordinary. If he had, then I would be skeptical of his claim. Instead, his observations fit nicely into a probable explanation. This is something you do not want to entertain.

That's my point. Psychologically, humans seek that which fits neatly into their reality map. Anything that doesn't has got to go or be poo hooed or ridiculed or be completely ignored. As I said, if they report they saw UFOs you won't believe them. If they say airplanes, you will believe them. You're applying a double standard.

This is all about probabilities. Is it probable that an alien civilization is creating UFO reports or is it more likely that witnesses might mistake some phenomena for an alien spaceship. Even UFO proponents will admit that about 75-95% of all UFO reports are explainable as misperception and hoaxes. What makes you think the remaining 5-25% are not? What makes those remaining cases so special that we must conclude they are something extraordinary? Isn't it more likely the witness allowed himself to get so excited about seeing something strange that they exaggerated the story a bit? I can give you examples but just look at the Condon link somebody posted previously. Go to the section on witness perception by Dr. Hartmann. There are excellent examples there.

And what makes you think that the other 75-90 percent aren't special? Is it because the majority aren't, so therefore, the minority aren't either?

It's about ALL probabilities that fit within the context of what the subject matter is. In this case it is more likley that it is not, however, to deny the possibility that it might be is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's not being truly openminded to all possibilities that would fit within the context.

I am aware that witness testimony can be unreliable to varying degress at various times and situations. However, not all witness's testimony is unreliable.

If you see someone in broad daylite shoot a person and you later identify him in a line up and it's corroborated by other witnesses, then the court gives that testimony a lot of credence, to the point of sometimes giving the death sentence.

If an expert, trained and experienced commercial or military pilot sees an 'object' come up close and start pacing him and then zooming off at warp speed and then coming back and do some right-angle change of directions, you're going to have a really hard time attributing that to cloud formation, Venus, perhaps he was preoccupied or whatever else you come up with.

The fact that a solid object of unknow origions performs aerial feats that are outside the realm of nature, has to be given some degree of credence and not tossed aside as though it was a mirage.

jakesteele

13th June 2009, 02:15 AM

http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/woo

Sorry. It is a real world, er, word.

1 : to sue for the affection of and usually marriage with

Not in the context and in the way you do.

jakesteele

13th June 2009, 02:19 AM

Yes I did but that blows your claim out of the water. Using "anything I missed" means an infinite number of possibilities. That is a lot more than 11-12 "cookie cutter templates" for explaining UFO reports.

No, it doesn't, because you would never give an 'infinite' amount of possibilities because one of them would have to be alien spacecraft and getting you to say that is, again, like trying to pull the eye teeth from an angry gorilla.

jakesteele

13th June 2009, 02:24 AM

I've read the entire thing. All of the points you raised are addressed in it. It is not an easy read, because it is thorough.

And no, given the evidence presented over the years and taking the pragmatic approach such as the Condon Report does, I'm hard pressed to believe that aliens with the technology to travel light years across the universe would merely buzz hicks in the middle of nowhere or create crop circles rather than having the ability to instigate communications in a manner comprehensible to the planet they had visited.

Just because you're hard pressed doesn't mean everyone else is. That is your choice, your opinion. But when you present an opinion as an absolute, cased closed evidentual fact, that's where you cross the line from objective skeptic to subjective skeptic.

Also, you seem to think you know what an alien would or would not do. Are you an Indigo Child?

jakesteele

13th June 2009, 02:27 AM

EHocking

13th June 2009, 02:36 AM

... I saw something weird in the sky once, and have tried to explain it scientifically for a while. I can't. It was a UFO - or more accurately, a ULITS (Unidentified Light In The Sky). Never once did I think I saw an alien craft...Same here - in my early teens.

I was excited about it, but never once considered alien aircraft as an explanation. Fortunately the sighting was reported in the national paper the next day, so my parents and their friends (who were home when I burst in the door enthusing about UFOs) decided that I was completely mad (well, not for that reason, anyway).

jakesteele

13th June 2009, 02:40 AM

Looks like you don't even know what Occam's Razor is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

To straightforwardly summarize the principle as it is most commonly understood, “Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Anti-razors

EHocking

13th June 2009, 02:41 AM

Just because you're hard pressed doesn't mean everyone else is. That is your choice, your opinion. But when you present an opinion as an absolute, cased closed evidentual fact, that's where you cross the line from objective skeptic to subjective skeptic.Where have I presented my opinion as absolute fact? The OP asked for alternate explanations for UFO sightings, I gave him a well researched paper on the subject. In my opinion it is a very good aproach to researching a subject that, in the main, is thought to be so far off the wall as to be not worth researching by mainstream scientists.
Also, you seem to think you know what an alien would or would not do. Are you an Indigo Child?Don't put words or opinions in my mouth. My comment was, "I'm hard pressed to believe...". That's hardly emphatically stating a psychoanalysis of the alien mind.

jakesteele

13th June 2009, 04:52 AM

jake, the burden of proof is on you to produce the aliens or their crafts. We don't have evidence that they exist, and the leaps of evidence required for it to make sense are fairly extreme, making this an extraordinary claim.

I didn't say there were aliens or that the Phoenix Lights were extraterrestial, so there is no burden on me. All I have been doing is pointing out the underlying psychology, or confirmation bias, that undergirds your perceptions and beliefs.

You will take the word of amateur astronomers, as in the PL case or anywhere else, because it dovetails neatly into your reality map, but you will completely reject the hundreds of expert witnesses who have seen things that defy your cookie cutter template.

That's all this is about. I don't care whether aliens exist or not.

You need to provide extraordinary evidence to prove your claim. Until that point, aliens are simply not an equally probably explanation for UFOs.

I didn't say aliens were an equally probable explanation. If fact, I have stated in different ways that they are the least likely, but still within the realm of possibility and consideration as a result of expert testimony that can not be explained away by your cookie cutter.

jakesteele

13th June 2009, 04:54 AM

Come to think of it, the "UFO" that I saw was in Colorado Springs, just a few miles from NORAD and the Air Force Academy. Hmmmm, I wonder...

It was probably a military aircraft, unless there is an underground alien bunker, then maybe...:D

jakesteele

13th June 2009, 05:16 AM

Yes, that's true sometimes. But the "aggressive skepticism" is a response to the aggression against human intelligence committed by UFO/paranormal enthusiasts.

The claim of aliens traversing the light years, with all the technical difficulties it implies, coming to Earth to crash, is an insult to human intelligence.

Why? Do you claim to know that much about science that you can make an extraordinary claim like that? By the way, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Isn't that the line you guys use?

The claims that aliens use craft that expell smoke, that need runways to land, that have windows, aliens that don't want to reveal their presence but use lights at night, that "abduct" thousand of people, that have been playing the mystery game on us for decades, etc, ..... are such a big nonsense and such a big aggression to human intelligence, that well deserve an aggressive reaction.

WTF? I hope you feel better now that you've gotten that off your chest.

And more importantly, because such a nonsense promotes disinformation, especially on the young who are more prone to fall for that, and who are led to believe that those things are real.

I'm on a mission, too. I'm trying to keep the young who are prone to falling for things away from pseudoskeptics who cloak their denialism in the language of
skepticism and critical thinking.

foxholeatheist

13th June 2009, 06:41 AM

First of all, the astronomers give anecdotal evidence that you take as gospel, as though it is beyond dispute. You don’t question it. If the same guys said they saw an alien spacecraft, you would be all over them like a blanket. You would dismiss their claims outright.

I would really like to believe the pilots, but the government has a long history of lying to the people; sometimes righteously for national security, but many times for nefarious reasons. I’m not saying they are necessarily lying about this, but I always take their official reports with a grain of salt. But that’s just me.

You just said:
highly skilled and experienced pilots that know all about Venus, etc. If two amateurs, as claimed, don’t get fooled by that stuff then that same logic would certainly extend to skilled and experienced pilots
So you tend not to take the testimony of military pilots, not this guy.

The point I keep driving home is that the anecdotal astronomers statement are given much more weight than that of highly skilled and experienced pilots that know all about Venus, etc. If two amateurs, as claimed, don’t get fooled by that stuff then that same logic would certainly extend to skilled and experienced pilots, radar guys, etc.

Astronormers are also highly skilled and experienced in what they do. And yes, they are more credible then the average bear but believe me, no skeptic takes this as gospel.

That’s the “tilted playing field” gambit, assuming that somehow criticism does not bear any burden of proof. If you say definitively, in black and white/all or nothing terms, that something doesn’t exist or didn’t happen, you are stating an absolute. All absolutes bear the burden of proof.

You cannot prove a negitive. I cannot for instance prove there are no unicorns. The burden of proof will lie solely with those making the claim.

Please keep in mind that CSIOPtics do not practice passive skepticism, they practice aggressive skepticism. It’s one thing to say, “personally, I’m of the opinion that there are no UFOs/God/paranormal, etc., I just don’t see any evidence that would convince me otherwise.” It’s another thing entirely to take a verbally aggressive stance and hurl harsh invectives at people like woo woo, nutter, kook, etc. and make black and white/all or nothing statements like, “There are absolutely no UFOs/God(s)/paranormal, etc.” When it comes to matters like these, if you can’t tell someone definitely what is, then you are in no position to tell them definitely what it isn’t; it’s only your opinion. The burden is now on you.

Alright dude, CSIOPtics is getting danergously close to Usian. Anyway...

Again, taking the null stance I do not see how in any case the burden of proof would lie with the skeptic. I could never prove there is no God or UFO or trolls under the bridge. I could only ever hope to show how astronomically improbable it is.

Personally, I agree that the “null” is usually by far the most likely when it comes to UFOs, but in light of all the expert testimony to the contrary about UFOs in general, the “null” is not necessarily the only explanation. Hence, Ocaam’s Beard (the simplest explanation isn’t always the best.)

And that brings us back to what I first said about the anecdotal evidence of the amateur astronomers. Somehow you think theirs carries a lot of weight, but trained commercial and military pilots, radar guys’s anecdotal evidence carries none. That is the double standard I have been talking about all along.

That bogus and totality subjective. You will find many skeptics that take the claims of "foo-fighters" in WW2 seriously. And you will also find plenty of skeptics that take Kenneth Arnold's original 1947 seriously. Now when I say "seriously" does that imply "Alien Spaceship"? No, it does not.

The section I directed you to was Joe Nickell of CSIOPS. He is spefically addressing a guy nicknamed “The Flying Friar”. History records, correctly or not, I don’t care, show that this guy was witnessed by hundreds of people many, many times. One of his famous levitations was allegedly levitating from the back of the church up to a balcony high enough to clear the railing with his feet going up over the railing. It’s a leap that the best high jumper could even come close to making.

Joe’s explanation,rationalization is this, “Someone who is extremely agile, and I think he probably had some unusual athletic abilities, could in a few quick bounds, moving very fast, could hit a step and then move on up to the altar and then on higher up to a balcony.” He’s making two assumptions: 1. that someone agile/athletic enough could make this prodigious leap, and 2. that the Flying Flyer was agile/athletic enough to pull it off. Why didn’t he just get the best high jumpers and gymnasts he could find to test his theory?

OK, at least I got the correct show. You really should see the scene with the goofs that claim they can "fly" through transcendental meditation; it's a riot.

Anyway, such contemporaries of the "Flying Friar" are:
Seamonks, Bishopfish, The Vegetable Lamb, Monopods, Cockatrice... I don't need to go on. Records from that era are spotty at best and overflowing with allegory and allusion.

Not to get off topic...

Personally I believe most UFO reports are natural atmospheric phenomena or man made aircraft mistaken for Alien Spacecraft (then it really is not a UFO then is it?). A small minority of cases I believe to be hoaxes. A very few cases may be unexplainable (Lonnie Zamora in 1964, Kelly-Hopkinsville encounter of 1955 and the Pascagoula Abduction of 1973 all come to mind) in the sense that they have annoying loose ends that don't really make sense.

BUT... that is not license to jump to the conclusion that Extra-Terrestrials are involved when it is not the only explanation.

King of the Americas

13th June 2009, 07:47 AM

Possibly, probable,...Occam's Razor.

"U.F.O./the gods litter our historical texts. They didn't have to come from another star system, because they have 'always' been, in the heavens."

Which is more likely? That all of these writers, artists, and or historical chroniclers were delusional, OR that we are simply mis-interpreting our own sightings and failing to make the historical connections?

Historical Delusionality vs. Human Error

Which one would Occam's Razor point to?

---

You can call 'them' what you want, but all evidence points to someone or something 'up there', that is more than us... Technologically or physically superior, or at least 'higher'... maybe on an evolutionary scale.

Then again, they could be based in the other place we know little to nothing about- our deepest oceans.

Just something to think about...

Astrophotographer

13th June 2009, 08:30 AM

I think you know exactly what I mean, but I'll go through the drill one more time. "Highly qualified" means private, commercial or military pilots who have had years of training and experience. The exact opposite of amateur.

You missed my point about "pilot error" then. Pilots make mistakes just like any other human. If a pilot crashes an airplane, even with dozens of years of experience, because of a simple error, what makes his observational skills so perfect? I can give you all sorts of observations by skilled pilots that were errors in observation. The recent release of some British UFO records showed one event where Tornado pilots thought they saw an advanced aircraft fly over them. It turned out to be reentering space debris. Why did those experienced pilots make such an error?

I am aware that witness testimony can be unreliable to varying degress at various times and situations. However, not all witness's testimony is unreliable.

This is the problem. You can't tell which is reliable and which is not. You can't pick and choose therefore you have to question (i.e. express skepticism) the reports that appear exotic. It is more likely they are mistaken and not an accurate observation. When a potential explanation surfaces, then it should be considered likely. In the case of the Tornado pilots, it appeared to be a good UFO report of something truly exotic. However, it happened at the same time as the re-entering space debris.

If you see someone in broad daylite shoot a person and you later identify him in a line up and it's corroborated by other witnesses, then the court gives that testimony a lot of credence, to the point of sometimes giving the death sentence.

However, if your testimony states the person had a rifle and the actual weapon was a handgun, your testimony is suspect. In the case of UFO reports it is not a matter of questioning if the witness saw something but how they interpreted what they saw.

If an expert, trained and experienced commercial or military pilot sees an 'object' come up close and start pacing him and then zooming off at warp speed and then coming back and do some right-angle change of directions, you're going to have a really hard time attributing that to cloud formation, Venus, perhaps he was preoccupied or whatever else you come up with.

The fact that a solid object of unknow origions performs aerial feats that are outside the realm of nature, has to be given some degree of credence and not tossed aside as though it was a mirage.

Again, it is all a matter of interpretation of each event. We can dance around this all day but pilots and policemen are not much better at observations than most other people. When Dr. Hynek (sometimes called the "Galileo" of modern UFOlogy) looked at the bluebook data, he discovered that pilots made more mistakes than other types of observers. He stated:

"What we have here is a good example of a well-known psychological fact: "transference" of skill and experience does not usually take place. That is, an expert in one field does not necessarily "transfer" his competence to another one" (Hynek The UFO report p. 261).

If you want to describe a specific event we can go into that. However, the generic claim of pilots being infallible observers is not accurate. It has been shown time and time again to be false.

tsig

13th June 2009, 10:17 AM

tsig

13th June 2009, 10:29 AM

[

First off, goodluck and Godpseed on your Iraq thing. Regardless of whether I agree with the decision to go over there, I fully support the troops. A tip of the hat to you and the others.

First of all, the astronomers give anecdotal evidence that you take as gospel, as though it is beyond dispute. You don’t question it. If the same guys said they saw an alien spacecraft, you would be all over them like a blanket. You would dismiss their claims outright.

I would really like to believe the pilots, but the government has a long history of lying to the people; sometimes righteously for national security, but many times for nefarious reasons. I’m not saying they are necessarily lying about this, but I always take their official reports with a grain of salt. But that’s just me.

The point I keep driving home is that the anecdotal astronomers statement are given much more weight than that of highly skilled and experienced pilots that know all about Venus, etc. If two amateurs, as claimed, don’t get fooled by that stuff then that same logic would certainly extend to skilled and experienced pilots, radar guys, etc.

That’s the “tilted playing field” gambit, assuming that somehow criticism does not bear any burden of proof. If you say definitively, in black and white/all or nothing terms, that something doesn’t exist or didn’t happen, you are stating an absolute. All absolutes bear the burden of proof.

Please keep in mind that CSIOPtics do not practice passive skepticism, they practice aggressive skepticism. It’s one thing to say, “personally, I’m of the opinion that there are no UFOs/God/paranormal, etc., I just don’t see any evidence that would convince me otherwise.” It’s another thing entirely to take a verbally aggressive stance and hurl harsh invectives at people like woo woo, nutter, kook, etc. and make black and white/all or nothing statements like, “There are absolutely no UFOs/God(s)/paranormal, etc.” When it comes to matters like these, if you can’t tell someone definitely what is, then you are in no position to tell them definitely what it isn’t; it’s only your opinion. The burden is now on you.

Personally, I agree that the “null” is usually by far the most likely when it comes to UFOs, but in light of all the expert testimony to the contrary about UFOs in general, the “null” is not necessarily the only explanation. Hence, Ocaam’s Beard (the simplest explanation isn’t always the best.)

And that brings us back to what I first said about the anecdotal evidence of the amateur astronomers. Somehow you think theirs carries a lot of weight, but trained commercial and military pilots, radar guys’s anecdotal evidence carries none. That is the double standard I have been talking about all along.

No, you shouldn’t consider Elvis, etc. in this context. You’re comparing apples to oranges. In your mind you lump them all together, but many credible people don’t.

I’ve got all of Elvis’s records, though.

The section I directed you to was Joe Nickell of CSIOPS. He is spefically addressing a guy nicknamed “The Flying Friar”. History records, correctly or not, I don’t care, show that this guy was witnessed by hundreds of people many, many times. One of his famous levitations was allegedly levitating from the back of the church up to a balcony high enough to clear the railing with his feet going up over the railing. It’s a leap that the best high jumper could even come close to making.

Joe’s explanation,rationalization is this, “Someone who is extremely agile, and I think he probably had some unusual athletic abilities, could in a few quick bounds, moving very fast, could hit a step and then move on up to the altar and then on higher up to a balcony.” He’s making two assumptions: 1. that someone agile/athletic enough could make this prodigious leap, and 2. that the Flying Flyer was agile/athletic enough to pull it off. Why didn’t he just get the best high jumpers and gymnasts he could find to test his theory?

By ‘your guys’, I’m referring to what I call a CSIOPtics, which is someone who has adopted the Amazing Randi’s/CSIOPS style of debunkery.

You mean like asking for a little facts to go with the word salad?

tsig

13th June 2009, 10:32 AM

Yes, that's true sometimes. But the "aggressive skepticism" is a response to the aggression against human intelligence committed by UFO/paranormal enthusiasts.

The claim of aliens traversing the light years, with all the technical difficulties it implies, coming to Earth to crash, is an insult to human intelligence.

The claims that aliens use craft that expell smoke, that need runways to land, that have windows, aliens that don't want to reveal their presence but use lights at night, that "abduct" thousand of people, that have been playing the mystery game on us for decades, etc, ..... are such a big nonsense and such a big aggression to human intelligence, that well deserve an aggressive reaction.

And more importantly, because such a nonsense promotes disinformation, especially on the young who are more prone to fall for that, and who are led to believe that those things are real.

These aliens seem to act almost human with human motivations.:)

tsig

13th June 2009, 10:39 AM

And what makes you think that the other 75-90 percent aren't special? Is it because the majority aren't, so therefore, the minority aren't either?

It's about ALL probabilities that fit within the context of what the subject matter is. In this case it is more likley that it is not, however, to deny the possibility that it might be is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's not being truly openminded to all possibilities that would fit within the context.

I am aware that witness testimony can be unreliable to varying degress at various times and situations. However, not all witness's testimony is unreliable.

If you see someone in broad daylite shoot a person and you later identify him in a line up and it's corroborated by other witnesses, then the court gives that testimony a lot of credence, to the point of sometimes giving the death sentence.

If an expert, trained and experienced commercial or military pilot sees an 'object' come up close and start pacing him and then zooming off at warp speed and then coming back and do some right-angle change of directions, you're going to have a really hard time attributing that to cloud formation, Venus, perhaps he was preoccupied or whatever else you come up with.

The fact that a solid object of unknow origions performs aerial feats that are outside the realm of nature, has to be given some degree of credence and not tossed aside as though it was a mirage.

When we see an object apparently break the laws of physics do we throw out physics or conclude that our perception is somehow wanting?

We know of many ways our senses can be fooled but no way to fool physics.

tsig

13th June 2009, 10:50 AM

I'm on a mission, too. I'm trying to keep the young who are prone to falling for things away from pseudoskeptics who cloak their denialism in the language of
skepticism and critical thinking.

So asking for evidence is denialism?

lightfire22000

13th June 2009, 12:36 PM

paximperium

13th June 2009, 02:19 PM

To straightforwardly summarize the principle as it is most commonly understood, “Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Anti-razors
"Commonly understood" still means you and the commonly used term are still wrong. "Simplest" in the razor means LEAST assumptions.

Read the wiki, accept that you were wrong and change your arguments. That would be the honest thing to do.

paximperium

13th June 2009, 02:22 PM

So asking for evidence is denialism?
Basically. He refuses to ever clearly state what he believes but instead plays the "I'm just asking questions" or "I'm just trying to be the REAL skeptic" game.

He already tried it in the Anti-Pharma, Anti-vaccine thread.

I Ratant

13th June 2009, 02:39 PM

On an evening test flight, our plane left the runway flying to the north. He was then vectored to a west heading, at which time he complained we had him pointing directly at another airplane, he could see the light on the nose!
Just prior to entering the test building I'd noted Venus was prominent to the west of us.
I pointed this out to the test director... who replied.."We'll let him figure it out."
One thing we none of was other airplanes flying around that area when we had a test flight going on.

dang

13th June 2009, 04:55 PM

As a humorous aside, you may want to take a moment and help identify this UFO posted by a local PBS TV station:

http://shrinkify.com/t1p

jakesteele

13th June 2009, 06:45 PM

Looks like you don't even know what Occam's Razor is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Occam's razor
One entry found.

Main Entry:
Oc•cam's razor
Variant(s):
also Ock•ham's razor \ˈä-kəmz-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
William of Occam
Date:
circa 1837
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

(This one I really like the most)
Occam's razor is also called the principle of parsimony. These days it is usually interpreted to mean something like "the simpler the explanation, the better

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

(This is another good one)
The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion.

Albert Einstein:
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

It's important to remember that Occam's razor proves nothing. It serves instead as a heuristic device -- a guide or a suggestion -- that states that when given two explanations for the same thing, the simpler one is usually the correct one.

MikeSun5

13th June 2009, 07:13 PM

I think we can all agree that aliens could be the cause of the UFO sightings. If the possibilities are infinite, then you'd have to agree. It's also possible that aliens live here among us. It's possible we're all in a computer program like the Matrix, and it's possible that it's turtles all the way down. It's just more likely that all that stuff is nonsense. I think most UFOs are man-made.

