I Know What I Saw (UFO movie/doco)

Burning Beard · 21st September 2009, 05:58 PM

Uh-oh... http://iknowwhatisawthemovie.com/synopsis.html

It's the sequel to "Out of the Blue"

Arghghghg, emotive graphics and spooky music and lots of talking heads. This MUST be the smoking gun we've been waiting for

And both movies are being touted around the internet as "one for the skeptics".

makaya325 · 21st September 2009, 05:59 PM

If people knew what they saw, then they would not be throwing tantrums and hissy fits at skeptics.

Astrophotographer · 21st September 2009, 06:06 PM

I think it should be titled "I know what I believe I saw".

Burning Beard · 21st September 2009, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by makaya325

If people knew what they saw, then they would not be throwing tantrums and hissy fits at skeptics.

I just had one throw me the link to the trailer and say, well, what do you think of THAT???

Urrrrr, umm, it's a trailer????

King of the Americas · 22nd September 2009, 06:52 AM

"I DON'T Know What I Saw", would have been a more accurate title, given the definition of "U.F.O.'s"...

fuelair · 22nd September 2009, 08:28 AM

I prefer "I'm an idiot, I never learned me any science and I don't care 'cause God sent them aliens to warn us against catchin the gay!! And gettin' aborted - and stuff like that!!!"*

But, then, I am rather prejudiced in that matter.

Vortigern99 · 22nd September 2009, 08:45 AM

Wow! Apparently, according to this electrifying new movie, people sometimes see things in the sky that they cannot immediately identify, and which they imagine might be extraterrestrial spacecraft based on little or no evidence.

I say again: WOW!

Burning Beard · 22nd September 2009, 03:17 PM

It's embarrassing to admit, but this is the garbage I used to lap up

Drudgewire · 22nd September 2009, 03:26 PM

Quote:

"How would you describe the acceleration?"

"Probably the speed of light."

Aaaand we're done here.

Ron_Tomkins · 22nd September 2009, 03:44 PM

I love the "I know what I saw" principle. The entire philosphical issue is based on the "I know what I saw principle". It's the reason people can't (Meaning "don't want to") imagine how everything that is, could ever be, without the explanation of the Life Force.

It's only once we learn to step outside of what we "know" we saw, that we can really start thinking about what it could possibly be that we "saw". If it is we actually "see" anything in the first place, rather than it actually seeming as if we did.

makaya325 · 22nd September 2009, 04:47 PM

There is a huge difference between one saying "I believe I have seen" and "I KNOW what i saw". Until the individual can provide solid evidence, they should just keep their mouth shut and save themselves embarrassment.

There is no problem with one saying " I BELIEVE i saw something, and i do not know what it is".

Ron_Tomkins · 22nd September 2009, 04:48 PM

What about "I could have sworn I saw it, oh gee!!!!!!!!!"?

Burning Beard · 22nd September 2009, 05:00 PM

Oh god, the same guy is throwing 9/11 conspiracies at me now....

Vortigern99 · 22nd September 2009, 05:44 PM

I am fairly certain that what I think I saw (but might have hallucinated) reminds me of something I once saw in a movie, heard about on a TV show, or read about in a book or article, for the existence of which there is absolutely zero evidence, but which confirms my deep-seated hope that there is order and structure to the universe, as opposed to a bunch of random events strung together with no purpose or meaning, which idea terrifies me.

Rated PG. Coming soon to a solar system... near YOU.

Gord_in_Toronto · 23rd September 2009, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

I am fairly certain that what I think I saw (but might have hallucinated) reminds me of something I once saw in a movie, heard about on a TV show, or read about in a book or article, for the existence of which there is absolutely zero evidence, but which confirms my deep-seated hope that there is order and structure to the universe, as opposed to a bunch of random events strung together with no purpose or meaning, which idea terrifies me.

Rated PG. Coming soon to a solar system... near YOU.

