237 replies to this topic

[zoser]

Hazzard, on 17 June 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

Sorry,... I had the four steps of the scientific method in mind when I wrote that. Science instead of pseudo science.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

Intellectualism at it's very best.  Why not just listen to the people that saw it?

Just off to watch another Doc.  See you later.

Edited by zoser, 17 June 2012 - 06:35 PM.

[booNyzarC]

zoser, on 17 June 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

So what is your impression of the testimonies?  

That they were sincere and that the witnesses highlighted in this clip, and several others not included in this clip, did indeed observe something that they were unable to identify.

zoser, on 17 June 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

To me they are all consistent in relation to each other and to the facts.  i.e regarding when the USAF claimed they dropped flares and when the sightings occurred.  I don't want to get drawn into some ancillary issue; what are you saying?  Are you saying that they are referring to some earlier sighting and that sightings later were in fact fares?

Many of the testimonies were relatively consistent, I agree.

What I'm saying is that they were not describing the 10 PM flare events.  They were describing sightings from earlier in the evening.  Therefore their testimony is completely irrelevant to the 10 PM flare event which was captured on video by 4 people from 4 different locations.  Which follows that this clip does not debunk the flare conclusion as you've claimed in the OP and in the naming of your thread.

zoser, on 17 June 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

If so we still need to explain what they saw.

For the earlier events which are the focus of this clip from Unsolved Mysteries, read this.  I don't expect you to agree with it.  I expect quite the opposite actually.  But that won't change the reality of what they saw.

Cheers.

[Coffey]

zoser, on 17 June 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Modern science?  Nuclear reactors spewing out their poisons; fossil fuels in cars for the last 100 years; burning coal in homes slowly poisoning the planet that our ancients were doing to keep warm.  Forgive me if I don't bow down to science just yet,

How can you blame "Science" for that?! It doesn't even make sense!

Science isn't something you can blame, only certian scientists for their morals and ethics. But even then they wouldn't be to blame for that, the people to balem for that are goverments and the large companies who run the fuel/power supplies in the world.

On top of that if it bothers you so much then why are you using a laptop or desktop computer etc and probably sitting with your light on in your room etc. Do you use other modern technologies? Do you own a car? it's very hypocritical to say stuff like that when you use these things yourself.

I do think that renewable energy sources should be funded more and thye should try harder to achieve but again dot he big money maker sint his world want that?

Hazzard, on 17 June 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

Sorry,... I had the four steps of the scientific method in mind when I wrote that. Science instead of pseudo science.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

Ok I get what you mean now. Fair enough, no need to say sorry either. lol

[Hazzard]

booNyzarC, on 17 June 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

What I'm saying is that they were not describing the 10 PM flare events.  They were describing sightings from earlier in the evening.  Therefore their testimony is completely irrelevant to the 10 PM flare event which was captured on video by 4 people from 4 different locations.

Which follows that this clip does not debunk the flare conclusion as you've claimed in the OP and in the naming of your thread.

Here, zoser, if you can forget about the testimonys for a sec and focus on this part,... I have bolded it from boons post.

I would really like to hear your explanation to this.

[psyche101]

zoser, on 17 June 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

Intellectualism at it's very best.  Why not just listen to the people that saw it?

Just off to watch another Doc.  See you later.

Hey Zoser

Why do you outright refuse to refute the math done in the BE thread that proves the proponent witnesses wrong? Math cannot lie, people do. You appear desperate to avoid it, have you already looked at it and realised that it reders your argument invalid?

Again, these entertainment programs are not documentaries, it is really funny that you keep calling them documentaries.

TheMcGuffin, on 17 June 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

Personally, I think the ETs are here, and that many of them are hostile.  I can make a pretty good case for that, too, given that there have been a lot of "incidents" with UFOs being chased, fired on and firing back that are not imaginary. No one in the military who knew anything ever thought that it was, going back to the 1940s, especially when people were being killed in UFO encounters.

Hey McG

Have you considered BEKs (Black Eyed Kids) as part of your hypothesis?

Edited by psyche101, 17 June 2012 - 11:02 PM.

[rcarp89]

Hazzard, on 17 June 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

I agree with Shaman. We have disected the PL a couple of times in the last BE thread. After looking at both sides evidence and arguments there is no doubt in my mind that the first sighting was aircraft flying in formation, and the second event was flares.