Anyway, this is a good article (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/sprites.html) on sprites (from the OP) with some decent pictures. They kind of look like UFOs, but the article does say that they're rare to view from the ground and they don't last very long.

jakesteele

14th June 2009, 12:28 PM

"[QUOTE]Experimental military aircraft" is one possible explanation that I've noted has not been raised yet.

Yeah, I forgot to mention that and ‘innocent misperception’, so let's include those under #11.

I guess this one goes under #11 alongside "burning oil rigs", "dust or ice particles on the camera lens", "the known phenomenon of visual hallucination", "gradual and accidental memory embellishment", and any other reasonable, logical and more probable scenarios than "alien visitation" the author of the list neglected to mention.

Are you saying that every sighting from the earliest recorded event, up to and including the present, are all simple, mundane explanations?

Aepervius

14th June 2009, 01:22 PM

@jacksteele, you can try to pick the definition you wish, but in any case, alien landing and visiting us , in view of all our knowledgge on c speed, distance bewteen stars, energy requirement, absence of any verifiable evidence, is NEITHER the simplest explanation, NOR the most parsimonous, NOR the one requiring the least number of hypothese. Heck if you accept Alien visitation on testimony, you can start accepting bigfoot, pixie, dragon, unicorn, leprechaun, ghost, oni, kamisama, Zeus, angel, demon, chupacabra, etc....

The simplest and most likely explanation of all the above, is that people misinterpret what they see.

TjW

14th June 2009, 01:33 PM

Again, it is all a matter of interpretation of each event. We can dance around this all day but pilots and policemen are not much better at observations than most other people. When Dr. Hynek (sometimes called the "Galileo" of modern UFOlogy) looked at the bluebook data, he discovered that pilots made more mistakes than other types of observers. He stated:

"What we have here is a good example of a well-known psychological fact: "transference" of skill and experience does not usually take place. That is, an expert in one field does not necessarily "transfer" his competence to another one" (Hynek The UFO report p. 261).

If you want to describe a specific event we can go into that. However, the generic claim of pilots being infallible observers is not accurate. It has been shown time and time again to be false.

I think it's actually worse than that. The skills do transfer, sort of, but not in the way you'd expect. Piloting skills involve keeping the aircraft safe. Traffic awareness is a watchword.

If you're flying, and spot something with an apparent motion, and no change in relative bearing, there are two possibilities: that object is on a collision course, or that thing is flying formation with you. The first possibility really grabs your attention. If you're a pilot, running into another object can ruin your whole day.

There is a third possibility, of course, that the object is actually a long, long, way off, and thus doesn't show much change in relative bearing. And so pilots might misidentify the moon or Venus, or distant oil rig burnoffs as a threat not because they're bad pilots, but because they are well-trained and conscientious. And those non-threats displayed the motions (or lack thereof) associated with threats.

Astrophotographer

14th June 2009, 01:59 PM

If you're flying, and spot something with an apparent motion, and no change in relative bearing, there are two possibilities: that object is on a collision course, or that thing is flying formation with you. The first possibility really grabs your attention. If you're a pilot, running into another object can ruin your whole day.

No doubt. However, there is a good deal of UFO reports caused by bright meteors and re-entering space debris that appear as if they are on a collision course or nearby but are not. Jenny Randles "Danger in the air" is a good source of those kinds of reports.

TjW

14th June 2009, 02:31 PM

jakesteele

14th June 2009, 02:55 PM

"Experimental military aircraft" is one possible explanation that I've noted has not been raised yet.

I guess this one goes under #11 alongside "burning oil rigs", "dust or ice particles on the camera lens", "the known phenomenon of visual hallucination", "gradual and accidental memory embellishment", and any other reasonable, logical and more probable scenarios than "alien visitation" the author of the list neglected to mention.

Are you saying that every sighting from the earliest recorded event, up to and including the present, are all simple, mundane explanations that exclude the possibility of UFOs?

But yes, that last one certainly is a possibility too. Now what?

Now what? Simple, we get back to the basics that we started out with. Subjective skeptics are psychologically predisposed to always use a mundane explanation even if it’s inappropiate. It’s great to be for the simpler but when you dumb it down because you simply don’t believe, you are letting the rigid, inflexible boundaries of your reality map hold sway because of a bias blind spot.

I gave an all time classic example of subjective skepticism with the Joe Nickell vid of The Flying Friar. So far nobody has addressed that. That Nickell portion of the clip shows exactly the point I have been making all along: A subjective skeptic will go to any lengths to try to explain away that which doesn't conform to their reality map even to the point of abusing OR like Nickell did.

I would love for you to address the Joe Nickell segment on Human Levitation. I would like to hear your objective, rational and logical take on it.

TjW

14th June 2009, 03:00 PM

Mundane objects are known to exist. Now, it's certainly possible that if you hear hoofbeats in the night, it's zebras, and not horses. But even admitting that, it's unlikely to be unicorns.

jakesteele

14th June 2009, 04:21 PM

I think jakesteele may have come up with CSIOPtic as a mangling of the old CSICOP organization, psy-ops (psychological operations), and myopic. From my point of view, its an attempt at being clever, but thats it.

I have seen a UFO. I could not identify it. It appeared to be flying. It may have been an object. Little green men? I doubt it.

I personally think, looking back on it years later, it was probably a superior mirage.

Why do I go to this "cookie cutter" explanation? Simple. Because on the whole, most of the time, cookie cutters produce a good explanation. In this case, it matches video of similar mirage UFOs. Is there a possibility they were aliens? Yeah, but its a very small possibility compared to the much more likely cookie cutters, which we know produce phenomenons that match the reported sighting.

I pretty much agree with with that. UFOs would be the least likely but still within the realm of possibility, unlike unicorns.

jake, the burden of proof is on you to produce the aliens or their crafts. We don't have evidence that they exist, and the leaps of evidence required for it to make sense are fairly extreme, making this an extraordinary claim. Think, an interstellar alien race has managed to find a populated planet, and all they do is cruise around the sky, mutilate a few cattle and probe some people. And what is it with probing anuses? You can travel from one star to another, but your medical diagnostic equipment requires invasive procedures?

You need to provide extraordinary evidence to prove your claim. Until that point, aliens are simply not an equally probably explanation for UFOs.

There is a burden of proof on you to prove definitively what it is before you reject a possibility that isn’t simple and mundane and in the realm of consideration. Occam’s Beard – the simplest explanation is not always the best.

There is no burden of proof on me to provide aliens because I’m not claiming that there necessarily are aliens.

When you try to force a plausible explanation, as in the case of Joe Nickell, that’s where you cross the line from objective to subjective skepticism.

By the way, how about that clip of Joe? I haven’t heard anybody really address that head on. What’s your opinion on that clip?

Astrophotographer

14th June 2009, 06:19 PM

It's the same effect as the moon or Venus, though. It's so far away that there's no angular motion. And something that gets brighter while maintaining the same angle is almost certainly going to be interpreted as getting closer.

Not for meteors and debris re-entry. The angular motion is much greater and there are cases of pilots swerving their aircraft away from an apparent collision with a meteor or reentering space debris.

jakesteele

15th June 2009, 12:33 AM

You just said:

So you tend not to take the testimony of military pilots, not this guy.

In this particular instance, Phoenix Lights, I don’t necessarily reject what the amateurs said, but objectively, I can’t dismiss expert military/commercial pilots’ reports in general, either.

You cannot prove a negitive. I cannot for instance prove there are no unicorns. The burden of proof will lie solely with those making the claim.

Sure you can. In this context just prove the positive. All you’ve got to do is prove the right explanation, complex or not, beyond all doubt, and by default, all other explanations will be incorrect.
I think this quote sums it up best:
Albert Einstein:
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." You’re not being simple, you’re being simpler.

I’m advocating a model that includes the possibility of alien technology as a viable theory based on all of the eyewitness testimony by experts that can’t be explained away by the mundane. You automatically exclude that possibility by trying to put it in the realm of unicorns, of which, there have been no recent reports of by qualified experts like biologists or zoologists.

Again, taking the null stance I do not see how in any case the burden of proof would lie with the skeptic. I could never prove there is no God or UFO or trolls under the bridge. I could only ever hope to show how astronomically improbable it is.

You’re comparing apples to oranges to grapes. You can’t prove there is a God and you can’t prove there isn’t one. And there have been no recent sightings of Trolls by qualified biologists or zoologists, unlike UFOs. Of the three, UFOs are the simplest and most likely of the three. Unless, of course, you believe in God and unicorns.

That bogus and totality subjective. You will find many skeptics that take the claims of "foo-fighters" in WW2 seriously. And you will also find plenty of skeptics that take Kenneth Arnold's original 1947 seriously. Now when I say "seriously" does that imply "Alien Spaceship"? No, it does not.

If they take those cases seriously but don’t imply or include aliens, then what exactly are they taking seriously and why? What is it about those that make them special?

OK, at least I got the correct show. You really should see the scene with the goofs that claim they can "fly" through transcendental meditation; it's a riot.

Anyway, such contemporaries of the "Flying Friar" are:
Seamonks, Bishopfish, The Vegetable Lamb, Monopods, Cockatrice... I don't need to go on. Records from that era are spotty at best and overflowing with allegory and allusion.

I don’t care about whether humans can levitate or not. What I am concerned about is people like Joe Nickell cloaking denialism in the guise of objective skepticism and critical thinking and infecting other people with it.

Personally I believe most UFO reports are natural atmospheric phenomena or man made aircraft mistaken for Alien Spacecraft (then it really is not a UFO then is it?). A small minority of cases I believe to be hoaxes. A very few cases may be unexplainable (Lonnie Zamora in 1964, Kelly-Hopkinsville encounter of 1955 and the Pascagoula Abduction of 1973 all come to mind) in the sense that they have annoying loose ends that don't really make sense.

BUT... that is not license to jump to the conclusion that Extra-Terrestrials are involved when it is not the only explanation.

I haven’t “jumped to the conclusion” that ETs are involved, but you have jumped to the conclusion that they’re not ever involved.

I agree with this section except for the “license to jump” part. It’s not jumping to conclusions. It’s a reason not to exclude the possibility of alien tech.

You, however have jumped to the conclusion that all the answers are always mundane, and sometimes you just don’t have enough data to figure out which mundane it it.

By the way, what’s your take on the Joe Nickell’s debunkery on human levitation? I haven’t heard anything from anybody about that yet. What’s up with that?

Astrophotographer

15th June 2009, 05:18 AM

I haven’t “jumped to the conclusion” that ETs are involved, but you have jumped to the conclusion that they’re not ever involved.

Why does ET have to be involved? List all the options if you are going to be listing ET. There is as just as much evidence for the existence of Fairies, witches on brooms, flying demons, time travelers, etc. as there is for ET visiting the earth. Let's not dismiss those possibilities as well. Again, the possibility of UFO reports (with emphasis on the "U" = UNIDENTIFIED) being alien spaceships is remote and should be the same as a witch on a broom. Here is another video clip for you to watch so you might understand:

http://heelspurs.com/zpics/feynman8.rm.

jakesteele

15th June 2009, 12:33 PM

You missed my point about "pilot error" then. Pilots make mistakes just like any other human. If a pilot crashes an airplane, even with dozens of years of experience, because of a simple error, what makes his observational skills so perfect? I can give you all sorts of observations by skilled pilots that were errors in observation. The recent release of some British UFO records showed one event where Tornado pilots thought they saw an advanced aircraft fly over them. It turned out to be reentering space debris. Why did those experienced pilots make such an error?

Of course pilots can make mistakes. But the professional ones make far fewer than amateurs or they wouldn’t be flying 747s and F-14s. They are right way, way, way more times than they are wrong.

This is the problem. You can't tell which is reliable and which is not. You can't pick and choose therefore you have to question (i.e. express skepticism) the reports that appear exotic. It is more likely they are mistaken and not an accurate observation. When a potential explanation surfaces, then it should be considered likely. In the case of the Tornado pilots, it appeared to be a good UFO report of something truly exotic. However, it happened at the same time as the re-entering space debris.

Of course you question reports that are exotics. You use objective skepticism on them as well as any other type of sightings or evidences. And, of course, when a potential explanation surfaces it should be considered as a possibility in descending order of plausibility. But if all your mundane possibilities don’t pan out and the only thing you have left is an exotic, then you must give that serious, due deliberation just like any of the others, especially when you have credible witnesses attesting to the fact.

Occam’s Beard – the simplest explanation is not always the best.

However, if your testimony states the person had a rifle and the actual weapon was a handgun, your testimony is suspect. In the case of UFO reports it is not a matter of questioning if the witness saw something but how they interpreted what they saw.

Military pilots go through all kinds of training like Instrument Comprehension, Cyclic Orientation, Spatial Apperception, Electrical Mazes, airplane silhouette identification and recognition, etc.

Again, it is all a matter of interpretation of each event. We [QUOTE]can dance around this all day but pilots and policemen are not much better at observations than most other people. When Dr. Hynek (sometimes called the "Galileo" of modern UFOlogy) looked at the bluebook data, he discovered that pilots made more mistakes than other types of observers. He stated:

"What we have here is a good example of a well-known psychological fact: "transference" of skill and experience does not usually take place. That is, an expert in one field does not necessarily "transfer" his competence to another one" (Hynek The UFO report p. 261).

See below where a much more fleshed out overview of Hynek.

If you want to describe a specific event we can go into that. However, the generic claim of pilots being infallible observers is not accurate. It has been shown time and time again to be false.

Who said they were infallible? What kind of pilots? I said there are many pilots, like commercial or military, that make for highly credible experts, more so than amateur astronomers; professional > amateur.

It’s like you’re saying that an experienced hunting guide in Alaska will observe no more of his surroundings in the woods that the green horn, city slicker who hired him.

Have you never heard of the term, ‘trained observer’? Somehow Amateur astronomers who look at the skies, as the likes of Phil Plait would say, an ‘inordinate amount of time’ and give the answers that you need for your reality map, you consider them totally credible witnesses that you don’t doubt or question.

But when it comes to highly skilled and experienced pilots, whose job is the skies and everything up there with them, you consider them no more credible than Joe Blow from Anywhere, USA.

If you have an artist giving his opion that the twin towers were brought down with C-4 instead of the planes, then, yeah, your idea of ‘transference’ works.

Are you telling me that all the training I’ve already listed about pilots being intensively trained does not make them better at observation, doesn’t do them any more good than if they had played hooky from class and gone fishing instead? Why does the Air Force waste time and money on classes like airplane silhoutette identification?

You’re not looking for an explanation as to what it is out of scientific curiosity and the advancement of science, rather, you’re looking for a mundane explanation for the sole reason of debunkery. In other words, it’s more important to you to disprove UFOs at any cost, sometimes going to absurd extremes like Joe Nickell by stretching credibility to the breaking point, than it is to weigh and asses the evidence carefully, being concerned where the evidence takes you. You are emotionally predisposed to debunk at any cost. That is the definition of subjective criticism.

Fleshed out Hynek:

Another shift in Hynek's opinions came after conducting an informal poll of his astronomer colleagues in the early 1950s. Among those he queried was Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the dwarf planet Pluto. Of 44 astronomers, five (over 11 percent) had seen aerial objects that they could not account for with established, mainstream science. Most of these astronomers had not widely shared their accounts for fear of ridicule or of damage to their reputations or careers (Tombaugh was an exception, having openly discussed his own UFO sightings). Hynek also noted that this 11% figure was, according to most polls, greater than those in the general public who claimed to have seen UFOs. Furthermore, the astronomers were presumably more knowledgeable about observing and evaluating the skies than the general public, so their observations were arguably more impressive. Hynek was also distressed by what he regarded as the dismissive or arrogant attitude of many mainstream scientists towards UFO reports and witnesses.
Early evidence of the shift in Hynek's opinions appeared in 1953, when Hynek wrote an article for the April 1953 issue of The Journal of the Optical Society of America titled "Unusual Aerial Phenomena," which contained what would become perhaps Hynek's best known statement:
"Ridicule is not part of the scientific method, and people should not be taught that it is. The steady flow of reports, often made in concert by reliable observers, raises questions of scientific obligation and responsibility. Is there ... any residue that is worthy of scientific attention? Or, if there isn't, does not an obligation exist to say so to the public—not in words of open ridicule but seriously, to keep faith with the trust the public places in science and scientists?" (Emphasis in original)[4]

the essay was very carefully worded: Hynek never states that UFOs are an extraordinary phenomenon. But it is clear that, whatever his own views, Hynek was increasingly distressed by what he saw as the superficial manner most scientists looked at UFOs.
When the UFO reports continued at a steady pace, Hynek devoted some time to studying the reports and determined that some were deeply puzzling, even after considerable study. He once said, "As a scientist I must be mindful of the past; all too often it has happened that matters of great value to science were overlooked because the new phenomenon did not fit the accepted scientific outlook of the time."
In a 1985 interview, when asked what caused his change of opinion, Hynek responded, "Two things, really. One was the completely negative and unyielding attitude of the Air Force. They wouldn't give UFOs the chance of existing, even if they were flying up and down the street in broad daylight. Everything had to have an explanation. I began to resent that, even though I basically felt the same way, because I still thought they weren't going about it in the right way. You can't assume that everything is black no matter what. Secondly, the caliber of the witnesses began to trouble me. Quite a few instances were reported by military pilots, for example, and I knew them to be fairly well-trained, so this is when I first began to think that, well, maybe there was something to all this."

RoboTimbo

15th June 2009, 12:53 PM

There is a burden of proof on you to prove definitively what it is before you reject a possibility that isn’t simple and mundane and in the realm of consideration. Occam’s Beard – the simplest explanation is not always the best.

Shifting the burden of proof. Why does anyone have to prove positively what it is to reject something else?

There is no burden of proof on me to provide aliens because I’m not claiming that there necessarily are aliens.

Yes, you are. That's why you're trying to shift the burden of proof.

When you try to force a plausible explanation, as in the case of Joe Nickell, that’s where you cross the line from objective to subjective skepticism.

Offering mundane alternative explanations isn't forcing anything.

By the way, how about that clip of Joe? I haven’t heard anybody really address that head on. What’s your opinion on that clip?

Haven't watched it, sorry.

If you have compelling evidence for something extraordinary, please present it. Otherwise, mundane explanations will have to do. That leaves the burden of proof in your court. If you aren't arguing for an extraordinary explanation, then why this discussion?

Astrophotographer

15th June 2009, 12:55 PM

Of course pilots can make mistakes. But the professional ones make far fewer than amateurs or they wouldn’t be flying 747s and F-14s. They are right way, way, way more times than they are wrong.

Tell that to the people who have lost their lives because of pilot error. Didn't an F-18 pilot kill some skiers in Italy one time because he flew too low? Don't make pilots into god-like creatures because they aren't. There are good pilots and there are bad pilots but there is no such thing as a pilot who can't make a mistake.

Of course you question reports that are exotics. You use objective skepticism on them as well as any other type of sightings or evidences. And, of course, when a potential explanation surfaces it should be considered as a possibility in descending order of plausibility. But if all your mundane possibilities don’t pan out and the only thing you have left is an exotic, then you must give that serious, due deliberation just like any of the others, especially when you have credible witnesses attesting to the fact.

If a pilot states they saw a dragon flying through the air, would you believe him? What if he had tens of thousands of hours flying time? Would you then suggest that he really did see a dragon or, maybe, just maybe, he might be mistaken. Anecdotal claims by themselves are not facts (somethign that can not be refuted). They are stories told about an event that may or may not be accurate.

Military pilots go through all kinds of training like Instrument Comprehension, Cyclic Orientation, Spatial Apperception, Electrical Mazes, airplane silhouette identification and recognition, etc.

Yet they still make mistakes. The Tornado pilots are a good example. I can give you more if you so desire.

Who said they were infallible? What kind of pilots? I said there are many pilots, like commercial or military, that make for highly credible experts, more so than amateur astronomers; professional > amateur.

Do pilots know what a bright fireball looks like? Do they know what an iridium flare is? Do they know the difference between a geosynchronous satellite and a low earth orbit satellite? Pilots are great at flying and I do not doubt their skills at this. However, looking at the past history of pilot error, it does not mean they are great at identifying an unknown. This is what Hynek meant.

Have you never heard of the term, ‘trained observer’? Somehow Amateur astronomers who look at the skies, as the likes of Phil Plait would say, an ‘inordinate amount of time’ and give the answers that you need for your reality map, you consider them totally credible witnesses that you don’t doubt or question.

Actually I do doubt some amateur reports. Especially if they are exotic. Take the SLO that was imaged by "amateur astronomer" Chuck Shramek. He sparked the whole UFO trailing comet Hale-Bopp nonsense. The extraordinary claim was examined by many and doubted. When it was exposed to be just a nearby star distorted by optics, it was rejected. I can say the same about the "Aries flasher". Exotic report doubted and eventually rejected. This one had numerous observations and a photograph! All shown to be satellite reflections and glints.

But when it comes to highly skilled and experienced pilots, whose job is the skies and everything up there with them, you consider them no more credible than Joe Blow from Anywhere, USA.

The fact is that many make mistakes. That is a fact. As a result, the more exotic the report (no matter who is reporting them), the more skeptical one should be of that report until it can be verified.

Are you telling me that all the training I’ve already listed about pilots being intensively trained does not make them better at observation, doesn’t do them any more good than if they had played hooky from class and gone fishing instead? Why does the Air Force waste time and money on classes like airplane silhoutette identification?

If you are dealing with "unidentifieds" the silhouette training means nothing. The training the military gives its pilots are to identify enemy aircraft and shoot them down or attack targets. It has nothing to do with all the atmospheric and astronomical phenomena visible to the pilot. I can give you examples of military pilots chasing bright stars for goodness sakes.

You’re not looking for an explanation as to what it is out of scientific curiosity and the advancement of science, rather, you’re looking for a mundane explanation for the sole reason of debunkery. In other words, it’s more important to you to disprove UFOs at any cost, sometimes going to absurd extremes like Joe Nickell by stretching credibility to the breaking point, than it is to weigh and asses the evidence carefully, being concerned where the evidence takes you. You are emotionally predisposed to debunk at any cost. That is the definition of subjective criticism.

No, it is you who seems to be stuck in the mindset of not recognizing issues associated with these reports. You have made blanket statements without being familiar with the case histories. I have actually looked at some of these case histories. Have you? Have you read about all these mistakes made by military pilots (i.e. chasing stars, swerving to avoid re-entering debris/meteors, confusing the setting moon peaking out of some clouds, etc. etc.)? It is you who have not bothered to even look at these histories and see if they can be explained. You just accept the statement they can not be explained and then assume they are alien spaceships. Why not dragons?

Your "fleshed out Hynek" sounds like a cut and paste from somebody's website. Is this your own work or somebody else's. You should give them credit if you do use their work you know. BTW, Hynek still says you can't trust pilots as infallible observers in his book, "The UFO report". The statistics show this is true.