Here. Lie back on my couch and let me hypnotize you so that you can "recover" your lost memories of your alien abduction and anal probing.

King of the Americas · 23rd September 2009, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Here. Lie back on my couch and let me hypnotize you so that you can "recover" your lost memories of your alien abduction and anal probing.

As a mental health specialist, who DID hypnotize hoping to give them some coping mechanism were to 'discover' an alien induced trauma...

Then what?

They wake up, and look at you, "Well how did I do?", he/she asks...

"Well, I am good, but you are plenty screwed up, and I am not sure there is anything on Earth 'I' can do for you."

*Where's my drum beat, snare snap?

Vortigern99 · 23rd September 2009, 02:26 PM

BWAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I don't get it.

Brattus · 23rd September 2009, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

I prefer "I'm an idiot, I never learned me any science and I don't care 'cause God sent them aliens to warn us against catchin the gay!! And gettin' aborted - and stuff like that!!!"*

But, then, I am rather prejudiced in that matter.

Now that's funny!!!!!!! Thanks for the great laugh!!!!!!!!!!

fuelair · 23rd September 2009, 04:15 PM

You're welcome!!

Frying Dutchmen · 24th September 2009, 06:32 PM

Oh god, is the movie going to discuss the Phoenix flares again? I have to say it was funny watching Micheal Shermer get agro from the director on Larry King.

"I have GENERALS saying they saw something!"

Astrophotographer · 24th September 2009, 07:03 PM

The Phoenix lights event is actually two events. Only one is explained by flares. I have discussed this ad nauseum in another thread and on my web page http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/AZUFO.htm.

makaya325 · 25th September 2009, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

The Phoenix lights event is actually two events. Only one is explained by flares. I have discussed this ad nauseum in another thread and on my web page http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/AZUFO.htm.

What about the other case. Was there an official explanation?

leafman91 · 25th September 2009, 02:46 AM

Also makes me think of 'The Fourth Kind', another similar movie currrently in the pipeline. That and 'The Skeptic', a horror movie I just know will be rubbish; the title starts with 'The'.

Frying Dutchmen · 25th September 2009, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

The Phoenix lights event is actually two events. Only one is explained by flares. I have discussed this ad nauseum in another thread and on my web page http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/AZUFO.htm.

I know but what I mean is that the doco will talk both signings but focus mostly on the flares video. Since the first one has no video and only witness testimony...

Oh wait nvm.

Astrophotographer · 25th September 2009, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by makaya325

What about the other case. Was there an official explanation?

THere was no "official" explanation simply because nobody investigated it to any extent. My website lays out the probable explanation. That is about as "official" as it can get.

Astrophotographer · 25th September 2009, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by Frying Dutchmen

I know but what I mean is that the doco will talk both signings but focus mostly on the flares video. Since the first one has no video and only witness testimony...

Oh wait nvm.

There is one video but they don't normally show it. The lights are faint and they change position relative with each other during the sequence indicating they are not attached to a physical object, which is what all the witnesses in "I know what I saw" are going to say. Therefore, they will not show this video (if they do it will not be with any detail or mention the shifting positions) because it directly contradicts what the witnesses state meaning "I know what I saw" is not an accurate portrayal of what ACTUALLY was seen.

Rramjet · 25th September 2009, 09:19 PM

Umm...has anyone actually SEEN the movie in question? Just asking because it seems there is a great deal of wild speculation here about unknown content.

Is this really how skeptics carry on? I thought the idea was to investigate and pronounce on the evidence. Wild speculation is not helpful to the cause of critical thinking.

You people crack me up... you pretend to a rational discourse, yet descend to unfounded speculation and uncalled for derision. You do not cover yourselves in glory with such nonsense - and you certainly go nowhere toward the advancement of critical thinking and logical thought processes.