Can I just ask, do you believe in anything science can't explain or are you simply blinded by facts, figures and data, in official government testimony and our 'cutting edge' science, and of course he believes in the 'scientific evidence' provided by 'highly qualified' members of these forums?

I ask this because I've seen you posting on almost every topic attempting to debunk it. Same question to pyche101 who also seems to live his life here and debunk anything he can get his hands on.

Edited by rcarp89, 17 June 2012 - 11:04 PM.

[TheMcGuffin]

psyche101, on 17 June 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

Hey Zoser

Hey McG

Have you considered BEKs (Black Eyed Kids) as part of your hypothesis?

No, but is there some reason that I should?

[psyche101]

Hazzard, on 17 June 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

Here, zoser, if you can forget about the testimonys for a sec and focus on this part,... I have bolded it from boons post.

I would really like to hear your explanation to this.

I would be surprised to see an answer, he has avoided the good work Boon and LS did in the BE thread that proves the sighting was flares lika a plague. I am guessing that the point of this thread is to hope that everyone forgets all that good work already done, and what it showed.

[psyche101]

TheMcGuffin, on 17 June 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

No, but is there some reason that I should?

I was just reading about them recently and noticed that their contact is intermittent, started approximately in the 90's and figured it might have a place in your hostile aliens hypothesis, I thought of you when I read about them. I had heard of them before but they sort of landed in my face the other night and whilst I had a read, the childlike appearance reminds me vaguely of the shorter stature of the grey depiction, and the outcomes are always unpleasant. There seems no good earthly explanation for their appearance, although I am uncertain as to how well documented most cases are, they had not caught my attention in much depth until I thought of hostile aliens and thought they might be a candidate.
I was just wondering if you had considered them, and if any connections exist.

[TheMcGuffin]

psyche101, on 17 June 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

I was just reading about them recently and noticed that their contact is intermittent, started approximately in the 90's and figured it might have a place in your hostile aliens hypothesis, I thought of you when I read about them. I had heard of them before but they sort of landed in my face the other night and whilst I had a read, the childlike appearance reminds me vaguely of the shorter stature of the grey depiction, and the outcomes are always unpleasant. There seems no good earthly explanation for their appearance, although I am uncertain as to how well documented most cases are, they had not caught my attention in much depth until I thought of hostile aliens and thought they might be a candidate.
I was just wondering if you had considered them, and if any connections exist.

I've heard of them, although like the Men In Black, I'm not sure if anybody has ever really seen one.  (Not that I have any doubt about the military and intelligence agencies sending out creepy people to threaten, harass and intimidate UFO witnesses and researchers, get them to hand over their evidence, impersonating Air Force officers and so on.  We know that was going on.)  I've read some wild speculation about BEK's being alien hybrids and things like that, or that they seem very menacing to people who encounter them, but I am not going to say for a fact that they truly exist.

There are quite a lot of stories on the Internet about them, like this one:

http://mysteriousuni...-in-the-making/

[psyche101]

rcarp89, on 17 June 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

Can I just ask, do you believe in anything science can't explain or are you simply blinded by facts, figures and data, in official government testimony and our 'cutting edge' science, and of course he believes in the 'scientific evidence' provided by 'highly qualified' members of these forums?

As I can see by your post count that you have had little to do with the conversation, I will accept that you are unaware of the Best Evidence thread in where Lost Shaman and BoonyZarc triangulated the position of the flares and analysed pretty much every photograph that is freely available, and in every case the math said flares. No picture depicts a large triangle, there is absolutely zero evidence for the ET claim, and my problem is that Zoser knows this. He has been pointed at the math on numerous occassions and he simply refuses to accept that it exists. That is not discussion, that is propaganda, and this is a discussion forum. And dont you agree, it is a bit sad when one keeps arguing for something, but refuses to so much as have the gumption to even attempt to counter existing debate? Pretending it does not exist is an inherent sign that the debater knows he is beaten and is trying to pretend that fact does not exist. Should you look up the math, you will see that others who are far more competent than Zoser with regards to ET debate eperience tried to counter the math and could not.