Marduk

15th June 2009, 01:03 PM

I said at or near the approximate heights of planes. I didn't say anything about the 'average' height", you did. I believe that's either a Straw Man or a red herring. I know, it's a Straw Man fishing for a red herring.

It's like when airplanes have flown side by side with alleged UFOs. But you still won't give up the ghost and say one of the possibilities, although the least likely, is a UFO, will you?

I'm not understanding your usage of the phrase "unidentified flying object", these airplanes flying side by side didn't just say U.F.O. did they. I would think a trained pilot qualified to make a better description. As long as they are U.F.O's there can be no explanation for them, thats what the word unidentified means
;)
take the example of the black triangle U.F.O's that started showing up in the early 80s, they were U.F.O's now theyve been identified as black project aircraft like the stealth bomber or Aurora, now only the real nuts are claiming that theyre aliens emulating stealth bombers so that they can remain unidentified. It never ends if youre not looking at the evidence from a sceptical position

jakesteele

15th June 2009, 01:22 PM

Why does ET have to be involved? List all the options if you are going to be listing ET. There is as just as much evidence for the existence of Fairies, witches on brooms, flying demons, time travelers, etc. as there is for ET visiting the earth. Let's not dismiss those possibilities as well. Again, the possibility of UFO reports (with emphasis on the "U" = UNIDENTIFIED) being alien spaceships is remote and should be the same as a witch on a broom. Here is another video clip for you to watch so you might understand:

http://heelspurs.com/zpics/feynman8.rm.

There have been thousands of reported sightings of exotics, of which, many are from very credible witness. As far as I know there have not been thousands of sightings of witches, fairies, flying demons, etc., in recent times. That is the “Bad Analogy” gambit. You’re not even comparing apples to oranges, you’re comparing apples to rocks.

Sorry, I tried to play the clip with Real Player, my default, but the image was very distorted and there was no sound and I’m not very good with ‘puters.

I Ratant

15th June 2009, 01:48 PM

Wishing won't make it so.

Astrophotographer

15th June 2009, 03:11 PM

That is the “Bad Analogy” gambit. You’re not even comparing apples to oranges, you’re comparing apples to rocks.

The analogy is accurate. How much evidence is there that aliens are visiting the earth? Zero. How much evidence is there for witches, dragons, and fairies? Zero. As far as all these "exotic" cases go, what do these "exotic" cases prove? That people state they saw something extraordinary? It is your contention that "exotic" cases must have "exotic" answers. Therefore, we must look at all the potential "exotic" answers. That includes witches, dragons, fairies, etc. Can you prove a UFO case was not a flying dragon, or a witch, or a fairy? Since you can not prove they were not, then there is the same amount of potential they were the source of the "exotic" UFO report.

BTW, the clip was Richard Feynman talking about having a discussion about flying saucers. A layman told him he was not being "scientific" about flying saucer reports when he said he did not think they existed in the form of alien spaceships (since he could not prove they did not exist). He rephrased his comment to the individual by saying, "I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the result of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence rather than the unknown rational efforts of extraterrestrial intelligence."

Marduk

15th June 2009, 03:27 PM

The analogy is accurate. How much evidence is there that aliens are visiting the earth? Zero. How much evidence is there for witches, dragons, and fairies? Zero.

there is far more evidence for witches, dragons and fairies than there is for Aliens, for instance I could post you tonnes of evidence that dragons existed from every culture on earth, from artwork to textual accounts, of course this doesn't mean that dragons are real, but I'm wondering why anyone is happy to discount that possibility in favour of something with less evidence. Seems they would be reacting to this thread with "belief" rather than "data". Do we need to look further than the sci fi channel to see where that kind of belief comes from ?

It also strikes me that U.F.O's are much more a cultural enigma which changes with the times, at the turn of the century they were being reported as Zeppelin shaped vehicles that floated silently overhead, shortly after the wright brothers they became powered craft, after WW2 they became powered craft with jet propulsion, during the 50s they picked up anti gravity technology and most recently they are identical to our most cutting edge aircraft. this leaves two possibilities to my mind
1. the Aliens are smarter than we think and keep adapting their craft along the lines of our technological culture
2. what people are seeing is what they want to see

;)

King of the Americas

16th June 2009, 10:24 AM

Occam's razor
One entry found.

Main Entry:
Oc•cam's razor
Variant(s):
also Ock•ham's razor \ˈä-kəmz-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
William of Occam
Date:
circa 1837
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

(This one I really like the most)
Occam's razor is also called the principle of parsimony. These days it is usually interpreted to mean something like "the simpler the explanation, the better

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

(This is another good one)
The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion.

Albert Einstein:
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

It's important to remember that Occam's razor proves nothing. It serves instead as a heuristic device -- a guide or a suggestion -- that states that when given two explanations for the same thing, the simpler one is usually the correct one.

So which explanation is more simple, or the least complex when it comes to U.F.O.'s, that:

-TENS of THOUSANDS of artists, writers, scholars, and scientists ALL had the same delusion/vision "gods in the sky/heavens"

OR

We have erred in our understanding of these historical evidence, and failed to make the connection to today's sightings containing all the same elements...

...?

MASSIVE historic delusions or simple human error?

I vote human error and general ignorance.

People have seen the same thing(s) in the "heavens" for millennia...

Maybe we should stop ignoring this fact?

Astrophotographer

16th June 2009, 10:37 AM

MASSIVE historic delusions or simple human error?

Simple human error is most probable. Most UFOlogists will agree that 75-95% (depends on who you ask but the data suggests the higher number) of all UFO sightings are misperceptions and all occupations are susceptible (yes, even astronomers!). It is not a great stretch to suggest the remaining 5-25% is all misperception (or possibly hoax) as well and the only problem in resolving the issue is that these reports are highly distorted in the retelling of the story (Which is common over time) or the information is insufficient to resolve the case.

Marduk

16th June 2009, 11:03 AM

People have seen the same thing(s) in the "heavens" for millennia...

Maybe we should stop ignoring this fact?
maybe you should actually read some real history books and stay away from the crap written about ufos in history posted on woo woo sites. Whos your source on that Sitchin or Daniken

I can tell you for nothing that there is nothing in any text from Mesopotamia that supports U.F.O's in that region. Plenty of dragons and spirits though. and before you ask, no, the dragons werent the type that flew, they were the type that swam
:p

makaya325

16th June 2009, 03:37 PM

So which explanation is more simple, or the least complex when it comes to U.F.O.'s, that:

-TENS of THOUSANDS of artists, writers, scholars, and scientists ALL had the same delusion/vision "gods in the sky/heavens"

OR

We have erred in our understanding of these historical evidence, and failed to make the connection to today's sightings containing all the same elements...

...?

MASSIVE historic delusions or simple human error?

I vote human error and general ignorance.

People have seen the same thing(s) in the "heavens" for millennia...

Maybe we should stop ignoring this fact?

People no longer believe in Sky gods anymore. They have been replaced with Ufo's and other New Age nonsense.

shadron

16th June 2009, 04:24 PM

By ‘your guys’, I’m referring to what I call a CSIOPtics, which is someone who has adopted the Amazing Randi’s/CSIOPS style of debunkery.

That's CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal). CSICOP and Randi's approaches have differed, and the differences have lead to some animosities, and why The Randi Foundation is nor affiliated with CSICOP. One big area of difference is that the Randi Foundation encourages experiential and experimental science (the MDC) while CSICOP stands more behind research, political and media approaches. Both emphasize education; perhaps that is what you mean by their combined "style".

shadron

16th June 2009, 04:28 PM

People no longer believe in Sky gods anymore. They have been replaced with Ufo's and other New Age nonsense.

Um, well, as long as you're not speaking of the 75% of Americans that have a religion that is not New Age. minus some percentage who are either lying through their teeth or are to ignorant to know what they really believe.

King of the Americas

16th June 2009, 06:03 PM

People no longer believe in Sky gods anymore. They have been replaced with Ufo's and other New Age nonsense.

Or maybe they are the same thing...

King of the Americas

16th June 2009, 06:09 PM

maybe you should actually read some real history books and stay away from the crap written about ufos in history posted on woo woo sites. Whos your source on that Sitchin or Daniken

I can tell you for nothing that there is nothing in any text from Mesopotamia that supports U.F.O's in that region. Plenty of dragons and spirits though. and before you ask, no, the dragons werent the type that flew, they were the type that swam
:p

"Daniken" I've heard of, who's "Sitchin"?

Neither of these people have 'seen' gods for themselves, right? They have only assembled various renderings from around the world, and given their thoughts on these matters...right?

Ignore such collage makers, and look at the evidence for yourself.

Google: "Historical, U.F.O. artwork"

godless dave

16th June 2009, 06:11 PM

Are you saying that every sighting from the earliest recorded event, up to and including the present, are all simple, mundane explanations?

Yes.

MikeSun5

16th June 2009, 09:21 PM

People no longer believe in Sky gods anymore. They have been replaced with Ufo's and other New Age nonsense.

:clap: :clap: ding! ding! ding! ding! ding! WE HAVE A WINNER, FOLKS! :clap: :clap:

I Ratant

16th June 2009, 09:50 PM

"Daniken" I've heard of, who's "Sitchin"?

Neither of these people have 'seen' gods for themselves, right? They have only assembled various renderings from around the world, and given their thoughts on these matters...right?

Ignore such collage makers, and look at the evidence for yourself.

Google: "Historical, U.F.O. artwork"
.
Zechariah Sitchin is a self-proclaimed expert on interpreting the ancient writings.
He manages to find UFOs in many of them, and has developed a history of the universe based on his analysis of Sumerian and other Middle Eastern legends.
He delves into paleontology and cosmology in his many publications.
http://www.sitchin.com/
.
Professional paleontologists say his paleontology is purely imaginary, but think the cosmology could make sense.
Professional cosmologists say his cosmology is total nonsense, but think his paleontology could make sense.
If you can get 1/2 way thru his first book, "The 12th Planet", your endurance of pure woo is remarkable.

jakesteele

17th June 2009, 12:32 AM

Tell that to the people who have lost their lives because of pilot error. Didn't an F-18 pilot kill some skiers in Italy one time because he flew too low? Don't make pilots into god-like creatures because they aren't.

Who said anything about Gods? I said skilled, professional and experienced.

[QUOTE]If a pilot states they saw a dragon flying through the air, would you believe him? What if he had tens of thousands of hours flying time? Would you then suggest that he really did see a dragon or, maybe, just maybe, he might be mistaken. Anecdotal claims by themselves are not facts (somethign that can not be refuted). They are stories told about an event that may or may not be accurate.

If a pilot states they saw a MIG, would you believe him? If a pilot states he saw some kind of unidentifiable craft with an unknown silhouette would you believe him?
Your whole statement about dragons and UFOs being in the woo category is what allows you to have contempt prior to investigation. If It’s woo then I won’t even bother because I already it’s fantasy. I don’t because there are reams of expert, skilled and professional testimony pertaining to UFOs. The last I heard, there were none about dragons.

Yet they still make mistakes. The Tornado pilots are a good example. I can give you more if you so desire.

And I can give you way more examples of pilots who routinely don’t make mistakes. Every day there are hundreds and thousands of flights from rookie to the Black Bird spy plane and all points in between, that don’t crash. The vast overwhelming flights don’t crash. Crashes are an exception to the norm.

Do pilots know what a bright fireball looks like? Do they know what an iridium flare is? Do they know the difference between a geosynchronous satellite and a low earth orbit satellite? Pilots are great at flying and I do not doubt their skills at this. However, looking at the past history of pilot error, it does not mean they are great at identifying an unknown. This is what Hynek meant.

Hynek also said this: “My concern is with flying saucers of long lifetime -- those which have not, as yet, been "captured" or demolished by an explanation. Let us further limit them to those that have been observed by two or more people, at least one of whom is practiced in the making of observations of some kind, that is, to pilots, control tower operators, weather observers, scientific workers, etc. Also, let us limit cases to sightings lasting a minute or more, again for obvious reasons.”

Basically, you are saying that every single time a pilot reports something exotic he is mistaken.

There have been too many credible witnesses that have reported seeing very clearly some kind of craft of unknown origins flying next to their aircraft and performing astounding maneuvers. To try to dismiss every single one of those as one of your mundane, 10-15 point cookie cutter templates is absurd. You would have to be Omniscient.

Basically, what’s implied in your reality map is that every
single report of a sighting from the beginning of man up to and including the present, and by extrapolation, every single sighting in the future can be explained away by 10-15 mundane explanations. That’s a pretty bold implied statement. In fact, I would call that an Omniscient Absolute. And I don’t think you are Omniscient.

Actually I do doubt some amateur reports. Especially if they are exotic. Take the SLO that was imaged by "amateur astronomer" Chuck Shramek. He sparked the whole UFO trailing comet Hale-Bopp nonsense. The extraordinary claim was examined by many and doubted. When it was exposed to be just a nearby star distorted by optics, it was rejected. I can say the same about the "Aries flasher". Exotic report doubted and eventually rejected. This one had numerous observations and a photograph! All shown to be satellite reflections and glints.

The fact is that many make mistakes. That is a fact. As a result, the more exotic the report (no matter who is reporting them), the more skeptical one should be of that report until it can be verified.

I agree you should be skeptical about exotics until something can be verified one way or the other. That’s objective skepticism. Unfortunately, that’s not what happens with the James Randi style of skepticism as evidenced by your dragon reference up above. You already have your mind made up that UFOs falls into the woo category and woo is an area where you refuse to investigate objectively. Why? Because it’s woo and any half way intelligent person should know that!! Why bother investigating unicorns, dragons and UFOs when you know they’re not real.

***If you are dealing with "unidentifieds" the silhouette training means nothing. The training the military gives its pilots are to identify enemy aircraft and shoot them down or attack targets. It has nothing to do with all the atmospheric and astronomical phenomena visible to the pilot. I can give you examples of military pilots chasing bright stars for goodness sakes.

I can give you all kinds of examples of all of pilots chasing a lot of things around, so what? Are you suggesting that if a number of pilots chase bright stars, therefore, they’re all bright stars or some other mundane?

***No, it is you who seems to be stuck in the mindset of not recognizing issues associated with these reports. You have made blanket statements without being familiar with the case histories. I have actually looked at some of these case histories. Have you? Have you read about all these mistakes made by military pilots (i.e. chasing stars, swerving to avoid re-entering debris/meteors, confusing the setting moon peaking out of some clouds, etc. etc.)? It is you who have not bothered to even look at these histories and see if they can be explained. You just accept the statement they can not be explained and then assume they are alien spaceships. Why not dragons?

Your "fleshed out Hynek" sounds like a cut and paste from somebody's website. Is this your own work or somebody else's. You should give them credit if you do use their work you know. BTW, Hynek still says you can't trust pilots as infallible observers in his book, "The UFO report". The statistics show this is true.

UFO Report by Dr. Hynek. Hynek describes dozens of impressive, hard-to-explain UFO cases that cannot be easily dismissed as hoaxes or mundane phenomena such as birds, balloons, ball lightning, etc.

By the way, I don't know if you're the guy who can't get youtube or not. If you can't then please let me know you take on the description I gave on the Joe Nickell/human levitation thing.

jakesteele

17th June 2009, 12:42 AM

[QUOTE=Marduk;4814974]I'm not understanding your usage of the phrase "unidentified flying object", these airplanes flying side by side didn't just say U.F.O. did they. I would think a trained pilot qualified to make a better description. As long as they are U.F.O's there can be no explanation for them, thats what the word unidentified means
;)

You're just bantering semantics now.

Foo Fighter description:
"strange globe glowing with greenish light, about half the size of the full moon as it appears to us."

jakesteele

17th June 2009, 03:03 AM

The analogy is accurate. How much evidence is there that aliens are visiting the earth? Zero. How much evidence is there for witches, dragons, and fairies? Zero.

You might be on to something there, I have noticed quite a few reports about eye witness accounts about witches, dragons, faries, hobbits, Orcs; all kinds of wacky ****.:eek:

It is your contention that "exotic" cases must have "exotic" answers.

I don’t know where you came up with that, but that is not my contention. Exotic cases are ones that appear at first glance to defy conventional explanations. The majority of which turn out to be ordinary but some have defied explanation by mundane means.

It’s your contention that all sightings/reports from the beginning of man up to the present and by extrapolating, all sightings in the future are of a mundane nature.

But as Hynek says:

UFO Report by Dr. Hynek. Hynek describes dozens of impressive, hard-to-explain UFO cases that cannot be easily dismissed as hoaxes or mundane phenomena such as birds, balloons, ball lightning, etc.

cases to sightings lasting a minute or more, again for obvious reasons.”

BTW, the clip was Richard Feynman talking about having a discussion about flying saucers. A layman told him he was not being "scientific" about flying saucer reports when he said he did not think they existed in the form of alien spaceships (since he could not prove they did not exist). He rephrased his comment to the individual by saying, "I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the result of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence rather than the unknown rational efforts of extraterrestrial intelligence."

I finally got my real player working so I was able to watch the show. Typical Randi style of debunking.

By the way, I assume that you've read my post about Joe Nickell/human levitation. How did you like my debunking of Joe's debunking?

jakesteele

17th June 2009, 03:14 AM

So which explanation is more simple, or the least complex when it comes to U.F.O.'s, that:

-TENS of THOUSANDS of artists, writers, scholars, and scientists ALL had the same delusion/vision "gods in the sky/heavens"

OR

We have erred in our understanding of these historical evidence, and failed to make the connection to today's sightings containing all the same elements...

...?

MASSIVE historic delusions or simple human error?

I vote human error and general ignorance.

People have seen the same thing(s) in the "heavens" for millennia...

Maybe we should stop ignoring this fact?

I vote that for the majority of reports we go with the mundane like your 10-15 mundane cookie cutter explanations. The others that can't be explained by that you will try to explain by that anyway.

And by the way, you should say 'human error and uninformed innocent misperceptions.' I is more polite and people might like you more.

jakesteele

17th June 2009, 03:19 AM

Yes.

So then we could say that any sightings that occur in the future will also be bogus until one actually zaps you with his phasers, right?

By the way, is you last name Kreskin?

tsig

17th June 2009, 05:58 AM

[QUOTE=Astrophotographer;4809217]

Of course pilots can make mistakes. But the professional ones make far fewer than amateurs or they wouldn’t be flying 747s and F-14s. They are right way, way, way more times than they are wrong.

Of course you question reports that are exotics. You use objective skepticism on them as well as any other type of sightings or evidences. And, of course, when a potential explanation surfaces it should be considered as a possibility in descending order of plausibility. But if all your mundane possibilities don’t pan out and the only thing you have left is an exotic, then you must give that serious, due deliberation just like any of the others, especially when you have credible witnesses attesting to the fact.

Occam’s Beard – the simplest explanation is not always the best.

Military pilots go through all kinds of training like Instrument Comprehension, Cyclic Orientation, Spatial Apperception, Electrical Mazes, airplane silhouette identification and recognition, etc.

See below where a much more fleshed out overview of Hynek.

Who said they were infallible? What kind of pilots? I said there are many pilots, like commercial or military, that make for highly credible experts, more so than amateur astronomers; professional > amateur.

It’s like you’re saying that an experienced hunting guide in Alaska will observe no more of his surroundings in the woods that the green horn, city slicker who hired him.

Have you never heard of the term, ‘trained observer’? Somehow Amateur astronomers who look at the skies, as the likes of Phil Plait would say, an ‘inordinate amount of time’ and give the answers that you need for your reality map, you consider them totally credible witnesses that you don’t doubt or question.

But when it comes to highly skilled and experienced pilots, whose job is the skies and everything up there with them, you consider them no more credible than Joe Blow from Anywhere, USA.

If you have an artist giving his opion that the twin towers were brought down with C-4 instead of the planes, then, yeah, your idea of ‘transference’ works.

Are you telling me that all the training I’ve already listed about pilots being intensively trained does not make them better at observation, doesn’t do them any more good than if they had played hooky from class and gone fishing instead? Why does the Air Force waste time and money on classes like airplane silhoutette identification?

You’re not looking for an explanation as to what it is out of scientific curiosity and the advancement of science, rather, you’re looking for a mundane explanation for the sole reason of debunkery. In other words, it’s more important to you to disprove UFOs at any cost, sometimes going to absurd extremes like Joe Nickell by stretching credibility to the breaking point, than it is to weigh and asses the evidence carefully, being concerned where the evidence takes you. You are emotionally predisposed to debunk at any cost. That is the definition of subjective criticism.

Fleshed out Hynek:

Another shift in Hynek's opinions came after conducting an informal poll of his astronomer colleagues in the early 1950s. Among those he queried was Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the dwarf planet Pluto. Of 44 astronomers, five (over 11 percent) had seen aerial objects that they could not account for with established, mainstream science. Most of these astronomers had not widely shared their accounts for fear of ridicule or of damage to their reputations or careers (Tombaugh was an exception, having openly discussed his own UFO sightings). Hynek also noted that this 11% figure was, according to most polls, greater than those in the general public who claimed to have seen UFOs. Furthermore, the astronomers were presumably more knowledgeable about observing and evaluating the skies than the general public, so their observations were arguably more impressive. Hynek was also distressed by what he regarded as the dismissive or arrogant attitude of many mainstream scientists towards UFO reports and witnesses.
Early evidence of the shift in Hynek's opinions appeared in 1953, when Hynek wrote an article for the April 1953 issue of The Journal of the Optical Society of America titled "Unusual Aerial Phenomena," which contained what would become perhaps Hynek's best known statement:
"Ridicule is not part of the scientific method, and people should not be taught that it is. The steady flow of reports, often made in concert by reliable observers, raises questions of scientific obligation and responsibility. Is there ... any residue that is worthy of scientific attention? Or, if there isn't, does not an obligation exist to say so to the public—not in words of open ridicule but seriously, to keep faith with the trust the public places in science and scientists?" (Emphasis in original)[4]

the essay was very carefully worded: Hynek never states that UFOs are an extraordinary phenomenon. But it is clear that, whatever his own views, Hynek was increasingly distressed by what he saw as the superficial manner most scientists looked at UFOs.
When the UFO reports continued at a steady pace, Hynek devoted some time to studying the reports and determined that some were deeply puzzling, even after considerable study. He once said, "As a scientist I must be mindful of the past; all too often it has happened that matters of great value to science were overlooked because the new phenomenon did not fit the accepted scientific outlook of the time."
In a 1985 interview, when asked what caused his change of opinion, Hynek responded, "Two things, really. One was the completely negative and unyielding attitude of the Air Force. They wouldn't give UFOs the chance of existing, even if they were flying up and down the street in broad daylight. Everything had to have an explanation. I began to resent that, even though I basically felt the same way, because I still thought they weren't going about it in the right way. You can't assume that everything is black no matter what. Secondly, the caliber of the witnesses began to trouble me. Quite a few instances were reported by military pilots, for example, and I knew them to be fairly well-trained, so this is when I first began to think that, well, maybe there was something to all this."