Vortigern99 · 25th September 2009, 09:50 PM

I saw the trailer. It appears to consist of numerous eyewitnesses in various authoritative positions, offering anecdotal reports of UFO sightings, along with a parade of photos and videos that might be anything from misidentified atmospheric or meteoric phenomena to photographic errors to outright hoaxes. Or, you know, it could be space aliens.

Ferguson · 25th September 2009, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Umm...has anyone actually SEEN the movie in question? Just asking because it seems there is a great deal of wild speculation here about unknown content.

Is this really how skeptics carry on? I thought the idea was to investigate and pronounce on the evidence. Wild speculation is not helpful to the cause of critical thinking.

What evidence?

Vortigern99 · 25th September 2009, 11:13 PM

Rramjet, judging by his posts in the other current UFO thread here, appears to opine that anecdotes constitute evidence of... something. It's all a bit murky and non-specific, but apparently "something" has to explain all these unexplained sightings.

SezMe · 25th September 2009, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

The lights are faint and they change position relative with each other during the sequence indicating they are not attached to a physical object, ....

Hang on. Lights changing relative position does NOT indicate that they are not attached to a physical object.

Rramjet · 26th September 2009, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Ferguson

What evidence?

You are supposedly judging the worth of the movie - so the evidence would consist of the content of that movie.

I thought only quacks, hoaxers and "woo" artists were supposed draw conclusions from nonexistent evidence, but it seems the people here are great proponents of that methodology too!

Oh..and Vortigern...

anecdote: n. narrative of detached incident
evidence: n. (...) testimony
(The Concise Oxford Dictionary)

A UFO report is the testimony of eyewitnesses, that is... evidence. (shrugs. Some people huh?)

Astrophotographer · 26th September 2009, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

Hang on. Lights changing relative position does NOT indicate that they are not attached to a physical object.

Explain what you mean by this. Are you suggesting the lights are shifting position on the physical object or that perspective makes the lights appear to shift position. There were many eyewitnesses in this case that saw the lights as individual and not connected to a physical craft. Only those who stated they saw a dark object behind the lights get air time so it makes it appear that everyone saw a dark object with fixed lights. In the video clip I saw, I don't think there is anyway it could be a perspective issue simply because the changing pattern.

See the following image showing the shifting pattern of lights: http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Vshift.jpg

The video is not consistent at all with what the dark object witnesses report. This means when these witnesses claim they know what they saw, they are just claiming this is what they believe they saw or think they saw.

Astrophotographer · 26th September 2009, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Umm...has anyone actually SEEN the movie in question? Just asking because it seems there is a great deal of wild speculation here about unknown content.

I have only seen the trailer and it is my impression the movie is not out but will be shown on the History channel in October sometime. I have seen the prequel "Out of the blue" and I was not impressed. This seems to be just an emotional appeal of "trust us, the witnesses could not be wrong"!

I recently saw this video by Dr. Tyson that seems to reflect my opinion on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

Astrophotographer · 26th September 2009, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Rramjet

A UFO report is the testimony of eyewitnesses, that is... evidence.

However, evidence can have poor quality and eyewitness evidence can be distorted. As far as scientific evaluation goes, eyewitness testimony without any data to back it up is some very low level evidence. It is susceptible to error that can not be quantified.

Rramjet · 26th September 2009, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

However, evidence can have poor quality and eyewitness evidence can be distorted. As far as scientific evaluation goes, eyewitness testimony without any data to back it up is some very low level evidence. It is susceptible to error that can not be quantified.

Certainly. And it is legitimate to argue that the evidence (eyewitness testimony) is not satisfactory - as you do. It is NOT legitimate to argue that is is NOT evidence at all - as Vortigern does.

Two critical points -

First; MANY reports exist that have independent expert observer verification, have photo and/or video and/or RADAR verification, have been carefully and critically studied by qualified scientists (Blue BOOK, Condon, etc., and STILL remain "Unknown".