Could you explain the usage of the word "blinded" in your above post"? How is empirical evidence "blinding" anyone? I disagree with that statement completely. Zoser is calling these shows "documentaries" and you are saying people who understand scientific method are blinded???? Really?

Does it bother you that I seek prosaic explanations, do you think everyone should just Ohh and Ahhh over any tales they are told and believe it at face value? I have never had a solid theory for Portgae County, so that blows your statement right out the window. I have no doubt seen more of these cases and studied them deeper than you have. If you put the effort in to find out more about these cases, I have no doubt you are likely to come to the same conclusion I have, and if you have countering information, please present it for debate, that after all is the purpose of this place. If you are just having a whine, put a sock in it. It is not a place to sit around and pat each other on the back grinning and saying how we beat the Government, and we know they are hiding aliens from us. I am interested in developments and personal recollections, most of these old campfire stories I find pretty lacklustre. They have zero substance, but much ghost story potential. If the stories do not stand up to scrutiny, how is that my fault??? Some people get really annoyed when you take their fairytales away! I been watching this subject for 35 years now, you?

rcarp89, on 17 June 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

I ask this because I've seen you posting on almost every topic attempting to debunk it. Same question to pyche101 who also seems to live his life here and debunk anything he can get his hands on.

Well there you have you answer, give me something tangible! What in your opinion trumps the WOW! signal as far as Alien life and real contact with it goes? What do you think is the best case to date, and can you counter that math presented that proves the Phoenix lights were flares? Math does not lie, but what about Billy Mier or Bob Lazar, or George Adamski.......... it's quite a list you know.
I admire you asking the question rather than beating around the bush, that shows more balls than all these proponents tied together and folded over!  (not Q, D and McG understand, I hold those "believers" if that is the right word in the highest regard) whatever your view is, you have my attention. I am hoping to see good debate from you. Not just whining, like we have seen for far too long. If new to the subject, those guys I mentioned would be worth watching for your own perspective. But I suggest you look at both sides and make your own mind up.

Edited by psyche101, 17 June 2012 - 11:41 PM.

[psyche101]

TheMcGuffin, on 17 June 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

I've heard of them, although like the Men In Black, I'm not sure if anybody has ever really seen one.  (Not that I have any doubt about the military and intelligence agencies sending out creepy people to threaten, harass and intimidate UFO witnesses and researchers, get them to hand over their evidence, impersonating Air Force officers and so on.  We know that was going on.)  I've read some wild speculation about BEK's being alien hybrids and things like that, or that they seem very menacing to people who encounter them, but I am not going to say for a fact that they truly exist.

There are quite a lot of stories on the Internet about them, like this one:

http://mysteriousuni...-in-the-making/

Thanks for the link, I will have a closer read now, the eyes catch me as the link, size of Grey has always been considered short in stature, it struck me that in some cases a person might misinterpret a smaller humanoid for a child. I cannot see where such large pupils would advantage humans, if such could ever be confirmed it sounds like an entirely different eye structure, I wondered if the large pupils might be of assistance to the inhabitants of a planet in the zone of a red dwarf star. Still thinking about possible type of aliens that might be able to evolve.

[TheMcGuffin]

psyche101, on 17 June 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Thanks for the link, I will have a closer read now, the eyes catch me as the link, size of Grey has always been considered short in stature, it struck me that in some cases a person might misinterpret a smaller humanoid for a child. I cannot see where such large pupils would advantage humans, if such could ever be confirmed it sounds like an entirely different eye structure, I wondered if the large pupils might be of assistance to the inhabitants of a planet in the zone of a red dwarf star. Still thinking about possible type of aliens that might be able to evolve.

This is an artist's rendition of a BEK.  They are usually described as asking people for rides or to come in and use the phone, things like that, but their eyes and behavior are so "off" that people find them disturbing.  These types of stories remind me very much of the MIBs.

[TheMcGuffin]

psyche101, on 17 June 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Thanks for the link, I will have a closer read now, the eyes catch me as the link, size of Grey has always been considered short in stature, it struck me that in some cases a person might misinterpret a smaller humanoid for a child. I cannot see where such large pupils would advantage humans, if such could ever be confirmed it sounds like an entirely different eye structure, I wondered if the large pupils might be of assistance to the inhabitants of a planet in the zone of a red dwarf star. Still thinking about possible type of aliens that might be able to evolve.