Where do they get the UFO silhouettes?

Astrophotographer

17th June 2009, 07:41 AM

UFO Report by Dr. Hynek. Hynek describes dozens of impressive, hard-to-explain UFO cases that cannot be easily dismissed as hoaxes or mundane phenomena such as birds, balloons, ball lightning, etc..

Can not be dismissed? Again, we are stuck with anecdotal reports that mean very little. We do not know the amount of error associated with said reports. Because of this, the reports may or may not be accurate and therefore, have difficulty in being explained. I can potentially explain some and others I can not. However, I see no evidence that proves they are dragons, aliens, witches, fairies, etc.

By the way, I don't know if you're the guy who can't get youtube or not. If you can't then please let me know you take on the description I gave on the Joe Nickell/human levitation thing.

If you want to start a thread on human levitation, go right ahead.I started to watch the clip and could not figure out what it had to do with UFOs. Stay on topic.

Astrophotographer

17th June 2009, 07:44 AM

I finally got my real player working so I was able to watch the show. Typical Randi style of debunking.

It is not Randi. Feynman was a scientist who was quite respected. I guess if quote Sagan, I would get the same response. His point is that, without evidence, the most likely scenario is that people are making mistakes. Until you can provide solid evidence to the contrary, the theory that UFOs are alien spaceships will be considered unscientific.

Astrophotographer

17th June 2009, 07:46 AM

I vote that for the majority of reports we go with the mundane like your 10-15 mundane cookie cutter explanations.

Your 10-15 cookie cutter explanations is false. You have one of them listed as "anything not mentioned", which means the explanations are endless in possibilities. Feel free to demonstrate this is not true. List your 10-15 explanations and I will give you more.

godless dave

17th June 2009, 11:32 AM

So then we could say that any sightings that occur in the future will also be bogus until one actually zaps you with his phasers, right?

It depends on what the "sighting" is.

Marduk

17th June 2009, 12:18 PM

"Daniken" I've heard of, who's "Sitchin"?

Neither of these people have 'seen' gods for themselves, right? They have only assembled various renderings from around the world, and given their thoughts on these matters...right?

you never heard of Sitchin, I'm amazed that anyone can be that lucky
:D

Ignore such collage makers, and look at the evidence for yourself.

Google: "Historical, U.F.O. artwork"
way ahead of you, perhaps you can tell me then why it is that when I google "Historical, U.F.O. artwork" I don't see anything that is either completely misrepresented or even remotely alien, I'll give you an example
this is listed as
a number of reptilian entities found in Iraq. They are dated at 5000-4500 BC. They are housed in the british museum.
http://www.ufoartwork.com/images/ufoartwork_bc/reptile.jpg

can you explain to me how this is even remotely related to UFO's, its actually a ubaidian votive offering from a culture (Ubaid) that worshipped snakes
its clearly just the usual therianthropic figure which was 100% normal all over the ancient world during this era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therianthropy
if this is supposed to be an alien then so is every other God in the ancient world
so you have , dog headed aliens
bird headed aliens
snake headed aliens
crocodile headed aliens
lion headed aliens
see the only thing that links therianthropes from different cultures is that they are based on animals known and respected by the cultures that created them. And all those animals are from this planet

and as I said earlier, if youd done this research yourself properly then you already know that any attempt to link anomalous images with the modern ufo enigma is cherry picking of the worst kind

;)

Beerina

17th June 2009, 01:07 PM

I've seen Venus at noon on a clear day.
The only UFO I've seen turned out to be an An-2, flying around Palmdale many years ago.

I saw one odd object sitting out watching fireworks one 4th of July. It was a very bright light that just hovered way, way up in the air, at about a 30 degree angle away from me to the west.

It just hovered there for about 10 minutes, which was very odd. It seemed quite high and far away, and thus not likely a helicopter (which would have other blinking lights anyway). And it couldn't be a plane because it didn't move. And it wasn't a planet because it was way too bright.

Had I gone in then, I'd never have known what it was.

But I stayed out. Eventually the thing started moving overhead, then in the course of about 1 minute, came roaring overhead.

It was a jet, and had been on a descent vector to a nearby airport that just happened to be descending more or less directly at me. Hence it didn't move in the sky at all for quite awhile.

Beerina

17th June 2009, 01:08 PM

By the way, there are lovely writeups that cover the various Phoenix Lights, that list all the incredible things people report, then compare them to actual video footage (which supports the real explanations).

So just because some people say it turned suddenly and shot away doesn't mean that's what actually happened.

King of the Americas

17th June 2009, 02:24 PM

you never heard of Sitchin, I'm amazed that anyone can be that lucky
:D

way ahead of you, perhaps you can tell me then why it is that when I google "Historical, U.F.O. artwork" I don't see anything that is either completely misrepresented or even remotely alien, I'll give you an example
this is listed as

http://www.ufoartwork.com/images/ufoartwork_bc/reptile.jpg

can you explain to me how this is even remotely related to UFO's, its actually a ubaidian votive offering from a culture (Ubaid) that worshipped snakes
its clearly just the usual therianthropic figure which was 100% normal all over the ancient world during this era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therianthropy
if this is supposed to be an alien then so is every other God in the ancient world
so you have , dog headed aliens
bird headed aliens
snake headed aliens
crocodile headed aliens
lion headed aliens
see the only thing that links therianthropes from different cultures is that they are based on animals known and respected by the cultures that created them. And all those animals are from this planet

and as I said earlier, if youd done this research yourself properly then you already know that any attempt to link anomalous images with the modern ufo enigma is cherry picking of the worst kind

;)

Cherry picking...is a term I'd use to describe which images YOU chose to post here.

I'll concede, that some of the images, artwork, or sculpture has nothing to do with "the gods of the heavens", but if the above images are all that you found, then you stopped looking far too soon.

People the world over throughout time describe seeing the same kinds of flying objects, in association with "gods". People are STILL seeing the same kinds of objects today.

Something is up there, and have been for as long as men could chisel on walls...

Vortigern99

17th June 2009, 02:38 PM

Yes, something is up there. And that "something" is wholly natural and quantifiable. There are 100 million meteors in our solar system, and some of them fall to earth occasionally as what we call meteorites, fireballs, or bolides, often leaving meteoric dust and ionization trails in their wake. These objects and their effects look different depending on atmospheric and weather effects, and distance from the viewer, and can and have fallen anywhere and everywhere in the world, for at least as long as the human species has been able to look up at the sky and wonder what it is we've been looking at.

There is also the known human tendency to invent explanations based on pure imagination. The scientific theory and critical thinking processes have only been invented and expounded in the last 300 years at the most.

Oh, and of course, unidentified objects could also be alien spacecraft. We have no non-hoaxable, independently verified evidence that such things exist, but the possibility must be stated that yes indeed, alien visitors might be zipping through the skies right now, ready to probe each and every one of us with little or no provocation.

That said... now what? Where does that lead us?

makaya325

17th June 2009, 02:39 PM

Vortigern99

17th June 2009, 03:00 PM

Show me the links, yes of course.

makaya325

17th June 2009, 03:10 PM

http://www.ufoarea.com/pictures/pomaredisk.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/larryroyc/cut%20and%20paste%20posts/bbottomobjectdimplehalf.jpg

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c379/ufohardevidence/IMG00688.jpg

http://www.ufocrashbook.com/appendix.html

Vortigern99

17th June 2009, 03:46 PM

Since the stuff dissolves soon after (supposedly) impacting the earth, there is currently no verifiable evidence for it beyond the purely anecdotal. I'm not sure what the pics you posted links to are supposed to show, but they're definitely not "star jelly" since that stuff is supposed to be gelatinous, quivering goo, which rapidly dissolves into an odorless, sticky scum. At all events, there are all manner of non-paranormal, non-astronomical, terrestrial explanations for them, among these frog spawn, animal vomit, slime mold, and lichen.

makaya325

17th June 2009, 03:51 PM

Vortigern99

17th June 2009, 04:12 PM

makaya325

17th June 2009, 04:21 PM

Which one is the "Bob White object"? You haven't identified what any of those pics are meant to represent. Why is an unusual level of soil acidity supposed to be evidence for paranormal/extraterrestrial activity? What does any of this have to do with the thread topic, which are Unidentified Flying/Floating/Luminous Objects?

http://www.earthstores.com/UFOSRUS/images/object%20picture_laughlin.jpg

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

Bloecher took samples of the soil from where O'Barski said the UFO had landed in the park. Analysis at an independent laboratory demonstrated that, unusually for soil from a city park, the samples were entirely free of plant roots.

jakesteele

17th June 2009, 04:22 PM

[QUOTE=jakesteele;4814894]

Where do they get the UFO silhouettes?

From objects of unknown origin that are flying.

Marduk

17th June 2009, 04:31 PM

I'll concede, that some of the images, artwork, or sculpture has nothing to do with "the gods of the heavens", but if the above images are all that you found, then you stopped looking far too soon.

in that case and as you clealy don't know what youre talking about when it comes to ancient history please provide the images which are confusing you and i'll tell you what they are
:D

btw you do realise that the one constant in the ancient world no matter what culture is that all the Gods lived on mountains and that "heaven" was always depicted as the peak of the mountain, think Mt Olympus, Mt Meru, Mt Sumeru Mt Bkhu, Mt Manu, Asgard, The cosmic mountain etc etc etc. The other constant is that people thought that the world was a disc surrounded by a bubble of air and suspended in liquid, what part of that belief makes you think anyone knew what outer space was, I mean. didn't you ever wonder why the Egyptians really regularly portrayed the sun god on a sailing ship?

jakesteele

17th June 2009, 04:34 PM

Can not be dismissed? Again, we are stuck with anecdotal reports that mean very little. We do not know the amount of error associated with said reports. Because of this, the reports may or may not be accurate and therefore, have difficulty in being explained. I can potentially explain some and others I can not. However, I see no evidence that proves they are dragons, aliens, witches, fairies, etc.

Like I said in the beginning, you will take anecdotal evidence like the ameuture astronomers because it conforms and reinforces you reality map, but you will not accept anecdotal evidence from expert testimony that doesn't conform and reinforce your reality map.

If you want to start a thread on human levitation, go right ahead.I started to watch the clip and could not figure out what it had to do with UFOs. Stay on topic.

this is another classic Attack of the Gigantic Straw Man. He's burning your house down. The thread isn't about UFOs, witches or bad mayonaise. It's about objective skepticism as opposed to subjective skepticism.

The Joe Nickel vid is a prime example of phony debunkery. It shows a pseudoskeptic in all his full, dark glory. It is an example how how someone can take a mundane explanation and stretch it to the breaking point and beyond in a desparate attempt to maintain the structural integrity of their congnitive closure.

The really beautiful part of it is, he is staring straight out from the middle of his bias blindspot and doesn't even know it. You go, Joe!!!

paximperium

17th June 2009, 04:40 PM

this is another classic Attack of the Gigantic Straw Man. He's burning your house down. The thread isn't about UFOs, witches or bad mayonaise. It's about objective skepticism as opposed to subjective skepticism. I'm sorry but then you are in the wrong thread. Go reread the OP because this thread isn't about whatever pet nonsense you want to spew when it benefits you at the time.

Next time try not to be so blatant and clumsy with your dodges and red herrings, it just makes you look not only dishonest but also incompetent.

The Joe Nickel vid is a prime example of phony debunkery. It shows a pseudoskeptic in all his full, dark glory. It is an example how how someone can take a mundane explanation and stretch it to the breaking point and beyond in a desparate attempt to maintain the structural integrity of their congnitive closure.

The really beautiful part of it is, he is staring straight out from the middle of his bias blindspot and doesn't even know it. You go, Joe!!! You know, in the real world and not fantasy land you actually need to back up your nonsense otherwise it is known as an ad hominem. But I guess that would require actual understanding to do so.

Vortigern99

17th June 2009, 04:45 PM

http://www.earthstores.com/UFOSRUS/images/object%20picture_laughlin.jpg

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

1. Picture of what could be a hoaxed object (I don't know what it is, because you're not supplying me with any information about what I'm looking at.)

2. Anecdotal abduction/sighting report.

3. And...? How does this relate to star jelly? What are we talking about here?

jakesteele

17th June 2009, 04:47 PM

It is not Randi. Feynman was a scientist who was quite respected. I guess if quote Sagan, I would get the same response. His point is that, without evidence, the most likely scenario is that people are making mistakes. Until you can provide solid evidence to the contrary, the theory that UFOs are alien spaceships will be considered unscientific.

Here's another well respected scientist who was much more involved in the UFO controversy:

Hynek, J. Allen (1910-1986)
J. Allen Hynek
Recommended books
Astronomy professor at Ohio State University, who went on to become Associate Director of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (1956), and chairman of the Astronomy Department at Northwestern University (1960).

In 1949 when he was invited by the US Air Force to become the astronomical consultant to Project Grudge, based at nearby Wright Field (later Wright-Patterson AFB), in Dayton. He continued in this position with the subsequent and much longer Project Blue Book, gradually shifting over the years from a position of extreme skepticism to one in which he believed that UFOs represent "an aspect or domain of the natural world not yet explored by science."

Report by Dr. Hynek. Hynek describes dozens of impressive, hard-to-explain UFO cases that cannot be easily dismissed as hoaxes or mundane phenomena such as birds, balloons, ball lightning, etc.

cases to sightings lasting a minute or more, again for obvious reasons.”

“Another shift in Hynek's opinions came after conducting an informal poll of his astronomer colleagues in the early 1950s. Among those he queried was Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the dwarf planet Pluto. Of 44 astronomers, five (over 11 percent) had seen aerial objects that they could not account for with established, mainstream science. Most of these astronomers had not widely shared their accounts for fear of ridicule or of damage to their reputations or careers (Tombaugh was an exception, having openly discussed his own UFO sightings). Hynek also noted that this 11% figure was, according to most polls, greater than those in the general public who claimed to have seen UFOs. Furthermore, the astronomers were presumably more knowledgeable about observing and evaluating the skies than the general public, so their observations were arguably more impressive. Hynek was also distressed by what he regarded as the dismissive or arrogant attitude of many mainstream scientists towards UFO reports and witnesses.

Change of opinion

Hynek's opinions about UFOs began a slow and gradual shift. After examining hundreds of UFO reports over the decades (including some made by credible witnesses, including astronomers, pilots, police officers, and military personnel), Hynek concluded that some reports represented genuine empirical observations.

Hynek also said this: “My concern is with flying saucers of long lifetime -- those which have not, as yet, been "captured" or demolished by an explanation. Let us further limit them to those that have been observed by two or more people, at least one of whom is practiced in the making of observations of some kind, that is, to pilots, control tower operators, weather observers, scientific workers, etc. Also, let us limit cases to sightings lasting a minute or more, again for obvious reasons.”

jakesteele

17th June 2009, 04:49 PM

Your 10-15 cookie cutter explanations is false. You have one of them listed as "anything not mentioned", which means the explanations are endless in possibilities. Feel free to demonstrate this is not true. List your 10-15 explanations and I will give you more.

In this context what I meant was if there were some mundane explanations of the type a CSIOPtic would use to explain away something that you could feel free to add your own mundanes.

jakesteele

17th June 2009, 04:51 PM

It depends on what the "sighting" is.

I appreciate you coming out and saying what is an implication to that part of the question. You might get zapped with a phaser set on stun. That would change everything.

I Ratant

17th June 2009, 04:51 PM

Try clicking your heels together 3 times.
If you have the red satin slippers.
That always fulfills wishes.

jakesteele

17th June 2009, 04:58 PM

I'm sorry but then you are in the wrong thread. Go reread the OP because this thread isn't about whatever pet nonsense you want to spew when it benefits you at the time.

Next time try not to be so blatant and clumsy with your dodges and red herrings, it just makes you look not only dishonest but also incompetent.
You know, in the real world and not fantasy land you actually need to back up your nonsense otherwise it is known as an ad hominem. But I guess that would require actual understanding to do so.

Have you seen the vid on Joe Nickel or are you just going to have contempt prior to investigation? I notice that pretty much no one has addressed the tape and given me their take on it whether it be right on, flawed or outright ludicrious.

Please give me your take on it.

Gord_in_Toronto

17th June 2009, 05:09 PM

Have you seen the vid on Joe Nickel or are you just going to have contempt prior to investigation? I notice that pretty much no one has addressed the tape and given me their take on it whether it be right on, flawed or outright ludicrious.

Please give me your take on it.

OK. I will. You are right. Nickel is wrong.

However, there is no unequivocal evidence of any "visitors from outer space".

Vortigern99

17th June 2009, 05:18 PM

To expand, expound and build on the list of possible explanations for UFO sightings, I've started with jake steele's fine list, and added a few of my own, minus the over-generalization catch-all of "anything I might have missed" in hopes that others will continue to add their own reasonable, rational and logical (or instructively absurd) possibilities:

1. Atmospheric/weather phenomena, including enhanced perception of moon or stars, and streak lightning

2. Ball (as opposed to streak) lightning

3. Meteors and their variations:

a. Meteorites

b. Fireballs

c. Bolides

d. Meteoric dust

e. Ionization trails

4. Hallucinations (a known and documented human experience owing to neurological and psychological conditions leading to perceptual distortion)

5. Intentional fraud

6. Weather balloons

7. Flares

8. Birds

9. Sprites (near infra-red electrical signatures which occur above stormclouds during lightning events)

10. Burning oil rigs seen at a distance by pilots inside aircraft (eg the Mexico pilot footage)

11. Burning structures atop distant hills seen at night (where the hill is as black as the background, imbuing the fire with a "floating" effect)

12. Dust or ice particles on the camera lens

13. Gradual and accidental memory embellishment, aka the known and documented impermanence of human memory

14. Experimental military aircraft, the secrets of which the armed forces (of any nation) would be reluctant to disclose

15. Standard aircraft, flying in formation

16. Swamp gas

17. Any combination of the preceding categories

18. Alien visitation

19. Supernatural deities

20. Dragons

What else have we got?

ETA: 21. Debris from derelict satellites

22. Satellites themselves

Astrophotographer

17th June 2009, 05:51 PM

The thread isn't about UFOs, witches or bad mayonaise. It's about objective skepticism as opposed to subjective skepticism.

The title reads: "UFOs: A possible explanation". I don't see levitation and skepticism. Start your own thread if you want to go there. Otherwise, stay on topic. Still waiting for you to show me how all UFO explanations fit nicely into 10-15 cookie cutter explanations. Unless you use, "Anything not mentioned", then you can't say this is the case. If you use "Anything not mentioned", then you blow your claim because it means that anything (i.e. an infinite number of possibilities) can be used to explain a UFO sighting.

Astrophotographer

17th June 2009, 06:02 PM

Here's another well respected scientist who was much more involved in the UFO controversy:

Hynek, J. Allen (1910-1986)

That is funny. Other than UFOs, what is Hynek's great claim to fame? What did he do that was so earth shattering? What were his astronomical discoveries and theories? If you really want to know about the real Dr. Hynek, you might want to read Quintanella's opinion on him.

http://www.ufologie.net/doc/quintanilla.pdf

Start with page 66. I know this is an AF officer's opinion but it sort of indicates how Hynek conducted himself. It was amazing how Hynek stuck people in the back and tried to manipulate congress so he could head a future UFO research program. Luckily, Dr. Condon shot him down with his report and Hynek was left to wallow in obscurity.

Feynman won the nobel prize, which is pretty good. The rest of his accomplishments are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

Once again, I suggest you not cut and paste from other websites without giving credit to the source.

Astrophotographer

17th June 2009, 06:08 PM

makaya325

17th June 2009, 06:36 PM

Car lights and flash lights in the hills (see Condon), singular aircraft lights, reflections of lights off of structures (skeptiblog had this one a month or so ago), the moon (yes the moon - I have read cases with the moon as the source), kites with lights, chinese lanterns, balloons with flares/lights, I probably should go to Hendry's "UFO handbook" for all of his IFOs. There are so many possibilities and not 10-15 as somebody keeps stating.

Will-o-wisps, Plasma, Deionized crystals?

Marduk

17th June 2009, 06:50 PM

What else have we got?

Chinese sky lanterns
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0a2D9lY6nab3g/610x.jpg
Advertising blimps
http://www.jamesdire.net/gbc.JPG
:p

makaya325

17th June 2009, 07:03 PM

Chinese sky lanterns
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0a2D9lY6nab3g/610x.jpg
Advertising blimps
http://www.jamesdire.net/gbc.JPG
:p

Mirages

Gord_in_Toronto

17th June 2009, 07:18 PM

Mirages

Venus (Jimmy Carter)

Hot air balloons (Zamora)

Japanese fishing boats (Auckland)

Patricio Elicer

17th June 2009, 07:26 PM

Solar balloons.

pGligeOZf9g&feature=channel_page

Astrophotographer

17th June 2009, 07:40 PM

Hendry's UFO handbook has quite a few IFOs and breaks them down between night IFOs and Day IFOs.

The night IFOs (1,024 reports) (page 24)

Stars and Planets 360 reports
Ad planes 230 reports
aircraft 196 reports
meteors and re-entries 113 reports
Satellites 24 reports
Moon 22 reports
Prank balloons 14 reports
searchlights 11 reports
balloons 9 reports
missile launches 9 reports
fixed ground lights 7 reports
flares 6 reports
birds 5 reports
kites 5 reports
clouds 4 reports
test clouds (i.e. barium releases) 4 reports
airborne residue 2 reports
mirage 1 report
moondog 1 report
window reflection 1 report

Daytime IFOs (p. 57) 71 reports

weather balloons 35 reports (includes research balloons)
aircraft 22 reports
meteors 5 reports
Venus 2 reports (it can be seen in daytime)
lenticular clouds 1 report
clouds 1 report
birds 1 report
sunrise effects 1 report
power line fixtures 1 report
visual disorders 1 report
kite wire 1 report

Hendry was an investigator for the Center for UFO studies and his book is most revealing. He was not using "cookie cutter" explanations. It was written in the late 1970s and many of the IFOs have changed over the years. I think satellites are more frequent (esp with ISS and iridium) and ad planes are less frequent these days (although blimps seem to replace them).

makaya325

17th June 2009, 07:41 PM

Venus (Jimmy Carter)

Hot air balloons (Zamora)

Japanese fishing boats (Auckland)

Woa woa woa.. The Lonnie Zamora case? If im not mistaken, wasnt zamora working on the fields (Farm) at Night? Also, didnt he have some kind of radiation poisoning?

makaya325

17th June 2009, 07:44 PM

King of the Americas

17th June 2009, 08:03 PM

in that case and as you clealy don't know what youre talking about when it comes to ancient history please provide the images which are confusing you and i'll tell you what they are
:D

btw you do realise that the one constant in the ancient world no matter what culture is that all the Gods lived on mountains and that "heaven" was always depicted as the peak of the mountain, think Mt Olympus, Mt Meru, Mt Sumeru Mt Bkhu, Mt Manu, Asgard, The cosmic mountain etc etc etc. The other constant is that people thought that the world was a disc surrounded by a bubble of air and suspended in liquid, what part of that belief makes you think anyone knew what outer space was, I mean. didn't you ever wonder why the Egyptians really regularly portrayed the sun god on a sailing ship?