Second: Your statement on eyewitness testimony (evidence) that "It is susceptible to error that cannot be quantified" rules out ANY explanation of UFO reports - even the mundane and prosaic. That is, if the reports ARE so much in error, then ANY explanatory attempt at exposition will only compound the problem. You cannot have it both ways astrophotographer. Either the reports are reliable enough for us to explain them as (misperceptions, etc) or they are so flawed they do not lend themselves to explanation at all. Which do you want?

I am betting you will ignore this latter objection altogether and make some other spurious point in the hope that it will distract readers AWAY from the illegitimacy of your position as raised by that objection. Can you (or will you) Prove me wrong?

SezMe · 26th September 2009, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

Explain what you mean by this. Are you suggesting the lights are shifting position on the physical object or that perspective makes the lights appear to shift position.

The latter. I was not making a statement about this case at all. I was merely commenting that shifting light patterns can be consistent with being mounted on one physical object. I only responded because I thought you were making a generic argument, not a specific statement about this case.

Carry on.

Astrophotographer · 26th September 2009, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Rramjet

First; MANY reports exist that have independent expert observer verification, have photo and/or video and/or RADAR verification, have been carefully and critically studied by qualified scientists (Blue BOOK, Condon, etc., and STILL remain "Unknown".

I think the term "MANY" is overstating it. I realize that there are a vast number of UFO story collections everywhere but the rigor of investigation for each case has to be examined as well as the case itself. Sometimes individuals choose not to find answers and would rather enjoy the aura of a UFO mystery. All one can say about these cases is they are "unknown". They can not be explained for various reasons. That does not mean they are something not of this earth or some new natural phenomena.

Originally Posted by Rramjet

Second: Your statement on eyewitness testimony (evidence) that "It is susceptible to error that cannot be quantified" rules out ANY explanation of UFO reports - even the mundane and prosaic. That is, if the reports ARE so much in error, then ANY explanatory attempt at exposition will only compound the problem. You cannot have it both ways astrophotographer. Either the reports are reliable enough for us to explain them as (misperceptions, etc) or they are so flawed they do not lend themselves to explanation at all. Which do you want?

This is not true. If you examine case studies of various explained UFO events, it is obvious about the flaws in human perception/observation. However, if a witness says they saw a triangular shaped object with windows moving across the sky at the same time period a russian booster rocket re-entry is moving through the sky, one has to raise the obvious question "Is this what the witness is describing?". The witnesses general descriptions of time, place, and (Possibly) direction of travel/observation can provide adequate information to help solve the UFO report. These are values that can be readily determined by most witnesses (although some get directions wrong, which can be resolved by further questioning). Can one say 100% that this is what the witness saw? Probably not and many witnesses will strongly disagree with any answer but an alien spaceship (see Peter Davenport's recent comments at the NUFORC website). However, one can state this is probably what the witness saw or what the UFO was.

It is the perceptions of what a witness thinks they saw that are often the issue here. It gets in the way of the real data. The basic data (time, place, directions, elevation angles, angular sizes, etc.) can help solve the event but is often missing from these reports.

Vortigern99 · 26th September 2009, 02:06 PM

And it is legitimate to argue that the evidence (eyewitness testimony) is not satisfactory - as you do. It is NOT legitimate to argue that is is NOT evidence at all - as Vortigern does.

Rramjet, please stop putting words in my mouth/keyboard, and inventing straw men which you then proceed to pointlessly smash. I do not believe that testimony is not evidence, and I have never thought, written, or said that I believe this, opine this or hold it to be true. Where you have got the idea that I do believe this, you are in error. Please review my posts on this matter in the other UFO thread, as I will not waste time and energy arguing with your leaps in logic and unfounded criticisms of the scientific method.

Rramjet · 26th September 2009, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

This is not true. If you examine case studies of various explained UFO events, it is obvious about the flaws in human perception/observation.