That's assuming that the so-called small humanoids are the product of natural evolutionary processes, and are not somehow artificial or designed, as some people have claimed.  I've even heard stories that the dark coverings over their eyes are really protective membranes to shield them from the relative brightness of our sun, sort of like sunglasses, but of course I can't prove that.

Edited by TheMcGuffin, 17 June 2012 - 11:56 PM.

[rcarp89]

psyche101, on 17 June 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

As I can see by your post count that you have had little to do with the conversation, I will accept that you are unaware of the Best Evidence thread in where Lost Shaman and BoonyZarc triangulated the position of the flares and analysed pretty much every photograph that is freely available, and in every case the math said flares. No picture depicts a large triangle, there is absolutely zero evidence for the ET claim, and my problem is that Zoser knows this. He has been pointed at the math on numerous occassions and he simply refuses to accept that it exists. That is not discussion, that is propaganda, and this is a discussion forum. And dont you agree, it is a bit sad when one keeps arguing for something, but refuses to so much as have the gumption to even attempt to counter existing debate? Pretending it does not exist is an inherent sign that the debater knows he is beaten and is trying to pretend that fact does not exist. Should you look up the math, you will see that others who are far more competent than Zoser with regards to ET debate eperience tried to counter the math and could not.

Could you explain the usage of the word "blinded" in your above post"? How is empirical evidence "blinding" anyone? I disagree with that statement completely. Zoser is calling these shows "documentaries" and you are saying people who understand scientific method are blinded???? Really?

Does it bother you that I seek prosaic explanations, do you think everyone should just Ohh and Ahhh over any tales they are told and believe it at face value? I have never had a solid theory for Portgae County, so that blows your statement right out the window. I have no doubt seen more of these cases and studied them deeper than you have. If you put the effort in to find out more about these cases, I have no doubt you are likely to come to the same conclusion I have, and if you have countering information, please present it for debate, that after all is the purpose of this place. If you are just having a whine, put a sock in it. It is not a place to sit around and pat each other on the back grinning and saying how we beat the Government, and we know they are hiding aliens from us. I am interested in developments and personal recollections, most of these old campfire stories I find pretty lacklustre. They have zero substance, but much ghost story potential. If the stories do not stand up to scrutiny, how is that my fault??? Some people get really annoyed when you take their fairytales away! I been watching this subject for 35 years now, you?



Well there you have you answer, give me something tangible! What in your opinion trumps the WOW! signal as far as Alien life and real contact with it goes? What do you think is the best case to date, and can you counter that math presented that proves the Phoenix lights were flares? Math does not lie, but what about Billy Mier or Bob Lazar, or George Adamski.......... it's quite a list you know.
I admire you asking the question rather than beating around the bush, that shows more balls than all these proponents tied together and folded over!  (not Q, D and McG understand, I hold those "believers" if that is the right word in the highest regard) whatever your view is, you have my attention. I am hoping to see good debate from you. Not just whining, like we have seen for far too long. If new to the subject, those guys I mentioned would be worth watching for your own perspective. But I suggest you look at both sides and make your own mind up.

First of all thank you for your calm, collected and informative response. Secondly, let me apologise for maybe coming off slightly more aggressive than was intended in the original post. My main question was not really about the Pheonix lights, and you'll be happy to know that I hold the same views as you about old and tired UFO cases. I'm bored of being excited by cases popping up on here only to find they are about 1970's this or 1980's that. I am also more personally interested in more recent sightings. I do not personally wish to argue about the PLs right now as on this specific subject, my knowledge is very limited (however I will be looking into the thread talked about earlier, thank you). Again I merely wanted to question what personal beliefs you held about extra-terrestrials and other things that science may not yet have found/explained. Also I would not like to hijack this thread, however I will post in my opinion the best case that has caught my eye in the time I have been looking into UFOs, and I await your theories on this. May I also ask if you have investigated the Disclosure Project and what you think of them and their testimonies?

This is a link to the case, declassified documents are linked on the page: http://www.cufon.org...strom/malm1.htm

Edited by rcarp89, 18 June 2012 - 12:18 AM.