Doesn't "heavens" almost universally translate to "sky"?

Not as in other worldly, just up in the air...

http://www.ufoartwork.com/

AD images, #16

That we see the same type/kind of images throughout time, means what?

That ALL Men are subject to the SAME delusion?

makaya325

17th June 2009, 08:15 PM

Doesn't "heavens" almost universally translate to "sky"?

Not as in other worldly, just up in the air...

http://www.ufoartwork.com/

AD images, #16

That we see the same type/kind of images throughout time, means what?

That ALL Men are subject to the SAME delusion?

To add to King: If our ancestors were seeing Alien spaceships thousands of years ago, why do their depictions include dragons and chariots, but not a single Metallic, triangle/oval shaped craft?

King of the Americas

17th June 2009, 09:29 PM

To add to King: If our ancestors were seeing Alien spaceships thousands of years ago, why do their depictions include dragons and chariots, but not a single Metallic, triangle/oval shaped craft?

Not a 'single' "metallic, triangle/oval shaped craft"...?

Did you even glance at the link I provided???

Marduk

17th June 2009, 09:35 PM

Doesn't "heavens" almost universally translate to "sky"?

yes it does, but heaven doesn't, heaven was the mountain, it was surrounded by the heavens,
the Sumerians who first wrote about Heaven (but obviously not neccesarily had the idea) used two seperate words, they didn't simply pluralise like we do, the reason they didn't is because they understood the difference between heaven which they saw as a mountain and the heavens which they thought was the water that surrounded the bubble that contained the earth
here is Heaven
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e391.html
and heavens
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e6518.html
these words are not even linguistically related.

You need to remember that until the advent of monotheism heaven wasn't some invisible place in the sky and the advent of monotheism is a recent (historically) event.

http://www.ufoartwork.com/

AD images, #16

That we see the same type/kind of images throughout time, means what?

That ALL Men are subject to the SAME delusion?
it means simply that certain people don't know anything at all about religious iconography, obviously you included, there is a whole website here dedicated to explaining what religious iconography is and how it is used in religious art
http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_eng.htm
this page is dedicated to "The Madonna with Saint Giovannino", your AD image 16
http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_5_eng.htm
Conclusions:

In the painting named Madonna and Child with the Infant St. John, probably made by Sebastiano Mainardi (school of Ghirlandaio) there are no UFOs. The three little stars under the great Nativity Star are symbols of the triple virginity of Mary (before, during and after the childbirth), The shepherd with the hand on the forehead is similar to many other shepherds in dozens of Nativity or Adoration paintings of the same age; and the lighting cloud, symbol of the God's Glory, comes from the narration of the nativity in the Protogospel of James (chapter 2, 19).

you could obviously have researched this yourself, it took me all of two minutes, the fact that you didn't and also that you seem unable to grasp ancient world concepts speaks volumes about what you are using as a basis for comparison for these images, i.e. your imagination and not the facts, and lets remember, your imagination has been fed by sci fi since you were born, this could not be said of any other culture but ours.

what do you make of the fact that until the invention of the telescope, not a single culture on earth knew of the existence of more than 5 planets, surely if they were interacting with alien gods they would be better informed
:D

King of the Americas

17th June 2009, 09:46 PM

yes it does, but heaven doesn't, heaven was the mountain, it was surrounded by the heavens,
the Sumerians who first wrote about Heaven (but obviously not neccesarily had the idea) used two seperate words, they didn't simply pluralise like we do, the reason they didn't is because they understood the difference between heaven which they saw as a mountain and the heavens which they thought was the water that surrounded the bubble that contained the earth
here is Heaven
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e391.html
and heavens
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e6518.html
these words are not even linguistically related.

You need to remember that until the advent of monotheism heaven wasn't some invisible place in the sky and the advent of monotheism is a recent (historically) event.

it means simply that certain people don't know anything at all about religious iconography, obviously you included, there is a whole website here dedicated to explaining what religious iconography is and how it is used in religious art
http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_eng.htm
this page is dedicated to "The Madonna with Saint Giovannino", your AD image 16
http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_5_eng.htm

you could obviously have researched this yourself, it took me all of two minutes, the fact that you didn't and also that you seem unable to grasp ancient world concepts speaks volumes about what you are using as a basis for comparison for these images, i.e. your imagination and not the facts, and lets remember, your imagination has been fed by sci fi since you were born, this could not be said of any other culture but ours.

what do you make of the fact that until the invention of the telescope, not a single culture on earth knew of the existence of more than 5 planets, surely if they were interacting with alien gods they would be better informed
:D

Your link helps make my point, UFO shaped objects appear in the heavens, in many religious painting, of old. The ancients thought of these things as "god(s)"... and they documented their existence continuously.

The "gods" got pissed when one of them gave us fire... Imagine the trouble some under-god would have gotten in if they told us about the moons of Jupiter?

makaya325

17th June 2009, 09:47 PM

MikeSun5

17th June 2009, 09:49 PM

...see the only thing that links therianthropes from different cultures is that they are based on animals known and respected by the cultures that created them. And all those animals are from this planet...

I hadn't considered that. Reports of aliens usually consist of reptilians and other human-shaped creatures -- nothing really "alien." Just combinations of species on Earth. Nobody really reports being visited by a highly intelligent form of the color blue, now do they? Interesting point.

...the moon (yes the moon - I have read cases with the moon as the source)...

:D Read (and listen to) this. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7489457.stm) Good stuff!

King of the Americas

17th June 2009, 10:08 PM

Why werent all Ancient UFO drawings viewed as SPACECRAFT, and not dragons, gods, and witches. Maybe it was a fear of the unknown instead of aliens.

Some of them ARE..."spacecraft"...others are hearsay, rather than first hand accounts. ;)

Vortigern99

17th June 2009, 10:11 PM

If we scuttle all the other explanations (from the growing list on the previous page), and entertain the possibility that yes, these are indeed alien spacecraft we've been seeing, and which ancient peoples recorded in myths and imagery...

... what then? Where do we take this idea? What avenues does it open up? How do we benefit by it? What purpose does it serve? What is our next step?

MikeSun5

17th June 2009, 10:46 PM

Vortigern99

17th June 2009, 10:50 PM

Okay, let's say we set aside for a moment, for the sake of the debate, the other, more immediate, worldly, rational, "mundane (as jake steele would have it)" explanations of UFO sightings, and entertain, for a moment, the possibility that they are, some or many or most of them, alien visitors. We're not letting go of our critical faculties, we're imagining a scenario in which this might possibly be true, for the purpose of exploring the potential inherent in the idea.

What now? What do we do? How do we use this information?

MikeSun5

17th June 2009, 11:25 PM

What now? What do we do? How do we use this information?

I'm sure after everyone quits freaking out, we'd probably attempt to establish contact. To learn their technology, biology, secrets of the universe, etc. The SETI people probably have a plan for it already. "Plan A."

jakesteele

18th June 2009, 04:29 AM

OK. I will. You are right. Nickel is wrong.

However, there is no unequivocal evidence of any "visitors from outer space".

Thanks for watching the clip and thanks for addressing it straight on. So far I think you're the only one that did.

If by unequivocal you mean 'beyond doubt' you are right. There are pieces of wreckage or bodies that the civilian population knows about.

I think there is plenty enough unexplainable sightings/incidents to not just dismiss it entirely and try to put it into fantasy land because of yet I haven't heard of any hunters claiming they had a unicorn sighting while they were out looking for Sasquatch.

The stuff I posted about Professor Allen J. Hynek, one of the directors of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and later consultant for Project Grudge and Project Blue Book, is pretty much my point of view on the subject.

jakesteele

18th June 2009, 05:37 AM

EHocking

18th June 2009, 06:22 AM

Woa woa woa.. The Lonnie Zamora case? If im not mistaken,I think you are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora...wasnt zamora working on the fields (Farm) at Night? NoAlso, didnt he have some kind of radiation poisoning?No

Marduk

18th June 2009, 07:07 AM

Your link helps make my point, UFO shaped objects appear in the heavens, in many religious painting, of old. The ancients thought of these things as "god(s)"... and they documented their existence continuously.

The "gods" got pissed when one of them gave us fire... Imagine the trouble some under-god would have gotten in if they told us about the moons of Jupiter?

right, I'm gonna have to point out to everyone here then that you did not read the page provided, if youd done more than glance at it you would have seen this

http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Lorenzo_Monaco_Nativita.jpg
the page said that the glowing cloud is the way that religious painters depicted the presence of god, I'd like you to explain to me how it is that what you are claiming is a U.F.O manages to appear inside the stable where Jesus is being born.

do u.f.o.s come indoors in your world ?
they don't in anyone elses, so I think its quite obvious that you are suffering from a belief manufactured by your imagination that isn't supported by the evidence. You like all woo believers seem to be incapable of evaluating real evidence, even when its been handed to you on a plate.
that I can assure you is your loss, not anyone elses.
;)

King of the Americas

18th June 2009, 07:26 AM

right, I'm gonna have to point out to everyone here then that you did not read the page provided, if youd done more than glance at it you would have seen this

http://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Lorenzo_Monaco_Nativita.jpg
the page said that the glowing cloud is the way that religious painters depicted the presence of god, I'd like you to explain to me how it is that what you are claiming is a U.F.O manages to appear inside the stable where Jesus is being born.

do u.f.o.s come indoors in your world ?
they don't in anyone elses, so I think its quite obvious that you are suffering from a belief manufactured by your imagination that isn't supported by the evidence. You like all woo believers seem to be incapable of evaluating real evidence, even when its been handed to you on a plate.
that I can assure you is your loss, not anyone elses.
;)

Firstly, I'd like you to tell me what 'shape' the angel appears as? Trace the outer edges, and you'll find an object similar to #16 in the link I provided.

Secondly, if you took into perspective, you can see the people looking up at said angel/ufo, are shorter than the ones 'inside or under said stall. From what 'I' see, only Mary, Jesus, and the animals appear to be 'under' the protection of the roof.

Third, ALL art is subjective. We see what we want. We impose our values and beliefs onto it. The artist's 'true' meaning is almost always lost to his peers, much less people thousands of years later...

Astrophotographer

18th June 2009, 07:42 AM

I forgot to add the 'forced plausible' explanation to the list, that's why I showed the Joe Nickell clip.

Can you demonstrate that all skeptics force "plausible" explanations on UFO reports? You are cherry picking, which is why you needed to go to some levitation video to prove your point. Get back to the topic of UFOs. Still waiting for you to demonstrate that all Skeptical UFO explanations fit into a 10-15 cookie cutter explanation scenario. Feel free to post your revised list so we can pick that apart with new examples.

Marduk

18th June 2009, 07:47 AM

Firstly, I'd like you to tell me what 'shape' the angel appears as?

It has arms, wings a human head, this what you think your average U.F.O. looks like ?

Secondly, if you took into perspective, you can see the people looking up at said angel/ufo, are shorter than the ones 'inside or under said stall. From what 'I' see, only Mary, Jesus, and the animals appear to be 'under' the protection of the roof
youre not asking the right question here, why would a U.F.O. be stationed above a stable in bethlehem, do you think they came to see the birth of their saviour ?
this event has been written about quite a lot, I don't remember any of those writing mentioning the guys from Alpha centauri being present do you, its also a painting drawn after the fact, by someone who didn't witness it, why in that case would someone add something that wasn't relevant, that would be heretical and trust me people weren't all that heretical in th 16th century, (well some were, but not for long.)
if the artist had wanted to draw God in the sky he would have, he didn't so your conclusion is forced

Third, ALL art is subjective. We see what we want. We impose our values and beliefs onto it. The artist's 'true' meaning is almost always lost to hid peers, much less people thousands of years later...
baloney, the picture is not thousands of years old, its barely 500, and the images that appear in it are well known and documented, the only person who has lostthe artists true meaning here is you. I mean really ask yourself, why would someone whos painting is an extension of their faith paint things in a religious picture, that aren't relative to their dogma.
in this case the glowing cloud description is taken from scripture
They stood in the place of the cave, and behold!, a luminous cloud over-shadowed the cave. And the mid-wife said: My soul has beenmagnified this day, because mine eyes have seen wondrous things: that salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave that the eyes could not bear it»
now you want to use that imagination of yours to tell me how the U.F.O. manages to enter a cave ?
are you unaware that God takes the form of a cloud ?
By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night.
or were you thinking that aliens regularly led the children of israel on 40 year marches around the levant ?

so what have you shown us so far
you don't know anything about history
you don't know anything about religious iconography
you don't know anything about evaluating evidence
you don't know anything about the bible
you are incapable of reading a source that you have requested

are you really still going to claim that you know about u.f.o.s in history ?
you can if you like, but don't expect anyone except other woos to listen, youve used up all your credit in this thread.

perhaps in future when you challenge someone to explain something to you and they do that by providing you a website written by an expert, you might actually bother to read it. But this is so typical of alien believers, you don't know the subject matter at all so your claims are based on gaps in your knowledge, and not the gaps in anyone elses.
;)
only you can change this. Better start now bud, youre way behind the pack

Marduk

18th June 2009, 07:51 AM

jakesteele

18th June 2009, 07:52 AM

The title reads: "UFOs: A possible explanation". I don't see levitation and skepticism. Start your own thread if you want to go there. Otherwise, stay on topic. Still waiting for you to show me how all UFO explanations fit nicely into 10-15 cookie cutter explanations. Unless you use, "Anything not mentioned", then you can't say this is the case. If you use "Anything not mentioned", then you blow your claim because it means that anything (i.e. an infinite number of possibilities) can be used to explain a UFO sighting.

I gave Phil Plait’s explanation for a UFO sighting, which is what the thread is asking for, and then I refuted it, and people started firing back, especially you and one or two others. So don’t start bitching now. The Joe Nickel vid is a prime example of how a James Randi type of skeptic tries to reduce to the ridiculous in any area, of which, UFOs are but one.

Apparently, I need to clarify my (anything I might have missed) point. What I mean by that is any of your mundane explanations I might have missed. To help you out I have included this link.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/ifo_list.htm

By the way, I’m really interested in your take on the Joe Nickel attempted debunkery of levitation. Do you think it’s good, bad, ugly or indifferent?

jakesteele

18th June 2009, 08:03 AM

That is funny. Other than UFOs, what is Hynek's great claim to fame? What did he do that was so earth shattering? What were his astronomical discoveries and theories? If you really want to know about the real Dr. Hynek, you might want to read Quintanella's opinion on him.

http://www.ufologie.net/doc/quintanilla.pdf

Start with page 66. I know this is an AF officer's opinion but it sort of indicates how Hynek conducted himself. It was amazing how Hynek stuck people in the back and tried to manipulate congress so he could head a future UFO research program. Luckily, Dr. Condon shot him down with his report and Hynek was left to wallow in obscurity.

Let's see, we've got: discrediting the source, character assassination, down playing, diminishing and minimizing. I guess that's one way to do it.

Feynman won the nobel prize, which is pretty good. The rest of his accomplishments are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

Once again, I suggest you not cut and paste from other websites without giving credit to the source.

So how does winning a Nobel for “fundamental work in quantum electrodynamics, with deep-ploughing consequences for the physics of elementary particles” (wiki) make you any more or any less qualified to opine about UFOs?

I’ll bet you twenty dollars to a cold horse turd that if Hynek was a non-believer in UFOs you would throw his name out there and say, “This guy was involved with running Blue Book and you can’t get more qualified than that.”

FYI:
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/ifo_list.htm

I’ve included this list of possible explanations for UFOs, compiled by skeptics, for you for future reference. The reason I’m doing this is to drive home a point. It doesn’t matter if you have 100 mundane explanations. Implied in your claims is that this small amount of mundane explanations (under 100) applies to tens of thousands of sightings from the dawn of man, up to and including, the present, and by extrapolating, all sightings in the future. That is an incredibly bold assumptive statement.

jakesteele

18th June 2009, 08:15 AM

Can you demonstrate that all skeptics force "plausible" explanations on UFO reports? You are cherry picking, which is why you needed to go to some levitation video to prove your point. Get back to the topic of UFOs. Still waiting for you to demonstrate that all Skeptical UFO explanations fit into a 10-15 cookie cutter explanation scenario. Feel free to post your revised list so we can pick that apart with new examples.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/ifo_list.htm

Here’s you list. It doesn’t matter if you have 100 mundane explanations. The point is that you rubber stamp thousands, upon thousands of sightings, past, present and future with the same template. That is a very bold assumption that requires a lot of explanation especially when there are a fair amount of cases that haven’t been explained away by your cookie cutter.

And stop playing around. You know exactly the point I am making with the Joe Nickell vid. It graphically shows the narrow minded, fundamentalist mind set that is employed by the CSIOPtic type of skeptism.

Pseudo-debunkery like Joe’s pathetic, weak attempt at levitation brings into question any other acts of debunkery he may have committed with UFOs.

Since we’re on the subject of levitation, inquiring minds are dying to know what you take on it is. Can you help a brother out by commenting on it?

King of the Americas

18th June 2009, 08:20 AM

It has arms, wings a human head, this what you think your average U.F.O. looks like ?

if the artist had wanted to draw God in the sky he would have, he didn't so your conclusion is forced

baloney, the picture is not thousands of years old, its barely 500, and the images that appear in it are well known and documented, the only person who has lostthe artists true meaning here is you. I mean really ask yourself, why would someone whos painting is an extension of their faith paint things in a religious picture, that aren't relative to their dogma.
in this case the glowing cloud description is taken from scripture

now you want to use that imagination of yours to tell me how the U.F.O. manages to enter a cave ?
are you unaware that God takes the form of a cloud ?

or were you thinking that aliens regularly led the children of israel on 40 year marches around the levant ?

so what have you shown us so far
you don't know anything about history
you don't know anything about religious iconography
you don't know anything about evaluating evidence
you don't know anything about the bible
you are incapable of reading a source that you have requested

are you really still going to claim that you know about u.f.o.s in history ?
you can if you like, but don't expect anyone except other woos to listen, youve used up all your credit in this thread.

perhaps in future when you challenge someone to explain something to you and they do that by providing you a website written by an expert, you might actually bother to read it. But this is so typical of alien believers, you don't know the subject matter at all so your claims are based on gaps in your knowledge, and not the gaps in anyone elses.
;)
only you can change this. Better start now bud, youre way behind the pack

Stop...

Take a moment to look back at what I presented.

I have never used or evoked "God". Instead, I use the term "god(s)".

Second, I've said that 'similar images' litter our historical texts, artwork, and stories.

Third, I state clearly, that our failure lies in our mis-interpreting the history passed down to us...

What 'I' know about art is that it must be seen with an understanding of the time in which it was created, and for whom.

You know nothing of what I 'know', so just stop with all the name calling. In fact, I AM studied in many religious texts. Although, I am NOT a believer in "aliens". There's no reason whatsoever, to believe 'they' are any more alien to this planet than we are. According to the ancient texts 'we' are their little science project, half-breeds from some upright walking thing...

My point is that 'they' have ALWAYS been in our heavens, according to our historical texts.

The same shapes, images, figures...all point to "guardians" in the "heavens".

Marduk

18th June 2009, 08:35 AM

Stop...

Take a moment to look back at what I presented.

you have only presented that you don't understand what you have been looking at

I have never used or evoked "God". Instead, I use the term "god(s)".

none of the art from the renaiisance has anything to do with Gods, the artists of these pictures were all monotheists

Second, I've said that 'similar images' litter our historical texts, artwork, and stories.

and I asked you for an example, your example I have shown you is perfectly well explained already as the way that God was depicted in this type of art, I am still waiting to hearhow u.f.o.s enter caves, you gonna answer that question or ignore it like all the others ?

Third, I state clearly, that our failure lies in our mis-interpreting the history passed down to us...

this is not our failure, its your failure to accept the answer which fits all the evidence

What 'I' know about art is that it must be seen with an understanding of the time in which it was created, and for whom.

finally we are getting somewhere, so let me ask you, how do the painters of this type of art depict God ?

You know nothing of what I 'know',

you have been demonstrating what you know and you clearly know nothing, whats worse is that you refuse to learn

so just stop with all the name calling.

if the shoe fits
:D

In fact, I AM studied in many religious texts.
sorry but thats just an outright lie on your part, you have shown no ability to interpret any ancient text correctly in any of your posts

Although, I am NOT a believer in "aliens". There's no reason whatsoever, to believe 'they' are any more alien to this planet than we are. According to the ancient texts 'we' are their little science project, half-breeds from some upright walking thing...

You just proved then that the source for your alleged knowledge of ancient texts are a bunch of woo sellers, NO ancient text claims that humanity was created as a science project. Besides which, genetics proves you wrong

My point is that 'they' have ALWAYS been in our heavens, according to our historical texts.

which historical texts are these, more from ufo.com ?

The same shapes, images, figures...all point to "guardians" in the "heavens".
right so you can provide evidence from ancient sources of a silver metal saucer can you, I doubt it,
you are failing to understand ancient cosmology, even after it was expalined to you, the Gods lived in heaven, not the heavens, and as of yet you have not provided one single example of supporting evidence, your belief is based solely on your imagination, mine is based on years of research and study

thats why you've got yourself pwned every post in this thread
;)

I Ratant

18th June 2009, 08:36 AM

I'm sure after everyone quits freaking out, we'd probably attempt to establish contact. To learn their technology, biology, secrets of the universe, etc. The SETI people probably have a plan for it already. "Plan A."
.
"Plan A" appears to be contact mouth-breathers and slack jaws, probe them, and go on to the next Jethro they find, probe, etc.
The total lack of any contact with normal people points to no "Plan B" on their part.

Marduk

18th June 2009, 08:46 AM

.
"Plan A" appears to be contact mouth-breathers and slack jaws, probe them, and go on to the next Jethro they find, probe, etc.
The total lack of any contact with normal people points to no "Plan B" on their part.

yes well you need to understand the situation back on their home planet, where anal probing is banned and anal probers face execution, thats why they have to travel a long long way to get their rocks off.
and really, one arse is much the same as another, no matter who its attached to, they even anal probed some cows didn't they, so theyre not fussy
:D

I Ratant

18th June 2009, 09:02 AM

During my cataract experience, I observed that bright lights at night resembled the drawings of comets made before the invention of the telescope.
Very hairy stars.
Some street lights a mile away which should be just small points would appear to be many feet in diameter.
Expecting precision in "ancient drawings" when there were no optical aids to compensate for bad eyesight is somewhat naive.