But that is my point! Those reports were deemed reliable enough to warrant a conclusion of “mundane” to be brought. YOU state however that such reports are "…susceptible to error that cannot be quantified". YOU CANNOT have it both ways… either they are reliable enough to draw conclusions or they are not. You cannot post hoc cherry pick ONLY “explained” reports as reliable and then dismiss the “unexplained” report as unreliable. You have to work from first principles. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the scientific method and the principles of logic…

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

It is the perceptions of what a witness thinks they saw that are often the issue here. It gets in the way of the real data. The basic data (time, place, directions, elevation angles, angular sizes, etc.) can help solve the event but is often missing from these reports.

Then dismiss those reports as “not enough information to draw a conclusion” and move on. Blue Book Special report No. 14 does precisely that. It categorises reports as “Not enough information”. HOWEVER, it ALSO categorises reports as “Unknown” – despite sufficient reliability and information.

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Rramjet, please stop putting words in my mouth/keyboard, and inventing straw men which you then proceed to pointlessly smash. I do not believe that testimony is not evidence, and I have never thought, written, or said that I believe this, opine this or hold it to be true. Where you have got the idea that I do believe this, you are in error. Please review my posts on this matter in the other UFO thread, as I will not waste time and energy arguing with your leaps in logic and unfounded criticisms of the scientific method.

YOU STATED:

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Rramjet, judging by his posts in the other current UFO thread here, appears to opine that anecdotes constitute evidence of... something. It's all a bit murky and non-specific, but apparently "something" has to explain all these unexplained sightings.

First then: throughout this thread (and others) you persist in labelling eyewitness testimony as “anecdotes”. To do so means you do not believe UFO reports (the eyewitness testimony) to be “evidence” (because an anecdote does not constitute evidence). I reasonably assumed then you believed anecdotes were not evidence (which is true) and that UFO reports were anecdotes (which is false).

Thus my legitimate conclusion in the statement: And it is legitimate to argue that the evidence (eyewitness testimony) is not satisfactory - as you do. It is NOT legitimate to argue that is is NOT evidence at all - as Vortigern does.

Moreover it is YOU falsely ascribe beliefs to ME. I believe the eyewitness testimonies that constitute UFO reports to be EVIDENCE. AND I have EXPLICITELY stated (in practically every post I have ever typed) that I refuse to speculate on the evidence “for what” question. So it is YOU sir who maligned me, NOT the other way around. So get your facts straight and don’t be so thin skinned.

Also WHERE are my “unfounded criticisms of the scientific method”?

You people are almost impossible to deal with logically. You often accuse your opponent of carrying on in EXACTLY the manner you DO – EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE NOT! I can only suppose this to be a defence mechanism for when you run out of ideas and logical argument – a typical politicians trick – accuse you opponent of your own sins and let HIM explain himself – takes the heat right off you and allows you to NOT answer criticism of your own position. (shakes head).

21st September 2009, 05:58 PM	#1
Burning Beard Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Posts: 148	I Know What I Saw (UFO movie/doco) Uh-oh... http://iknowwhatisawthemovie.com/synopsis.html It's the sequel to "Out of the Blue" Arghghghg, emotive graphics and spooky music and lots of talking heads. This MUST be the smoking gun we've been waiting for And both movies are being touted around the internet as "one for the skeptics".

22nd September 2009, 08:28 AM	#6
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 16,733	I prefer "I'm an idiot, I never learned me any science and I don't care 'cause God sent them aliens to warn us against catchin the gay!! And gettin' aborted - and stuff like that!!!"* But, then, I am rather prejudiced in that matter.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 16,733	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space!