King of the Americas

18th June 2009, 10:31 AM

you have only presented that you don't understand what you have been looking at

none of the art from the renaiisance has anything to do with Gods, the artists of these pictures were all monotheists

and I asked you for an example, your example I have shown you is perfectly well explained already as the way that God was depicted in this type of art, I am still waiting to hearhow u.f.o.s enter caves, you gonna answer that question or ignore it like all the others ?

this is not our failure, its your failure to accept the answer which fits all the evidence

finally we are getting somewhere, so let me ask you, how do the painters of this type of art depict God ?

you have been demonstrating what you know and you clearly know nothing, whats worse is that you refuse to learn

if the shoe fits
:D

sorry but thats just an outright lie on your part, you have shown no ability to interpret any ancient text correctly in any of your posts

You just proved then that the source for your alleged knowledge of ancient texts are a bunch of woo sellers, NO ancient text claims that humanity was created as a science project. Besides which, genetics proves you wrong

which historical texts are these, more from ufo.com ?

right so you can provide evidence from ancient sources of a silver metal saucer can you, I doubt it,
you are failing to understand ancient cosmology, even after it was expalined to you, the Gods lived in heaven, not the heavens, and as of yet you have not provided one single example of supporting evidence, your belief is based solely on your imagination, mine is based on years of research and study

thats why you've got yourself pwned every post in this thread
;)

You are more confused than I thought...

You clearly don't understand the argument I am putting forward.

We know the ocean doesn't just drop off into nothing...but our ancestors may have thought otherwise... When we see a map from back then that ends abruptly, we can fill in the blanks, of what we now know.

When our ancestor drew "God" or "gods/angels", they couldn't fill in all the blanks, so we just get the edge of the map...

Things that flew, and took the form of bright lights or metallic saucers, winged things, described as emitting fire...

And what is it we are still seeing today?

The Monotheistic God, Lord of ALL...is NOT what they were really seeing. What they saw were "U.F.O's", something they 'couldn't fully identify'...

These things did things that humans back then could not, and so they levied "god" titles upon them.

Whatever U.F.O.'s are, they are capable of more than we are, so it isn't surprising that some might worship them..ESPECIALLY if they actually interacted with them to their benefit.

Now it seems that we just get tagged, released, and occasionally probed...

Our scientists do the same things to other endangered species.

---

"and the sons of God, saw the daughters of Men, and that they were beautiful, and some took wives, of which those chose...there were giants in those days men of renown."

What does that mean?

Astrophotographer

18th June 2009, 10:40 AM

So how does winning a Nobel for “fundamental work in quantum electrodynamics, with deep-ploughing consequences for the physics of elementary particles” (wiki) make you any more or any less qualified to opine about UFOs?

Because he had scientific training and was able to reason things out. You don't win a Nobel prize for being an idiot and believe what you want to believe. His prize had to do with hard work and the scientific process.

I’ll bet you twenty dollars to a cold horse turd that if Hynek was a non-believer in UFOs you would throw his name out there and say, “This guy was involved with running Blue Book and you can’t get more qualified than that.”

Not any more than I would use Klass or Menzel. Perhaps Sagan is more to your liking? Maybe Arthur C. Clarke or Isaac Asimov would do? Hynek's bias led him down a path hoping to score some big discovery. He also involved himself in the TLP (transient lunar phenomena) effort. This was also based on anecdotal testimony. No score there either.

I’ve included this list of possible explanations for UFOs, compiled by skeptics, for you for future reference. The reason I’m doing this is to drive home a point. It doesn’t matter if you have 100 mundane explanations. Implied in your claims is that this small amount of mundane explanations (under 100) applies to tens of thousands of sightings from the dawn of man, up to and including, the present, and by extrapolating, all sightings in the future. That is an incredibly bold assumptive statement.

Your point is invalid. I have already stated there are an infinite number of possibilities. You claim there are only 10-15, which you seem to be backing away from. Each case stands by itself and each needs to be examined individually. Saying they are all Venus is just as bad as automatically saying they are alien spaceships!

Astrophotographer

18th June 2009, 10:43 AM

And stop playing around. You know exactly the point I am making with the Joe Nickell vid. It graphically shows the narrow minded, fundamentalist mind set that is employed by the CSIOPtic type of skeptism.

Pseudo-debunkery like Joe’s pathetic, weak attempt at levitation brings into question any other acts of debunkery he may have committed with UFOs.

Since we’re on the subject of levitation, inquiring minds are dying to know what you take on it is. Can you help a brother out by commenting on it?

After seeing it was about levitation I stopped watching because it was not my cup of tea. I wasn't interested because I don't know squat about levitation. If you think Nickell screwed up, so what? If he made a mistake, he made a mistake. How does it apply to UFOs? That is my interest here and not a skeptics take on levitation.

Edit: I went back and watched the entire clip. I think Nickel is stretching it a bit on his athletic ability of a saint making it appear he is levitating. However, these are anecdotal stories and we were not there. Therefore, we can not determine if they guy actual levitated or appeared to levitate. I recall watching some magician appear to levitate on a television show. It was a trick but people who were present swore he leivitated for them. Again, I don't know anything about levitation but one has to question the story simply because of its exotic nature. Maybe he was a witch (warlock?) and not a saint.

Astrophotographer

18th June 2009, 10:46 AM

I gave Phil Plait’s explanation for a UFO sighting, which is what the thread is asking for, and then I refuted it, and people started firing back, especially you and one or two others.

Hmmm....Let's get back to Plait. I don't recall you mentioning his name but feel free to restate how you refuted him because I missed it.

Marduk

18th June 2009, 10:59 AM

You are more confused than I thought...

You clearly don't understand the argument I am putting forward.
thats because you don't have an argument, just a misconception

We know the ocean doesn't just drop off into nothing...but our ancestors may have thought otherwise... When we see a map from back then that ends abruptly, we can fill in the blanks, of what we now know.

ok cool so youre saying now that there are maps from the ancient world that show nothing after the land stops ?
clearly again, this is your imagination, the oldest map on earth is babylonian, and its a local babylonian map which doesn't show anything outside the immmediate area of babylonia, that was 600bce, so what maps are you talking about, got an example ?

When our ancestor drew "God" or "gods/angels", they couldn't fill in all the blanks, so we just get the edge of the map...

baloney again, theres plenty of pictures of Gods, the vast majority are fully human in form, are aliens likely to be fully human in form, perhaps youd like another attempt to provide some evidence on this after your earlier Epic Fail

Things that flew, and took the form of bright lights or metallic saucers, winged things, described as emitting fire...

there are no descriptions of anything like that in ancient texts that I've ever read, provide an example or drop it, your imagination is becoming tedious

And what is it we are still seeing today?

Disingenious, you have yet to prove that anyone in the ancient world saw anything like that

The Monotheistic God, Lord of ALL...is NOT what they were really seeing. What they saw were "U.F.O's", something they 'couldn't fully identify'...

do you have any idea how absurd your personal dogma is starting to sound, you have provided no evidence so far, I'm still waiting to hear how u.f.o.s enter caves, im still waiting for you to show me how renaissance artists depicted God, are you going to answer these questions at any point or are they too difficult

These things did things that humans back then could not, and so they levied "god" titles upon them.

again, evidence, your belief is based on your imagination not the facts as I have already proven

Whatever U.F.O.'s are, they are capable of more than we are, so it isn't surprising that some might worship them..ESPECIALLY if they actually interacted with them to their benefit.

nobody worshipped anything they couldn't identify, there were noflying saucer cults previous to the 1950s

Now it seems that we just get tagged, released, and occasionally probed...

laughable, another claim based on zero evidence

Our scientists do the same things to other endangered species.

Anal probing is not a tool used by conservationists

"and the sons of God, saw the daughters of Men, and that they were beautiful, and some took wives, of which those chose...there were giants in those days men of renown."

What does that mean?
its from the king james Bible, perhaps you should read the relevant passage from the original Hebrew bible and you'd be able to understand it, you have heard of the Hebrew bible right ?
if you had then youd probably realise what they are referring to as Giants are actually just tall people, the word giant isn't even used
4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0106.htm
they are even named in the original and the location of their home is also named, you'd know if you'd bothered to read it that in no instance is that home described as "outer space"
but either way, nice attempt to portray the bible as relevant, it isn't and youre now clutching at straws, this is quite suitable as your "misconception" has been a straw man the whole way through

another Epic Fail, not very kingly are you
:D

makaya325

18th June 2009, 11:12 AM

I think you are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_ZamoraNoNo

My mistake, thanks EHocking. I mixed up Zamoras case with another close encounter/

King of the Americas

18th June 2009, 12:01 PM

thats because you don't have an argument, just a misconception

ok cool so youre saying now that there are maps from the ancient world that show nothing after the land stops ?
clearly again, this is your imagination, the oldest map on earth is babylonian, and its a local babylonian map which doesn't show anything outside the immmediate area of babylonia, that was 600bce, so what maps are you talking about, got an example ?

baloney again, theres plenty of pictures of Gods, the vast majority are fully human in form, are aliens likely to be fully human in form, perhaps youd like another attempt to provide some evidence on this after your earlier Epic Fail

there are no descriptions of anything like that in ancient texts that I've ever read, provide an example or drop it, your imagination is becoming tedious

Disingenious, you have yet to prove that anyone in the ancient world saw anything like that

do you have any idea how absurd your personal dogma is starting to sound, you have provided no evidence so far, I'm still waiting to hear how u.f.o.s enter caves, im still waiting for you to show me how renaissance artists depicted God, are you going to answer these questions at any point or are they too difficult

again, evidence, your belief is based on your imagination not the facts as I have already proven

nobody worshipped anything they couldn't identify, there were noflying saucer cults previous to the 1950s

laughable, another claim based on zero evidence

Anal probing is not a tool used by conservationists

its from the king james Bible, perhaps you should read the relevant passage from the original Hebrew bible and you'd be able to understand it, you have heard of the Hebrew bible right ?
if you had then youd probably realise what they are referring to as Giants are actually just tall people, the word giant isn't even used

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0106.htm
they are even named in the original and the location of their home is also named, you'd know if you'd bothered to read it that in no instance is that home described as "outer space"
but either way, nice attempt to portray the bible as relevant, it isn't and youre now clutching at straws, this is quite suitable as your "misconception" has been a straw man the whole way through

another Epic Fail, not very kingly are you
:D

First, your entire argument is a mis-conception of what I am suggesting.

Second, you use WAY too many absolutes. Like "no one worships something they can't see/understand". People worshiped the Sun, the Moon, and stars, even when they thought the whole ball of wax revolved around us... Today we worship celebrities...until we find out that they sleep with children, or some other skeleton from a long forgotten closet.

ALL maps were complete, and modern cartography has anything to add to any old map...?

People's drawings of God from years back are 'accurate', in their depicting them in human form...?

If you think there are "no depictions" of the objects I have suggested there are, what the hell was Ezekiel describing, if not EXACTLY what I am talking about...?

'I' have NO evidence...?

I have ALL of the evidence! U.F.O's/god litter our historical record. NO ONE 'knows' everything about "God". So ANY depiction of "God" or "god" is an exercise in futility. A picture of "God" IS by definition a picture of an unidentifiable object.

EVERYWHERE, in EVERY text I have seen, read, or encountered has placed "God" or "gods" in the heavens...

In the quote you corrected me with said that "Nephilim" (an angelic order, if I am not mistaken), was "in the Earth"...where they took wives of men...

Surely this could be translates as "on the Earth, among men"...right?

So where were before this occured, if not in the heavens???

When in ANY of my retorts, did I use the term "outer space"?

Rather that respond to each and every sentence i have written here, why don't you tell me what YOUR interpretation of UFO reports throughout history, means to you? SHow me what you've 'proven'? Because I don't see anything...other than a bunch of snarky remarks...

Marduk

18th June 2009, 12:42 PM

First, your entire argument is a mis-conception of what I am suggesting.
you haven't suggested anything except that U.F.O's identical to todays have been seen throughout history, this has proven not to be the case and you have not provided any supporting evidence, just your unqualified opinion which to be frank is absolutely worthless

Second, you use WAY too many absolutes. Like "no one worships something they can't see/understand". People worshiped the Sun, the Moon, and stars, even when they thought the whole ball of wax revolved around us... Today we worship celebrities...until we find out that they sleep with children, or some other skeleton from a long forgotten closet.
have you listened to yourself, you are saying that people worship things they can't see and evidenced it by listing the most visible things seen from earth.

ALL maps were complete, and modern cartography has anything to add to any old map...?

this makes no sense in English, please rephrase

People's drawings of God from years back are 'accurate', in their depicting them in human form...?

they drew what they believed, notably they didn't draw little grey aliens did they

If you think there are "no depictions" of the objects I have suggested there are, what the hell was Ezekiel describing, if not EXACTLY what I am talking about...?
Ezekial was describing the Chaldean Zodiac, the Chaldeans invented it and Ezekial lived in Chaldea. You need to go and compare that passage with the ceiling at dendereh. This just one more example of ignorance on your part isn't it
I have asked you repeatedly for examples that support this claim, you haven't provided any, so you have no claim to make. You have also repeatedly refused to answer any of the questions I have asked you or admitted that you are fallible at any point, This means you are arrogant and unable to answer direct questions, this damages your case. don't you realise that other people are reading this, notably noone has rushed to your support

'I' have NO evidence...?

no you don't you have based the vast majority of this on what you have imagined the facts must be, rather than actually knowing what the facts are, you tried to pass off a depiction of God as a U.F.O. then went all quiet when I proved that God was always depicted as a cloud in renaissance art and posted passages from christian texts that proved it, are you going to admit that the painter knew what he was painting yet or would you rather continue in the ignorance that you have already displayed

I have ALL of the evidence!

then why don't you present some, is it secret ?

U.F.O's/god litter our historical record.

Evidence ?

NO ONE 'knows' everything about "God". So ANY depiction of "God" or "god" is an exercise in futility. A picture of "God" IS by definition a picture of an unidentifiable object.

you are speaking from complete ignorance again, I know pretty much everything about the Gods of Mesopotamia, take a look at my Avatar, he look like an alien to you ?
Gods are most often depicted as fully human no matter what culture they are from, the exception to this rule is when they are depicted in a therianthropic style, you are claiming that a human with a lions head for example is unidentified when in fact the reasons for those type of depictions are very well known

EVERYWHERE, in EVERY text I have seen, read, or encountered has placed "God" or "gods" in the heavens...

evidence ?
I have already explained to you as simply as I could what the ancients thought the heavens were, and provided evidence in support of that from a scholarly source, your deluded and self serving rhetoric is no match for that. you are wasting my time

In the quote you corrected me with said that "Nephilim" (an angelic order, if I am not mistaken), was "in the Earth"...where they took wives of men...

You are mistaken, again, this seems to be your only consistency, the Nephilim are not angels and have never been described as such except by people like Michael Collins who like you doesn't know what hes talking about, The Anakim are the descendants of the Nephilim,
this line proves that
33 And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.'

the Anakim are described as tall
10 The Emim dwelt therein aforetime, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakim; 11 these also are accounted Rephaim, as the Anakim; but the Moabites call them Emim.
the usage of the word "Giants" in the KJV is accounted by the fact that it was translated by people who didn't speak Hebrew, so they guessed at what was being described, they got it wrong as you can clearly see by comparing the original passages with the much later derivation

Surely this could be translates as "on the Earth, among men"...right?

actually it describes events taking place in Canaan.

So where were before this occured, if not in the heavens???

They were in Canaan, it is the Hebrews who had been elsewhere, they are describing what they saw when they arrived.

When in ANY of my retorts, did I use the term "outer space"?

It is the same as you saying "Heavens", are you trying to win points on your misunderstanding basic terms now ?
that approach is doomed to failure

Rather that respond to each and every sentence i have written here, why don't you tell me what YOUR interpretation of UFO reports throughout history, means to you? SHow me what you've 'proven'? Because I don't see anything...other than a bunch of snarky remarks...
I am not posting to you, I am showing everyone else that you don't have a clue what youre ranting on about, clearly you are a lost cause, you have yet to show any proof of U.F.O's in ancient history so asking me to explain it is pointless.
I have repeatedly asked you to post evidence
I have asked you several direct questions which you have been unable to answer
I have shown that you have never studied anything from a credible source, the only link you have posted had "ufo" in its address
I have shown that you do not use original sources
I have shown that you don't understand ancient cosmology
I have shown that you don't know what a therianthrope is

I think everyone has something to bring to a discussion, unless you are prepared to post some evidence then I think in future you should bring "silence". At least that way you won't be showing everyone what laughably passes as "intellect" amongst the woo woos

btw are you older than 20 ?
;)

King of the Americas

18th June 2009, 01:40 PM

you haven't suggested anything except that U.F.O's identical to todays have been seen throughout history,
;)

See. You DON'T understand or appreciate the argument I've presented.

What I ACTUALLY said was that "within many historical texts and artistic works, can be found 'similar' depictions of 'things' in the heavens/sky that could be used to describe what U.F.O. witnesses see still today."

I posted a link to centuries of artwork, ALL providing basic examples of what I suggested.

Seeing something isn't understanding it. If you don't fully understand something, as an artist, you are forced to fill in the blanks, with what you know best. Not knowing rocket or jet technology, you might call it a chariot of fire. God and or angels appear in the sky/heaven, with 'wings'...and why not birds use them to fly?

Marduk,

Providing evidence that makes you doubt something, doesn't mean you 'proved' anything.

Like posting a link or argument that 'some' used the word "heaven" to describe a mountain top, as a retort to me using the term "heavens" in exchange for "the skies". That doesn't 'prove' heaven means mountain top...

You haven't "shown" anyone anything.

Please feel free to review the images located in the link I provided. It may open your eyes to what I have suggested...

Then again, maybe because it contains "UFO" in the title, it is beneath your pedigree. Oh well...your loss.

godless dave

18th June 2009, 02:14 PM

Like posting a link or argument that 'some' used the word "heaven" to describe a mountain top, as a retort to me using the term "heavens" in exchange for "the skies". That doesn't 'prove' heaven means mountain top...

You haven't "shown" anyone anything.

He has shown that, contrary to your claim, not all cultures believed their gods were in the skies.

King of the Americas

18th June 2009, 02:25 PM

He has shown that, contrary to your claim, not all cultures believed their gods were in the skies.

He showed that one culture did not...

This does not prove that "heavens" doesn't mean "the skies", to the rest of history and those who wrote it.

Heaven = Sky (at least in 'most' of the cases I've encountered)

Marduk

18th June 2009, 03:03 PM

See. You DON'T understand or appreciate the argument I've presented.,
ok obviously I'm going to have to tell you again, you haven't presented any evidence so you don't have an argument, what you have is an unsupported hypothesis

What I ACTUALLY said was that "within many historical texts and artistic works, can be found 'similar' depictions of 'things' in the heavens/sky that could be used to describe what U.F.O. witnesses see still today."

this is again supposition on your part, you have any real examples at all ?

I posted a link to centuries of artwork, ALL providing basic examples of what I suggested.

Nope, you provided a link to a laughable website which has mislabelled and misrepresented examples of well known and explained objects

Seeing something isn't understanding it. If you don't fully understand something, as an artist, you are forced to fill in the blanks, with what you know best. Not knowing rocket or jet technology, you might call it a chariot of fire. God and or angels appear in the sky/heaven, with 'wings'...and why not birds use them to fly?

See heres the thing, the artists knew what they were painting, I know what they were painting, you are the only one here who doesn't

Providing evidence that makes you doubt something, doesn't mean you 'proved' anything.

really, imo it proves you didn't know the other side of the evidence so have obviously been cherry picking things to match your belief, pseudo history authors excell at this, perhaps before making absolute statements about things you know nothing about you should consider all the evidence first

Like posting a link or argument that 'some' used the word "heaven" to describe a mountain top, as a retort to me using the term "heavens" in exchange for "the skies". That doesn't 'prove' heaven means mountain top...

again this is just your ignorance of the subject matter, all ancient cultures saw heaven as a mountain, I gave you a list, clearly you didn't bother to read it and now again are speaking out of ignorance.

You haven't "shown" anyone anything.

denial now, thats amusing

Please feel free to review the images located in the link I provided. It may open your eyes to what I have suggested...

I have seen that website several times, there isn't one example of anything that fits your description of a UFO that isn't already explained fully and well supported by evidence

Then again, maybe because it contains "UFO" in the title, it is beneath your pedigree. Oh well...your loss.
odd isn't it then that I know all the evidence of both sides of this discussion and have debated it several times over the years, often with people who knew what evidence was, you don't, thats not my loss buddy, its totally yours, youd prefer to live in a fantasy world where no one actually looks at evidence and does any research thats up to you, but don't expect any respect for it.
and of course, don't ever expect any real answers
:D

Marduk

18th June 2009, 03:14 PM

He showed that one culture did not...

This does not prove that "heavens" doesn't mean "the skies", to the rest of history and those who wrote it.

Heaven = Sky (at least in 'most' of the cases I've encountered)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meru_(mythology)
Mount Meru (Sanskrit: मेरु) (also called Sumeru i.e the "Great Meru") is a sacred mountain in Hindu, Buddhist cosmology, and Jain mythology, and is considered to be the center of all the physical, metaphysical and spiritual universes. It is believed to be the abode of Lord Brahma and the Demi-Gods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumeru
Sumeru (Sanskrit) or Sineru (Pāli) is the name of the central world-mountain in Buddhist cosmology. It is known to the Chinese as Kun Lun. Etymologically, the proper name of the mountain is Meru (Pāli Neru), to which is added the approbatory prefix su-, resulting in the meaning "excellent Meru" or "wonderful Meru".

The concept of Sumeru is closely related to the Hindu mythological concept of a central world mountain, called Meru
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Asgard
Mount Asgard is a twin peaked mountain with two flat-topped cylindrical rock towers, separated by a saddle. It is located in Auyuittuq National Park, on the Cumberland Peninsula of Baffin Island, Nunavut, Canada. The peak is named after Asgard, the realm of the gods in Norse mythology. Mount Asgard is perhaps the most famous of the Baffin Mountains
http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Go-Hi/Heaven.html
The Taoist tradition of Chinese mythology spoke of Penglai Shan (Mount Penglai), a mountain with eight peaks. On each was perched the palace of one of eight immortal beings. Like many heavens, Penglai was described in terms of precious things: it had trees of coral that bore pearls instead of fruit. No human could enter Penglai because it was surrounded only by air.

Jewish View. The ancient Hebrew religion featured an afterlife, but it did not include a heaven or a hell. By about 200 B.C., however, the influence of other cultures had introduced the ideas of reward and punishment after death. Heaven came to be seen as a place where the righteous dead would dwell with God. Certain Jewish traditions pictured heaven as a mountain with seven tiers or layers. According to some accounts, King Solomon's throne, which had six steps leading to the throne itself, provided the model for the structure of heaven.
http://www.egyptartsite.com/glossary.html
DJEW. . This means mountain. The Egyptians believed that there was a cosmic mountain range that held up the heavens. This mountain range had two peaks, the western peak was called Manu, while the eastern peak was called Bakhu. It was on these peaks that heaven rested
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/esp_sumer_annunaki12a.htm
In the Sumerian cosmology there was, first of all, the primeval sea (Abzu), from which was born the cosmic mountain consisting of heaven, 'An', and earth, 'Ki'.

http://www.freewebs.com/theallmightycow/PWNED!.JPG
I missed out Mt Olympus, I figured you knew already that the greeks saw heaven as a mountain, you did know that right ?
:D

makaya325

18th June 2009, 03:35 PM

King, please answer the question: Why arent ALL UFO depections consistent throughout history? Why do we have Metallic shaped craft today instead of dragons and gods 1000's of years ago?

Marduk

18th June 2009, 04:45 PM

King, please answer the question: Why arent ALL UFO depections consistent throughout history? Why do we have Metallic shaped craft today instead of dragons and gods 1000's of years ago?

just like to point out that thousands of years ago dragons weren't creatures of the Air, they were aquatic.
they didn't get wings until the stories passed into the greek culture, the reason for this is most probably because the Greek word for wing "Ptera" is the same as the Greek word for flipper "Ptera", when you think about it wings and flippers perform the same function

;)

King of the Americas

18th June 2009, 06:09 PM

King of the Americas

18th June 2009, 06:19 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meru_(mythology)

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

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

http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Go-Hi/Heaven.html

http://www.egyptartsite.com/glossary.html

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/esp_sumer_annunaki12a.htm

http://www.freewebs.com/theallmightycow/PWNED!.JPG
I missed out Mt Olympus, I figured you knew already that the greeks saw heaven as a mountain, you did know that right ?
:D

If you are correct that "ALL" religions/people think that "heavens" literally translates to "mountain top", rather than "the skies", why aren't ALL of the images of "God"/god/them sitting atop big hills, or mountains as it were?

I knew that Mt. Olympus was referred to as "the home of the gods", but I never heard it referred to as "the heavens"...

It seems to me, that humans have attempted to place "gods" in places unreachable to humans. When we managed to scale these peaks, maybe the "gods" moved to the next unreachable place..."the heavens"?

Marduk

18th June 2009, 06:57 PM

If you are correct that "ALL" religions/people think that "heavens" literally translates to "mountain top", rather than "the skies", why aren't ALL images of "God"/god/them sitting atop big hills, or mountains as it were?

they used to be
the word heaven is actually derived from Old English word "heofon" which means "home of God,"
I could post hundreds of pictures if you like of gods sitting on mountains, but none of them postdate the advent of monotheism. It is monotheism that changed the way people view Heaven, it became neccesary to move God away from the people so that the only way to reach him was through the priesthood, it was this that made Monotheism a winner over the polytheistic world it came from. Up til this point people were free to worship their gods in any method they wanted, they didn't rely on priests so much for their salvation, and you know that orthodox religion and free thinking are not good bedfellows

I knew that Mt. Olympus was referred to as "the home of the gods", but I never heard it referred to as "the heavens"...

Neither did I, I already told you that Heaven is the abode of the Gods and the heavens is the sky surrounding it,

It seems to me, that humans have attempted to place "gods" in places unreachable to humans. When we managed to scale this peaks, maybe the "gods" moved to the next unreachable place..."the heavens"?
[/QUOTE]
Its actually because mountains were always regarded as sacred, before agriculture the best place to hunt was always on the steppes of a mountain and when they did so they stayed in caves overnight. All that cave art was the start of a formal religion, even today in modern religions there are quite a few mentions of sacred holy mountains.
You probably don't know this but the word "Eden" started out as the Sumerian word for "Steppe"
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e1199.html
then 2500 years after its first recorded use a Babylonian king called Nebuchadrezzar II made slaves of the people of Jerusalem, bringing them back to his capital city, while they were there they learned a lot about religion, most of the bible is redacted from that source, Angels didn't exist until after they were freed by Cyrus the persian, they were simply the new position for the rest of the gods. so you can cancel them from your probable UFO list as well, but hey, don't take my word for it
According to Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish of Tiberias (230–270 AD), all the specific names for the angels were brought back by the Jews from Babylon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archangel#In_Judaism

you are obviously a product of the modern world, you need to stop attempting to understand things by comparing them to your life and start doing the research properly, things were different back then, there were no U.F.O.s
;)

Marduk

18th June 2009, 06:58 PM

I don't know.

I do, its because there were no U.F.O's. it is a modern phenomena.
:D

King of the Americas

18th June 2009, 07:02 PM

I do, its because there were no U.F.O's. it is a modern phenomena.
:D

Only in your head...

Marduk

18th June 2009, 07:13 PM

Only in your head...
well youve had three pages now to post evidence to prove that, as you haven't managed it shall we all just assume that its your head that has the problem ?
:D

King of the Americas

18th June 2009, 07:37 PM

What was "God"/"god", to the ancients?

What is "God" today?

I ask these 2 questions rhetorically, because I don't think there is an answer.

Artist depict him/them, as old bearded men, lighted being with wings, or merely as a bright white light. Which one do you point at as accurate?

Marduk,

You claimed earlier that these artists "knew" what they were painting, and you did two, and that 'I' was the only one in the dark...

Do you really think that these artists were working from a 'real' touchable, measurable, quantifiably entity, AND that they were accurate in their depictions?

King of the Americas

18th June 2009, 07:40 PM

well youve had three pages now to post evidence to prove that, as you haven't managed it shall we all just assume that its your head that has the problem ?
:D

My problem is my inability to post pictures, and properly quote other posters, with my retort following each statement...

Marduk

18th June 2009, 08:28 PM

What was "God"/"god", to the ancients?
a way of explaining where things came from before science explained it properly, all ancient cultures created their own cosmology from their own beliefs, and as I said earlier, God always looked the same as men did. You couldn't tell them apart, this is why in Art gods were usually shown wearing horns, horns are a symbol of divinity. Even the bible got that part right
27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him;
of course this isn't true, Edward Chiera (a famous wartime Assyriologist) said of that
"God created man in his image, and we immediately returned the favour"

What is "God" today?

Imho Anachronistic

I ask these 2 questions rhetorically, because I don't think there is an answer.

honestly K I think this statement just means that you don't know the answer

Artist depict him/them, as old bearded men, lighted being with wings, or merely as a bright white light. Which one do you point at as accurate?

All of them depending on the culture, obviously, although your examples are all rather recent. The one distinguishing thing about ancient world Gods is that they were able to impregnate human women in the usual human manner, this would hardly be possible if they weren't local.
Giambattista Vico (18th century italian philosopher, rhetorician, historian, and jurist.) had a lot to say about the origins of Gods and I think his theories make a lot of sense and they are supported by evidence today that wasn't known in his time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giambattista_Vico
He basically said that there are three ages, the divine, the heroic and the human,
the divine is of course the beginning of history, the human is the modern age and the heroic somewhere in the middle, his conclusions were that as time progresses these ages slide up a scale, so that the heroic become divine and the humans become heros because of the way they are depicted in stories. The Gods of course become forgotten at this point as the former heros become the new Gods,
take for example Imhotep, I'm sure youve heard of him, he was the one outstanding genius in ancient Egyptian history (though thesedays because of hollywood he's recognised as "the mummy")
there is no doubt that he was a real human person, his feats are well recorded, yet two thousand years after his death he was accorded divine status and worshipped as a God. This deification of humans was the norm in the ancient world, although usually divine status was bestowed on dead Kings. The Gods of heaven became a way of legitimising a kings right to rule, many claimed to be the offspring of a human woman (usually a priestess) and a God (usually the head of the relevant pantheon), in this way they claimed to be the reincarnation of that God on earth (sound familiar), and for a while of course this worked well, few people would raise a hand to a living God, of course this ended up in chaos, you just needed to defeat a God king in battle, call him a liar and usurper and then claim to be the real God yourself. This left the way open for monotheism where the God was both untouchable and unreachable, except through the priesthood, who then held the absolute power for themselves. This is one of the reasons why Judaism doesn't recognise Jesus as reincarnated YHWH, in their Dogma YHWH doesn't ever visit earth, that would be dangerous and it would of course undermine their own hold over their people

Marduk,

You claimed earlier that these artists "knew" what they were painting, and you did two, and that 'I' was the only one in the dark...

Do you really think that these artists were working from a 'real' touchable, measurable, quantifiably entity, AND that they were accurate in their depictions?
I already explained that in the one example you suggested the image was taken from religious texts, I even posted the text, the idea that God could appear as a cloud was originally written down in Exodus, it makes a few appearences in other booksof the bible, these are the most relevant
Exodus 13:21-22. By day the Lord went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night. Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people.
Exodus 14:24. During the last watch of the night the Lord looked down from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw it into confusion.
Numbers 14:14. And they will tell the inhabitants of this land about it. They have already heard that you, O LORD, are with these people and that you, O Lord, have been seen face to face, that your cloud stays over them, and that you go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.
Deuteronomy 1:33 Who went in the way before you, to search you out a place to pitch your tents in, in fire by night, to shew you by what way ye should go, and in a cloud by day.
Nehemiah 9:12. By day you led them with a pillar of cloud, and by night with a pillar of fire to give them light on the way they were to take.
Nehemiah 9:19. "Because of your great compassion you did not abandon them in the desert. By day the pillar of cloud did not cease to guide them on their path, nor the pillar of fire by night to shine on the way they were to take.

I really do hope you are learning something here K, you'll note that at no time have I stated that some U.F.O's are not from another planet or advanced species, this is because I don't know, neither does anyone else and without real evidence, no one will ever know. I always base what I know on all the evidence available, its good practice and it stops people making me look like a dick on internet forums like this
;)
I learned that the hard way, like you just did

King of the Americas

19th June 2009, 08:09 AM

Marduk,

I'd like to say first that I appreciate the tone you've taken with your last few responses. They seem more informative and civil. 'I' am here to discuss not demean...

Now, I asked who or what God was to the ancients, but I guess I should have asked where 'beliefs' come from... As you noted that God-specifics spawn from individual beliefs.

MY recollection of God creating man was "and God said, let us create man in our image", but admittedly that came from the KJV and not an original Hebrew version.

I'll readily admit that I know little to absolutely NOTHING about the reality of God...I don't know what form it takes, where it came from, or what it does on a day to day basis. You find that God is out of place, chronologically? Like an old steam engine paddleboat, among a fleet of nuclear subs? The issue I was trying to raise, is that steam engine paddleboats ARE real, and you can find pictures and 'accurate' paintings of them. People 'saw' AND chronicled them.

Where did the images of these 'floating' gods come from, the pillars of fire, angels riding clouds, light beaming down from seemingly solid objects...?

I get that we 'create' gods from some internal need. I wrote a paper in college entitled "Heros and Hero Worship", wherein I explored man's inner need to be cared for and looked after, a safety net of sorts. It starts with our parents, who can do no wrong and whom we look to for all that we need. Later, we look to movie stars, sports figures, and even politicians. Eventually, these things fail us, and so we look further outward, or sometimes backward into the annals of time. God, I wrote, is that timeless, formless, canvass that we can put upon whatever we need...but this isn't a definite quantifiable thing, that can be weighed and measured...

So, I guess until he/she/they DO show up, I think all that we have is an "Unidentifiable Object", be they flying, floating, or set atop a mountain, among "the heavens".

I do however hold that God isn't only our creation, but rather something many have experienced/witnessed and documented as best they could. These historians saw or experienced 'something' that they found to be superior to themselves, and that I believe is where divinity begins- seeing something better than yourself...

Cuddles

19th June 2009, 09:22 AM

just like to point out that thousands of years ago dragons weren't creatures of the Air, they were aquatic.
they didn't get wings until the stories passed into the greek culture, the reason for this is most probably because the Greek word for wing "Ptera" is the same as the Greek word for flipper "Ptera", when you think about it wings and flippers perform the same function

;)

When you consider that King of the Americas believes UFOs are air/spacecraft built by aliens who live under the sea on Earth, that point may be rather less helpful in the argument than you may have thought.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110976

King of the Americas

19th June 2009, 10:39 AM

When you consider that King of the Americas believes UFOs are air/spacecraft built by aliens who live under the sea on Earth, that point may be rather less helpful in the argument than you may have thought.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110976

First, let's stop with the term "alien". From everything I've see, they have ALWAYS been here, er, "above us"...

And I didn't say they WERE under the sea. I said, that was one of the places they could be, it is close, and relatively unexplored. Another possibility is the dark side of the Moon. And don't start with "there's no 'dark side' of the Moon." I mean merely, the side that doesn't face us...

My argument therein, is that there is no need for UFO's to be capable of interstellar travel, given that they have always been 'here', er "up there".

Marduk

19th June 2009, 12:19 PM

Marduk,

I'd like to say first that I appreciate the tone you've taken with your last few responses. ..

there is a very natural reason why clouds are associated with mountain tops

http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/cld/cldtyp/oth/org.rxml

can you see why understanding the nature of Gods and their believed location is important now ?

why are Gods associated with light ?
the earliest Gods are always sun gods
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Zeus
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=deity
even the word "deity" is derived from
"to gleam, to shine;"

King of the Americas

19th June 2009, 12:34 PM

I Ratant

19th June 2009, 01:02 PM

...
My argument therein, is that there is no need for UFO's to be capable of interstellar travel, given that they have always been 'here', er "up there".
.
Oh, well....:covereyes

Marduk

19th June 2009, 03:01 PM

Clouds...?

That's you whole retort to my above post?
I have already answered all the other questions and musings, you are repeating yourself, thats a step I'm not prepared to take
:cool:

jakesteele

19th June 2009, 03:21 PM

Astrophotographer;4823719]Because he had scientific training and was able to reason things out. You don't win a Nobel prize for being an idiot and believe what you want to believe. His prize had to do with hard work and the scientific process.

Boys and girls, can you say Astrophysics and Ph.D?
J. Allen Hynek - was a scientist who had no scientific training and wasn’t able to reason things out even though he had a P.hD in Astrophysics and the government asked to be a part of Project Blue Book and Project Grudge because of his respected credentials and he is also known for his studies/papers on The Fluctuations of Starlight and Skylight.
If you say that Fenyam > Hynek,
Then I say that Hynek is > Joe Nickell
(and certainly > magicians in general)
(wiki) Joe Nickell born December 1, 1944) is a former stage magician and is a prominent skeptical investigator of the paranormal. He also works as an historical document consultant [1] and has examined such famous forgeries as the purported Jack the Ripper Diary.
Nickell holds B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Kentucky. His Ph.D. is in English for graduate work focusing on literary investigation and folklore.

This is a great example of what I first posted. You will take the word of an amateur or one of the CSIOPS boys over that of an expert as long as it affirms your world view. If an expert does not toe your party line, then you try to invalidate him somehow, whether it is ridiculing, downplaying or minimizing. You pigeon-hole and stereotype them into a general catch-all category of Woo.

Again, I will emphasize one of the original points I made. If Hynek had remained a skeptical refuter of UFOs, he would be golden in your eyes because he would be telling you what you want to hear. You would be saying, “Well, after all, he has a Ph.D in Astrophysics and was Associate Director of Project Bluebook and Project Grudge. I mean, you can’t be more qualified than that.”

On the other hand, if Feynman thought that there were too many unexplainable reports and felt that further study should be done, you would be all over him like stink on **** by ridiculing his work as being out of his field. You would be saying something to the effect of, “While he is a brilliant man, he really doesn’t know nearly as much about UFOs as Hynek, who was intimately involved with Project Bluebook and Project Grudge.”

So I ask you again, do you believe/think that every sighting since the beginning of man up to and including present, and by extension, all future sightings are not UFO related and have mundane, plausible explanations short of an actual landing on the White House lawn?
I included a list of explanations by one of your guys so as to cover all the bases. They are still a very limited number.
Originally Posted by jakesteele

I’ll bet you twenty dollars to a cold horse turd that if Hynek was a non-believer in UFOs you would throw his name out there and say, “This guy was involved with running Blue Book and you can’t get more qualified than that.”

Not any more than I would use Klass or Menzel. Perhaps Sagan is more to your liking? Maybe Arthur C. Clarke or Isaac Asimov would do? Hynek's bias led him down a path hoping to score some big discovery. He also involved himself in the TLP (transient lunar phenomena) effort. This was also based on anecdotal testimony. No score there either.

There you go again, no mention of his Ph.D in Astrophysics, no direct mention of Project Bluebook or Project Grudge or his studies of The Fluctuations of Starlight and Skylight. And remember, in the beginning he was a skeptic and laughed away the sightings a nothing more exotic than Venus, clouds, etc.
Down play, diminish and minimize

Your point is invalid. I have already stated there are an infinite number of possibilities. You claim there are only 10-15, which you seem to be backing away from. Each case stands by itself and each needs to be examined individually. Saying they are all Venus is just as bad as automatically saying they are alien spaceships![/QUOTE]

I love it, a CSIOPtic saying there are an infinite number of possibilities. Now if a true believer said it still could be a UFO because there are infinite possibilities, you would be saying something like this: “Exactly How much evidence is there that aliens are visiting the earth, none, is there? Exactly how much evidence is there for witches, unicorns and fairies, none, is there?”

If you say there are an infinite number of possibilities, then UFOs, as in aliens, have to be one of them along with the above mentioned.

Let me clarify a bit for you even though most everybody else understood what I said about the cookie cutter. The “anything I might have missed” category was for you guys to add any of your plausibles that I might have inadvertently left out. This skeptics’ list of plausibles that I linked doesn’t include infinity, now does it?

jakesteele

19th June 2009, 03:25 PM

[QUOTE=Astrophotographer;4823733]After seeing it was about levitation I stopped watching because it was not my cup of tea. I wasn't interested because I don't know squat about levitation. If you think Nickell screwed up, so what? If he made a mistake, he made a mistake. How does it apply to UFOs? That is my interest here and not a skeptics take on levitation.

It goes directly to his competency and his conclusions and calls into question anything he has debunked before. If he is so sloppy on this on, what else in the past has he mislead people on?

This isn’t about whether levitation is or isn’t possible, it’s not about whether UFOs exist or not. It’ about subjective skepticism, which is cloaked in guise of critical thinking and scientific inquiry.

jakesteele

19th June 2009, 03:27 PM

Hmmm....Let's get back to Plait. I don't recall you mentioning his name but feel free to restate how you refuted him because I missed it.

The whole thread since I made my first post has been about debunking not just him, but subjective skeptics in general. He is just the tip of the iceberg. Joe Nickell is another example of this type of debunkery that is very misleading and facile.

I also pointed out how he embraces the anecdotal claims of two amateur astronomers about ‘allegedly’ seeing aircraft and then he starts pumping up the veracity of the claims by saying: “they spend an ‘inordinate’ amount of time looking at the skies and don’t get fooled by Venus, etc.” However, he will not accept anecdotal reports from amateur, commercial and military pilots who, between them, are in the air 24/7 with a horizontal 180 degree view or more if they turn their heads, and at the approximated heights of many sightings.

He stated that you never hear reports of sightings by astronomers and I just showed you recently about Hynek’s survey of his fellow astronomers who came in with about an 11% reports of sightings by polling 44 astronomers of which 11% reported sightings which is more that the general public reports.

The James Randi/CSIOPS style of skepticism that Phil practices already has its mind made up that any kind of woo is ******** and will always go into a situation, not an objective skeptic, i.e.,

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics.

But as what is now being called pseudo-skeptics:

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:[1]

* The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
* Double standards in the application of criticism
* The making of judgments without full inquiry
* Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
* Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments
* Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'

I know you won’t accept this and will try to argue the point but this is what many see in you, just as you see the same thing in others only with the polarity reversed.

makaya325

19th June 2009, 03:30 PM

I love it, a CSIOPtic saying there are an infinite number of possibilities. Now if a true believer said it still could be a UFO because there are infinite possibilities, you would be saying something like this: “Exactly How much evidence is there that aliens are visiting the earth, none, is there? Exactly how much evidence is there for witches, unicorns and fairies, none, is there?”

If you say there are an infinite number of possibilities, then UFOs, as in aliens, have to be one of them along with the above mentioned.

Let me clarify a bit for you even though most everybody else understood what I said about the cookie cutter. The “anything I might have missed” category was for you guys to add any of your plausibles that I might have inadvertently left out. This skeptics’ list of plausibles that I linked doesn’t include infinity, now does it?

Good think Marcello Truzzi left CSICOP.

CSICOP=Pseudoskeptic paradise.

Gord_in_Toronto

19th June 2009, 03:34 PM

[quote]

It goes directly to his competency and his conclusions and calls into question anything he has debunked before. If he is so sloppy on this on, what else in the past has he mislead people on?

This isn’t about whether levitation is or isn’t possible, it’s not about whether UFOs exist or not. It’ about subjective skepticism, which is cloaked in guise of critical thinking and scientific inquiry.

And it's not about argument from authority or subjective skepticism or about whose PhD is bigger than someone else's. It's about rationality, reality and the truth.

Show us a "UFO Incident" that is unambiguously something that is not explicable by science as we know it and the nasty, debunking skeptics will be forever destroyed and Woo shall rule the land.

Astrophotographer

19th June 2009, 04:05 PM

I also pointed out how he embraces the anecdotal claims of two amateur astronomers about ‘allegedly’ seeing aircraft and then he starts pumping up the veracity of the claims by saying: “they spend an ‘inordinate’ amount of time looking at the skies and don’t get fooled by Venus, etc.” However, he will not accept anecdotal reports from amateur, commercial and military pilots who, between them, are in the air 24/7 with a horizontal 180 degree view or more if they turn their heads, and at the approximated heights of many sightings.

You obviously haven't a clue about the case he is describing do you? Tell me what do you really know about the case? What you heard? What you might believe? Feel free to elaborate. You claim you refuted this but you have done no such thing. Plait got a lot of his information from me and Tony Ortega. We both examined this case very closely and, unless you have too, then you have no claim to have refuted anything. Feel free to continue your diatribe but the case is most likely a formation of aircraft at high alitude. This has been verified by several other reports and not just the reports of the amateur astronomer in question. Additionally, much of the eyewitness testimony also supports the observation. Only the exotic stories were published in the media. The other reports support the claim of aircraft in formation. Finally, the only video tape of the event in question supports aircraft in formation. This is why the case has a good explanation. You have demonstrated a knee-jerk believer response and did not bother to look into the case.

The more exotic the claim the more likely there is an error. You have already admitted pilots can make errors and now you seem to be backtracking saying they can't. Which is it? Can pilots make observational errors or not?

He stated that you never hear reports of sightings by astronomers and I just showed you recently about Hynek’s survey of his fellow astronomers who came in with about an 11% reports of sightings by polling 44 astronomers of which 11% reported sightings which is more that the general public reports.

He did not state this or he later corrected this statement. His claim is that amateur astronomers should be reporting a lot of these sightings but are not. Why is this? Why, after over 35 years of amateur astronomy, haven't I seen one of these objects? Am I just not observant? Do I have to want to see the UFOs? Am I just unlucky? I bet a majority of amateur astronomers probably feel the same way. Some have seen odd things but nobody, to the best of my knowledge, talk about huge triangular craft hovering over their observing sites.