22nd September 2009, 08:45 AM	#7
Vortigern99 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 1,028	Wow! Apparently, according to this electrifying new movie, people sometimes see things in the sky that they cannot immediately identify, and which they imagine might be extraterrestrial spacecraft based on little or no evidence. I say again: WOW!
	__________________ "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca

22nd September 2009, 03:26 PM	#9
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 8,226	Quote: "How would you describe the acceleration?" "Probably the speed of light." Aaaand we're done here.
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

22nd September 2009, 03:44 PM	#10
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 15,120	I love the "I know what I saw" principle. The entire philosphical issue is based on the "I know what I saw principle". It's the reason people can't (Meaning "don't want to") imagine how everything that is, could ever be, without the explanation of the Life Force. It's only once we learn to step outside of what we "know" we saw, that we can really start thinking about what it could possibly be that we "saw". If it is we actually "see" anything in the first place, rather than it actually seeming as if we did.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

21st September 2009, 05:59 PM	#2
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	If people knew what they saw, then they would not be throwing tantrums and hissy fits at skeptics.

21st September 2009, 06:06 PM	#3
Astrophotographer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 1,362	I think it should be titled "I know what I believe I saw".

21st September 2009, 06:06 PM	#4
Burning Beard Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Posts: 148	Originally Posted by makaya325 If people knew what they saw, then they would not be throwing tantrums and hissy fits at skeptics. I just had one throw me the link to the trailer and say, well, what do you think of THAT??? Urrrrr, umm, it's a trailer????

22nd September 2009, 06:52 AM	#5
King of the Americas Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: North Central Texas Posts: 3,070	"I DON'T Know What I Saw", would have been a more accurate title, given the definition of "U.F.O.'s"...

22nd September 2009, 03:17 PM	#8
Burning Beard Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Posts: 148	It's embarrassing to admit, but this is the garbage I used to lap up

22nd September 2009, 04:47 PM	#11
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	There is a huge difference between one saying "I believe I have seen" and "I KNOW what i saw". Until the individual can provide solid evidence, they should just keep their mouth shut and save themselves embarrassment. There is no problem with one saying " I BELIEVE i saw something, and i do not know what it is".
	Last edited by makaya325; 22nd September 2009 at 04:51 PM.

22nd September 2009, 04:48 PM	#12
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 15,120	What about "I could have sworn I saw it, oh gee!!!!!!!!!"?
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 22nd September 2009 at 04:56 PM.

22nd September 2009, 05:00 PM	#13
Burning Beard Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Posts: 148	Oh god, the same guy is throwing 9/11 conspiracies at me now....

22nd September 2009, 05:44 PM	#14
Vortigern99 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 1,028	I am fairly certain that what I think I saw (but might have hallucinated) reminds me of something I once saw in a movie, heard about on a TV show, or read about in a book or article, for the existence of which there is absolutely zero evidence, but which confirms my deep-seated hope that there is order and structure to the universe, as opposed to a bunch of random events strung together with no purpose or meaning, which idea terrifies me. Rated PG. Coming soon to a solar system... near YOU.
	__________________ "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca

23rd September 2009, 11:24 AM	#15
Gord_in_Toronto Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,168	Originally Posted by Vortigern99 I am fairly certain that what I think I saw (but might have hallucinated) reminds me of something I once saw in a movie, heard about on a TV show, or read about in a book or article, for the existence of which there is absolutely zero evidence, but which confirms my deep-seated hope that there is order and structure to the universe, as opposed to a bunch of random events strung together with no purpose or meaning, which idea terrifies me. Rated PG. Coming soon to a solar system... near YOU. Here. Lie back on my couch and let me hypnotize you so that you can "recover" your lost memories of your alien abduction and anal probing.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick Now completely free.

23rd September 2009, 01:56 PM	#16
King of the Americas Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: North Central Texas Posts: 3,070	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto Here. Lie back on my couch and let me hypnotize you so that you can "recover" your lost memories of your alien abduction and anal probing. As a mental health specialist, who DID hypnotize hoping to give them some coping mechanism were to 'discover' an alien induced trauma... Then what? They wake up, and look at you, "Well how did I do?", he/she asks... "Well, I am good, but you are plenty screwed up, and I am not sure there is anything on Earth 'I' can do for you." *Where's my drum beat, snare snap?
	Last edited by King of the Americas; 23rd September 2009 at 01:57 PM.