As for your poll of astronomers, every one of those sightings had to do with unknown lights and nothing concrete. Tombaugh's sighting is something he later determined to probably be an atmospheric phenomena because of the faintness of the lights. These observations were "unidentifieds" and not "alien spaceships" or "unknown aerial vehicles operating under intelligent control".

I know you won’t accept this and will try to argue the point but this is what many see in you, just as you see the same thing in others only with the polarity reversed.

"many"???? I think you overestimate your position. Do you have data to support the claim or is it just your belief?

Astrophotographer

19th June 2009, 04:37 PM

There you go again, no mention of his Ph.D in Astrophysics, no direct mention of Project Bluebook or Project Grudge or his studies of The Fluctuations of Starlight and Skylight. And remember, in the beginning he was a skeptic and laughed away the sightings a nothing more exotic than Venus, clouds, etc.
Down play, diminish and minimize

Lots of people get Ph.D's but it does not make them right. It depends on what you do after you get your doctorate. I have had the opportunity to interact with several over the years. Some were very bright and some were not. Hynek's accomplishments were minimal. That was my point. If you want to inflate his accomplishments go right ahead. BTW, Hynek was a consultant and nothing more with Bluebook/Grudge. They paid him to look at sightings from an astronomer's point of view. Did you read Quintanilla's description of his actions while with Bluebook? If you did, you would have seen a man trying desperately to put himself into a spotlight. It was Hynek, who wanted to call a press conference to explain the Michigan UFO sightings as "swamp gas".

I love it, a CSIOPtic saying there are an infinite number of possibilities. Now if a true believer said it still could be a UFO because there are infinite possibilities, you would be saying something like this: “Exactly How much evidence is there that aliens are visiting the earth, none, is there? Exactly how much evidence is there for witches, unicorns and fairies, none, is there?”

Yes, aliens are a possibility but the other possibilities are far more likely. If you give me a choice between a flying triangle as big as an aircraft carrier and a few aircraft flying in formation, I am more than likely side with the aircraft formation if the observations indicate this is possible.

If you say there are an infinite number of possibilities, then UFOs, as in aliens, have to be one of them along with the above mentioned.

At the bottom of the list of possibilities.

Let me clarify a bit for you even though most everybody else understood what I said about the cookie cutter. The “anything I might have missed” category was for you guys to add any of your plausibles that I might have inadvertently left out. This skeptics’ list of plausibles that I linked doesn’t include infinity, now does it?

However, your initial claim was that it was something like only 10-15 cookie cutter explanations. Using "anything I might have missed" is a cop out and demonstrates your claim is false.

Astrophotographer

19th June 2009, 04:52 PM

It goes directly to his competency and his conclusions and calls into question anything he has debunked before. If he is so sloppy on this on, what else in the past has he mislead people on?

This isn’t about whether levitation is or isn’t possible, it’s not about whether UFOs exist or not. It’ about subjective skepticism, which is cloaked in guise of critical thinking and scientific inquiry.

If you want to go that way, let's take a look at UFO investigations by various UFOlogists. Dr. Bruce Maccabee was taken in by several hoaxes over the years. The most notorius was the Gulf Breeze UFOs. I know some still claim they are not hoaxes but there is a significant number of UFOlogists who are of the opinion the evidence indicates a hoax. Kevin Randle (PHD), Don Schmitt, and Stanton Friedman (Masters degree in Nuclear physics) have been fooled by various Roswell witnesses who lied to them but they believed them. Does that mean we do not trust any of them because of their folly?

I can also list a lot of lower tier MUFON investigators who have erred grossly over the years. They overlooked possibilities and were left admitting they were wrong or trying to bluff their way saying there was no way that could explain the case even though there was plenty of evidence to support it!

Vortigern99

19th June 2009, 06:38 PM

there is a very natural reason why clouds are associated with mountain tops

http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/cld/cldtyp/oth/org.rxml

can you see why understanding the nature of Gods and their believed location is important now ?

why are Gods associated with light ?
the earliest Gods are always sun gods
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Zeus
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=deity
even the word "deity" is derived from
"to gleam, to shine;"

I've been very intrigued by the turn this discussion has taken, and have been following it in earnest, in part because I've developed a fictional religion for a fantasy series I'm authoring, and am interested in the question of the origins of worship. (This is a sidebar, but it can be resolved in a single post after this one, so Mods and members, please bear with me.)

Marduk, earlier (upthread) you noted that the origin of formal religion was in hunting cults, which stayed overnight in mountain caves and drew pictures of animals in anticipation of a good hunt. Then the mountain itself became sacred, home of the gods themselves. I've been reflecting on this in comparison to my understanding of early Homo, and it makes sense to my mind.

Yet now, above, you assert that "the earliest gods were always sun gods". Well, in short... which is it? Animal divinities or deities of success and luck -- reverence of whom will ensure a productive hunt -- can hardly be classified as deities of light, or gods of the sun.

Could you clarify this point a bit, or offer a link which does so? I've been studying religion, magic and ritual since the late 80s and am intrigued by the subject, but I cannot find in my own base of learning a satisfactory resolution to this seeming contradiction.

Thanks ahead of time.

makaya325

19th June 2009, 08:39 PM

[quote=jakesteele;4827812]

And it's not about argument from authority or subjective skepticism or about whose PhD is bigger than someone else's. It's about rationality, reality and the truth.

Show us a "UFO Incident" that is unambiguously something that is not explicable by science as we know it and the nasty, debunking skeptics will be forever destroyed and Woo shall rule the land.

Im not claiming anything here, but doesnt weird material show up at certain ufo landing spots? Like any change in soil?

MikeSun5

19th June 2009, 10:29 PM

TjW

20th June 2009, 12:11 AM

[QUOTE=Gord_in_Toronto;4827844]

Im not claiming anything here, but doesnt weird material show up at certain ufo landing spots? Like any change in soil?

I've certainly heard claims like this. But let's say there's a UFO sighting, and someone finds a spot a few meters in diameter where there is a noticeably higher incidence of a heavy metal.

Is that a spot where a UFO landed, or hovered?

Or is it a placer deposit that's been there for a long time?

Marduk

20th June 2009, 07:23 AM

One thing I want to know: Whatever happened to the big fanfare surrounding France and the UK releasing all their secret UFO files? How come we haven't heard about that in a while?
I remember the alien believers were all excited when that was announced like, "Well, son of a biscuit, Jethro! They's gonna spill the beans to the news men. We's ain't gonna be called crazy no more!"

I wonder if there wasn't any fanfare because the reports kept quiet by the government to subdue panic were as baseless and silly as the others? Hmmmm.....
I spoke to Nick Pope a couple of years before they released those files, at that point he told me that he'd never read anything that couldn't be explained by a more conventional explanation. The reports will reflect that(he was in charge of them)

I note that since hes been out of hi government job hes started releasing books claiming that aliens did it
;)

Marduk

20th June 2009, 07:32 AM

I've been very intrigued by the turn this discussion has taken, and have been following it in earnest, in part because I've developed a fictional religion for a fantasy series I'm authoring, and am interested in the question of the origins of worship. (This is a sidebar, but it can be resolved in a single post after this one, so Mods and members, please bear with me.)

Marduk, earlier (upthread) you noted that the origin of formal religion was in hunting cults, which stayed overnight in mountain caves and drew pictures of animals in anticipation of a good hunt. Then the mountain itself became sacred, home of the gods themselves. I've been reflecting on this in comparison to my understanding of early Homo, and it makes sense to my mind.

Yet now, above, you assert that "the earliest gods were always sun gods". Well, in short... which is it? Animal divinities or deities of success and luck -- reverence of whom will ensure a productive hunt -- can hardly be classified as deities of light, or gods of the sun.

Could you clarify this point a bit, or offer a link which does so? I've been studying religion, magic and ritual since the late 80s and am intrigued by the subject, but I cannot find in my own base of learning a satisfactory resolution to this seeming contradiction.

Thanks ahead of time.

yes sorry, what I meant to say was that the earliest gods "on record" are all sun gods, that is to say that the earliest gods from the earliest known civilisations were sun gods, I expect the earliest gods who were worshipped were all animalistic during shamanistic worship before we became civilised. This is reflected in the sun gods later being shown wearing horns
hope that clears that up
sorry for the confusion
there are three possibilities for this change
the most obvious that the sun was chosen for the head of the new pantheons because of its position relative to the earth. i.e. because its above everything else and brighter than any fire.

this is also something that I've been thinking about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLC24A5
I don't see why they would ditch their previous form of worship just because some chieftain started proclaiming himself a relative of the sun unless there was some physical evidence that this was the case, lighter skin would do that.
but this is highly speculatory
;)
alternatively the switch may have occured before the holocene during the end of the ice age when the sun became steadily more and more important as the link between agriculture and sunshine became realised

King of the Americas

20th June 2009, 07:36 AM

The whole thread since I made my first post has been about debunking not just him, but subjective skeptics in general. He is just the tip of the iceberg. Joe Nickell is another example of this type of debunkery that is very misleading and facile.

I also pointed out how he embraces the anecdotal claims of two amateur astronomers about ‘allegedly’ seeing aircraft and then he starts pumping up the veracity of the claims by saying: “they spend an ‘inordinate’ amount of time looking at the skies and don’t get fooled by Venus, etc.” However, he will not accept anecdotal reports from amateur, commercial and military pilots who, between them, are in the air 24/7 with a horizontal 180 degree view or more if they turn their heads, and at the approximated heights of many sightings.

He stated that you never hear reports of sightings by astronomers and I just showed you recently about Hynek’s survey of his fellow astronomers who came in with about an 11% reports of sightings by polling 44 astronomers of which 11% reported sightings which is more that the general public reports.

The James Randi/CSIOPS style of skepticism that Phil practices already has its mind made up that any kind of woo is ******** and will always go into a situation, not an objective skeptic, i.e.,

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics.

But as what is now being called pseudo-skeptics:

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:[1]

* The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
* Double standards in the application of criticism
* The making of judgments without full inquiry
* Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
* Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments
* Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'

I know you won’t accept this and will try to argue the point but this is what many see in you, just as you see the same thing in others only with the polarity reversed.

Marduk,

I think this guy is talking about you. You seem to me less "skeptic", and MORE "pseudoskeptic"... I'd like to apologize for the name calling.

Marduk

20th June 2009, 07:53 AM

Marduk,

I think this guy is talking about you. You seem to me less "skeptic", and MORE "pseudoskeptic"... I'd like to apologize for the name calling.

thats ok, even if he is talking about me, hes entitled to his opinion, I had you down as a die hard ufo nut anyway
:D

King of the Americas

20th June 2009, 08:18 AM

thats ok, even if he is talking about me, hes entitled to his opinion, I had you down as a die hard ufo nut anyway
:D

Given that I have seen one, or rather a set of them, that I have yet to find a credible scientific explanation for...you could call me a witness.

I wouldn't say "believer", because belief is based not on fact, but rather faith.

Seeing isn't believing, it's "knowing".

Planes and comets don't make right angle turns, while maintaining a consistant speed.

What 'I' saw was something, that I have as of yet been unable to identify.

A "die hard ufo nut"...? Nah, just a witness who desires to be heard, not unlike those before me.

Gord_in_Toronto

20th June 2009, 08:21 AM

Im not claiming anything here, but doesnt weird material show up at certain ufo landing spots? Like any change in soil?

I think the answer to that is "No", but I am willing to be proved wrong. Got a cite?

Marduk

20th June 2009, 08:31 AM

I think its usual that the claim is "the ground was burnt"
Claims of physical trace of landing UFOs, including ground impressions, burned and/or desiccated soil, burned and broken foliage, magnetic anomalies[specify], increased radiation levels, and metallic traces. See, e. g. Height 611 UFO Incident or the 1964 Lonnie Zamora's Socorro, New Mexico encounter of the USAF Project Blue Book cases). A well-known example from December 1980 was the USAF Rendlesham Forest Incident in England. Another less than two weeks later, in January 1981, occurred in Trans-en-Provence and was investigated by GEPAN, then France's official government UFO-investigation agency. Project Blue Book head Edward J. Ruppelt described a classic 1952 CE2 case involving a patch of charred grass roots.[76]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO#Physical_evidence

thus the reoccuring thought on my mind in a situation where I would fake a ufo landing would be make sure you burn a circular patch of ground first to make it more convincing

Gord_in_Toronto

20th June 2009, 09:04 AM

I think its usual that the claim is "the ground was burnt"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO#Physical_evidence

thus the reoccuring thought on my mind in a situation where I would fake a ufo landing would be make sure you burn a circular patch of ground first to make it more convincing

Zamora's Socorro incident has been shown to be a hot air balloon.

The Rendlesham incident is 1 part lighthouse and 9 parts hysteria.

Marduk

20th June 2009, 09:09 AM

I'm not debating that either way (although I always thought the rendlesham incident had more in common with disney than alpha centauri) but the fact remains that burned ground is part of the enigma. otherwise I wouldn't have thought about posting it or thought about it being one of the neccesary steps to prove to the gullible that aliens were present in a hoaxed landing. Obviously a burnt patch of ground just proves that the ground was heated, it says nothing of the source
;)

I Ratant

20th June 2009, 10:01 AM

[QUOTE=makaya325;4828545]

I've certainly heard claims like this. But let's say there's a UFO sighting, and someone finds a spot a few meters in diameter where there is a noticeably higher incidence of a heavy metal.

Is that a spot where a UFO landed, or hovered?

Or is it a placer deposit that's been there for a long time?
.
Out here in the desert it's likely a pen where a shepherd kept his sheep overnight while grazing his herd across the Antelope Valley.
There will be lots of organic material there. :)

makaya325

20th June 2009, 01:02 PM

Zamora's Socorro incident has been shown to be a hot air balloon.

The Rendlesham incident is 1 part lighthouse and 9 parts hysteria.

Hold it right there...The Rendlesham ufo was seen within FEET of the military officers, and there were changes in the soil.

makaya325

20th June 2009, 01:03 PM

[QUOTE=TjW;4828999]
.
Out here in the desert it's likely a pen where a shepherd kept his sheep overnight while grazing his herd across the Antelope Valley.
There will be lots of organic material there. :)

What? No, i mean the weird traces found near ufo landing sites.

RoboTimbo

20th June 2009, 01:07 PM

Im not claiming anything here, but doesnt weird material show up at certain ufo landing spots? Like any change in soil?Hold it right there...The Rendlesham ufo was seen within FEET of the military officers, and there were changes in the soil.

So you ARE claiming something.

makaya325

20th June 2009, 01:12 PM

So you ARE claiming something.

YES, Robo, i am claiming the Rendlesham incident was NOT a lighthouse. It is not an extraordinary claim to say it wasnt a lighthouse, and it is appropiate to look into other explanations.

paximperium

20th June 2009, 01:15 PM

YES, Robo, i am claiming the Rendlesham incident was NOT a lighthouse. It is not an extraordinary claim to say it wasnt a lighthouse, and it is appropiate to look into other explanations.
What about the soil "changes" again?

Gord_in_Toronto

20th June 2009, 01:18 PM

Hold it right there...The Rendlesham ufo was seen within FEET of the military officers, and there were changes in the soil.

You can do your own research on this but . . ..

The claim that it was seen within feet was part of the hysteria compounded by looking at the light from the lighthouse through infra-red "night glasses". The story has grown with time.

The "changes in the soil" were purported "tripod" holes in the ground. The terrain was rough and any three holes form a "tripod".

Gord_in_Toronto

20th June 2009, 01:22 PM

If "Rendlesham" was a UFO, then you have to explain why the observers did not see the light from the lighthouse that was right there in front of their eyes at the same time.

RoboTimbo

20th June 2009, 01:26 PM

If "Rendlesham" was a UFO, then you have to explain why the observers did not see the light from the lighthouse that was right there in front of their eyes at the same time.

Duh, the UFO was making love to the lighthouse. They were pulsating with light at the same frequency, judging by Col. Halt's breathless voice recording during the event.

Astrophotographer

20th June 2009, 01:34 PM

Hold it right there...The Rendlesham ufo was seen within FEET of the military officers, and there were changes in the soil.

How do you figure it was only "feet" away? Did any of them touch it? It appeared to be close but it really was far away. The original reports made by the airmen that night had them admitting they had pursued the lighthouse for some time before they realized it was a lighthouse. The audio tape of the pulsing light had it pulsing at the same frequency of the lighthouse. There is a lot of good evidence to suggest the lighthouse was involved.

The radiation readings of the soil were nominal contrary to claims made by Nick Pope. There was nothing unusual about the levels recorded (even though an AN/PDR-27 is not designed to detect low radiation levels - I used them on my nuclear sub).

The soil was disturbed but a forester, who saw them, said they looked like rabbit holes.

Not much here but if you want to read more, I suggest Ian Ridpath's website:

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham.htm

Interestingly, "lighthouses" is not a typical "cookie-cutter" explanation.

Marduk

20th June 2009, 05:17 PM

"Col. Halt's breathless voice recording."

every time I have heard that footage I have just thought "Gay"
is it just me ?
;)

jakesteele

20th June 2009, 06:52 PM

enter three charactersaaa - You obviously haven't a clue about the case he is describing do you? Tell me what do you really know about the case? What you heard? What you might believe? Feel free to elaborate.

I have made reference to the Phoenix Lights case and Phil Plait as an example of a CSIOPtic style of debunking. I believe the post I responded to was actually about Phillip Klass.

However, the point I made, and am still making, is that a CSIOPtic will almost always accept the anecdotal evidence of anyone who tells them what they want to hear, regardless of qualifications, but reject anecdotal evidence from anyone, regardless of qualifications, who tells them what they don’t want to hear.
If Einstein had come out and said the type of things Hynek said, you would be saying, “He was a brilliant man that made huge contributions, however….he went off the deep end, had a streak of woo in him, etc.

You claim you refuted this but you have done no such thing. Plait got a lot of his information from me and Tony Ortega.

I am debunking/refuting the style of subjective skepticism that Phil, you and most of the other followers of the James Randi Cult of Personality employ. Specific events are only used to show and example of such biased debunking. In other words, the Phoenix Lights, et al, are only the tip of the ice berg, which is what you concern yourself with, while I am dealing with the iceberg underneath.

We both examined this case very closely and, unless you have too, then you have no claim to have refuted anything. Feel free to continue your diatribe but the case is most likely a formation of aircraft at high alitude.

no doubt that you examined this case very closely and I have no doubt that you examined it very closely with a predetermined agenda to debunk rather than to investigate with an open mind.

Subjective Skeptics already have their minds made up that everything they have labeled as woo is bogus. UFOs, as in alien intelligence, falls into your category of woo, therefore, to you, it’s bogus.

You go into any situation like this not with an open mind and suspended judgment, but rather to disprove. That’s what this entire forum is about. That’s what James Randi got on the map for, attacking anything in the catch-all bag of woo. You are emotionally invested in the outcome and allow illusory objectivity to trick yourself with ‘sleight of mind’.
Of course, you will say things like, “Hey, I just want to know the truth, whatever the truth is I want to know. ‘Hey, I’m the first guy who wants to know the truth’, etc.”

This has been verified by several other reports and not just the reports of the amateur astronomer in question. Additionally, much of the eyewitness testimony also supports the observation. Only the exotic stories were published in the media. The other reports support the claim of aircraft in formation. Finally, the only video tape of the event in question supports aircraft in formation. This is why the case has a good explanation. You have demonstrated a knee-jerk believer response and did not bother to look into the case.

Again, I’m not talking about whether any particular incident is true or not true, I am addressing the underlying psychological matrix that drives determines your world view and reality map.

The more exotic the claim the more likely there is an error. You have already admitted pilots can make errors and now you seem to be backtracking saying they can't. Which is it? Can pilots make observational errors or not?

Phil says about amateur astronomers, …”But they don't. Why not? Because they understand the sky! They know when a twinkling light is Venus, or a satellite, or a military flare, or a hot air balloon, and so they don't report it.”

Why is it that an amateur astronomer can understand the sky and not be fooled, but expert, experienced aviators can’t? I don’t understand.

He did not state this or he later corrected this statement. His claim is that amateur astronomers should be reporting a lot of these sightings but are not. Why is this? Why, after over 35 years of amateur astronomy, haven't I seen one of these objects? Am I just not observant? Do I have to want to see the UFOs? Am I just unlucky? I bet a majority of amateur astronomers probably feel the same way. Some have seen odd things but nobody, to the best of my knowledge, talk about huge triangular craft hovering over their observing sites.

Why haven’t you? Well, it’s one of two things:
1. There are unexplainable anomalies and you haven’t been in the right place at the right time to observe.
2. Or every single sighting in the history of man has been mundane and explainable. Which of those two options do you think it is?

As for your poll of astronomers, every one of those sightings had to do with unknown lights and nothing concrete. Tombaugh's sighting is something he later determined to probably be an atmospheric phenomena because of the faintness of the lights. These observations were "unidentifieds" and not "alien spaceships" or "unknown aerial vehicles operating under intelligent control".

Of course, typical tactic. Attack the credentials and qualifications of the opposition in an attempt sideline their claims. I expect nothing less from a CSIOPtic.

Okay, let’s keep playing this game. Here’s another list for you to do what subjective skeptics do; downplay, diminish, marginalize and minimize.

+++http://www.topblogarea.com/sitedetails_21613.html
2007-11-16 16:36:00
Although it is sometimes contended that astronomers never report UFOs, the Air Force's Project Blue Book files indicate that approximately 1% of all their reports came from amateur and professional astronomers or other users of telescopes (such as missile trackers or surveyors). In the 1970s, astrophysicist Peter A. Sturrock conducted two surveys of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and American Astronomical Society. About 5% of the members polled indicated that they had had UFO sightings. [6] [7] In 1980, a survey of 1800 members of various amateur astronomer associations by Gert Helb and astronomer J. Allen Hynek of the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) found that 24% responded "yes" to the question "Have you ever observed an object which resisted your most exhaustive efforts at identification?"[29]Astronomer Clyde Tombaugh, who admitted to 6 UFO sightings, including 3 green fireballs supported the Extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) for UFOs and stated he thought sc

I’m talking about the cases that can’t be explained away with mundane explanations, whether it be a triangle craft, glowing orbs, lights blinking, etc. It doesn’t necessarily mean it is exotic, but because no logical explanation can be given, it leaves the door open to other possibilities within the realm of feasibility. Until you can explain away every single report (thousands and thousands) the possibility for exotics exists, although, it would be the most remote and the one you would consider last.

Occam’s Beard – the simplest explanation is not always the right one.

Now, once again, do you think that every reported sighting in the history of man from the dawn of civilization, up to and including the present, and by extension, every sighting in the future until one lands and introduces itself?

"many"???? I think you overestimate your position. Do you have data to support the claim or is it just your belief?