23rd September 2009, 02:26 PM	#17
Vortigern99 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 1,028	BWAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I don't get it.
	__________________ "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca

23rd September 2009, 02:53 PM	#18
Brattus Muse Join Date: May 2007 Location: The bowels of death and despair Posts: 515	Originally Posted by fuelair I prefer "I'm an idiot, I never learned me any science and I don't care 'cause God sent them aliens to warn us against catchin the gay!! And gettin' aborted - and stuff like that!!!"* But, then, I am rather prejudiced in that matter. Now that's funny!!!!!!! Thanks for the great laugh!!!!!!!!!!
	__________________ If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinise it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

23rd September 2009, 04:15 PM	#19
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 16,733	You're welcome!!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 16,733	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space!

24th September 2009, 06:32 PM	#20
Frying Dutchmen Student Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 25	Oh god, is the movie going to discuss the Phoenix flares again? I have to say it was funny watching Micheal Shermer get agro from the director on Larry King. "I have GENERALS saying they saw something!"
Frying Dutchmen Student Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 25

24th September 2009, 07:03 PM	#21
Astrophotographer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 1,362	The Phoenix lights event is actually two events. Only one is explained by flares. I have discussed this ad nauseum in another thread and on my web page http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/AZUFO.htm.

25th September 2009, 01:18 AM	#22
makaya325 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: It's ok, im a limo driver! Posts: 4,655	Originally Posted by Astrophotographer The Phoenix lights event is actually two events. Only one is explained by flares. I have discussed this ad nauseum in another thread and on my web page http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/AZUFO.htm. What about the other case. Was there an official explanation?

25th September 2009, 02:46 AM	#23
leafman91 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: England.Weather isn't great in England Posts: 346	Also makes me think of 'The Fourth Kind', another similar movie currrently in the pipeline. That and 'The Skeptic', a horror movie I just know will be rubbish; the title starts with 'The'.
	__________________ 'Fish pay attention to the moon?'- The Chemical Brothers

25th September 2009, 05:32 AM	#24
Frying Dutchmen Student Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 25	Originally Posted by Astrophotographer The Phoenix lights event is actually two events. Only one is explained by flares. I have discussed this ad nauseum in another thread and on my web page http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/AZUFO.htm. I know but what I mean is that the doco will talk both signings but focus mostly on the flares video. Since the first one has no video and only witness testimony... Oh wait nvm.
Frying Dutchmen Student Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 25

25th September 2009, 07:34 AM	#25
Astrophotographer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 1,362	Originally Posted by makaya325 What about the other case. Was there an official explanation? THere was no "official" explanation simply because nobody investigated it to any extent. My website lays out the probable explanation. That is about as "official" as it can get.

25th September 2009, 07:37 AM	#26
Astrophotographer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 1,362	Originally Posted by Frying Dutchmen I know but what I mean is that the doco will talk both signings but focus mostly on the flares video. Since the first one has no video and only witness testimony... Oh wait nvm. There is one video but they don't normally show it. The lights are faint and they change position relative with each other during the sequence indicating they are not attached to a physical object, which is what all the witnesses in "I know what I saw" are going to say. Therefore, they will not show this video (if they do it will not be with any detail or mention the shifting positions) because it directly contradicts what the witnesses state meaning "I know what I saw" is not an accurate portrayal of what ACTUALLY was seen.

25th September 2009, 09:19 PM	#27
Rramjet Muse Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 984	Umm...has anyone actually SEEN the movie in question? Just asking because it seems there is a great deal of wild speculation here about unknown content. Is this really how skeptics carry on? I thought the idea was to investigate and pronounce on the evidence. Wild speculation is not helpful to the cause of critical thinking. You people crack me up... you pretend to a rational discourse, yet descend to unfounded speculation and uncalled for derision. You do not cover yourselves in glory with such nonsense - and you certainly go nowhere toward the advancement of critical thinking and logical thought processes.
Rramjet Muse Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 984

25th September 2009, 09:50 PM	#28
Vortigern99 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 1,028	I saw the trailer. It appears to consist of numerous eyewitnesses in various authoritative positions, offering anecdotal reports of UFO sightings, along with a parade of photos and videos that might be anything from misidentified atmospheric or meteoric phenomena to photographic errors to outright hoaxes. Or, you know, it could be space aliens.
	__________________ "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca

25th September 2009, 10:16 PM	#29
Ferguson Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Location: Downtown Lansing, MI Posts: 222	Originally Posted by Rramjet Umm...has anyone actually SEEN the movie in question? Just asking because it seems there is a great deal of wild speculation here about unknown content. Is this really how skeptics carry on? I thought the idea was to investigate and pronounce on the evidence. Wild speculation is not helpful to the cause of critical thinking. What evidence?

25th September 2009, 11:13 PM	#30
Vortigern99 Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 1,028	Rramjet, judging by his posts in the other current UFO thread here, appears to opine that anecdotes constitute evidence of... something. It's all a bit murky and non-specific, but apparently "something" has to explain all these unexplained sightings.
	__________________ "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca

25th September 2009, 11:44 PM	#31
SezMe Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 9,129	Originally Posted by Astrophotographer The lights are faint and they change position relative with each other during the sequence indicating they are not attached to a physical object, .... Hang on. Lights changing relative position does NOT indicate that they are not attached to a physical object.

26th September 2009, 08:13 AM	#32
Rramjet Muse Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 984	Originally Posted by Ferguson What evidence? You are supposedly judging the worth of the movie - so the evidence would consist of the content of that movie. I thought only quacks, hoaxers and "woo" artists were supposed draw conclusions from nonexistent evidence, but it seems the people here are great proponents of that methodology too! Oh..and Vortigern... anecdote: n. narrative of detached incident evidence: n. (...) testimony (The Concise Oxford Dictionary) A UFO report is the testimony of eyewitnesses, that is... evidence. (shrugs. Some people huh?)
Rramjet Muse Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 984

26th September 2009, 08:50 AM	#33
Astrophotographer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 1,362	Originally Posted by SezMe Hang on. Lights changing relative position does NOT indicate that they are not attached to a physical object. Explain what you mean by this. Are you suggesting the lights are shifting position on the physical object or that perspective makes the lights appear to shift position. There were many eyewitnesses in this case that saw the lights as individual and not connected to a physical craft. Only those who stated they saw a dark object behind the lights get air time so it makes it appear that everyone saw a dark object with fixed lights. In the video clip I saw, I don't think there is anyway it could be a perspective issue simply because the changing pattern. See the following image showing the shifting pattern of lights: http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Vshift.jpg The video is not consistent at all with what the dark object witnesses report. This means when these witnesses claim they know what they saw, they are just claiming this is what they believe they saw or think they saw.

26th September 2009, 08:53 AM	#34
Astrophotographer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 1,362	Originally Posted by Rramjet Umm...has anyone actually SEEN the movie in question? Just asking because it seems there is a great deal of wild speculation here about unknown content. I have only seen the trailer and it is my impression the movie is not out but will be shown on the History channel in October sometime. I have seen the prequel "Out of the blue" and I was not impressed. This seems to be just an emotional appeal of "trust us, the witnesses could not be wrong"! I recently saw this video by Dr. Tyson that seems to reflect my opinion on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

26th September 2009, 08:56 AM	#35
Astrophotographer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 1,362	Originally Posted by Rramjet A UFO report is the testimony of eyewitnesses, that is... evidence. However, evidence can have poor quality and eyewitness evidence can be distorted. As far as scientific evaluation goes, eyewitness testimony without any data to back it up is some very low level evidence. It is susceptible to error that can not be quantified.