372 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

Hazzard, on 19 January 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

Good Lord, psyche,...

Thank you my friend, for the kind words, and the smarts to put together this compelling three stage thread. It has well compressed all the argument and debate into a simple question. If ET is here, show me the money. Several hundred pages over three threads has managed no more that strong protest and an insistance that has shown the ETH is indeed a hypothesis only, at best. When we sort the wheat from the chaff, we see what is compelling about the subject, and whilst that might be minimal, it remains compelling, but this is the only thread I think in existence that lays out the ETH bare bones. Good to see so many named and shamed, and the few amazing instances stand out for what they are, truly amazing. I think after three threads, we have managed to outline the most impressive events still uncategorised to date to be:

1 - The WOW! Signal
2 - Portage County
3 - The Teheran Incident.

And even with these compelling events, we stil cannot point a finger at ET, we can only wonder if ET might be a good candidate here. You are to be commended mate, of the entire phenomena was approached with such straightforwardness and honesty, it would not be in the mess it is today.

Cheers

* Hey sslama. Gone quiet there mate.

[DONTEATUS]

You forgot the NOW Signal psyche101
Thats N=Nuttin
          O= Outthere
         W= Wink.

[zoser]

Hazzard, on 04 December 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

UFOs, Alien abductions, Area 51, Cattle mutilations, Crop circles, Alien structures and artifacts on the moon and Mars...

What evidence is there, and most importantly, how good is the evidence, that intelligent extraterrestrials are out there, have found Earth, and are now here doing all the things we hear about?

As believers begin to build the case about UFOs and a possible ET connection, the foundation of this is built on hear say, speculations, theories, guess work, assumptions, beliefs and emotions.

Me, personally, I do not deal in any of that (not when it comes to this) I deal in knowledge. There is a vast difference between the two. You may believe all you want, but knowledge requires a higher standard than that which propels belief.

There is no reason to get upset about it. What needs to be understood is the burden of proof that science and its method requires.

We have eyewitness testimony from people that saw something strange that they could not identify flying around, something we call a UFO, where the U stands for Unidentified,... there is nothing else attached to it.

We have lots of cool stories, weird radar returns, video clips and pictures, but that is all we have so far... We have nothing here but peoples opinions and and their belief... an idea about what these observations might represent.


To me thats not even close to enough. I need better evidence!!

Show me a peer review scientific journal that claims for a fact that ET space ships are here, and you will have my full attention. The scientific journals I have seen are only about UFOs.

I think that Steven Schafersman said it best...

I might say, however, that as an investigator of pseudo scientific topics for over twenty years my experience has taught me that the first things to suspect and look for are fraud, forgery, deception, misrepresentation, sophistry, and specious reasoning, and if these are not in evidence, I then look for illogical reasoning, self-deception, misreading, inadvertently fudged data, and willful misunderstanding.

If these are not in evidence, I then look for ignorance, innocent mistakes, misinterpretations, equipment errors, out-of-date references, overlooked results or causes, etc.

Unfortunately, ALL of these items MUST be examined FIRST when investigating any pseudo scientific topic, BEFORE one begins looking for presumed new or unusual natural phenomena. --Steven Schafersman.

Can anyone honestly say he examined and eliminated all the above items before he convinced himself that some of these UFOs are Alien star ships?

Here is what you have been looking for.





http://www.abovetops...hread562598/pg1

Done.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

So UFOs are crewed by blonde chicks in figure hugging blue jumpsuits? I think we could learn to live with that.

Actually, this could be another one of the UFOs with Windows stories for the other thread.

[Chrlzs]

I know MacGuffin and Zoser really hate this question, but I'm going to ask again, now that Psyche has picked out 3 'goodun's..

Do any of the ufo=alien believers have any *other* candidate cases that they feel are more or equally worthy (in terms of actual evidence or compelling information) for *really* in-depth analysis?

Please note that I'm *not* talking about well-told stories!  I'm talking about cases where there is good quality documentation, highly credible corroboration, very compelling imagery, physical evidence, matching radar data.. or at least a reasonable combination of some of those..

Why am I asking?  Well, surely these 'best' cases are the ones that should be focused on, and given the better technology available to all and sundry, maybe there are possibilities for new ways to research them, or perhaps tiny details that may have been missed...  I'm very keen to have a really long hard look at maybe one or two cases (and I'll happily admit that I'm not especially up to speed on either the Portage or Teheran incidents) and perhaps revive some old threads or create new ones as appropriate.

But I'd like to make sure I am spending my time where it is likely to be useful, so I'm keen to hear of other cases that should be in, say, the top five...

[zoser]

Lord Vetinari, on 20 January 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

So UFOs are crewed by blonde chicks in figure hugging blue jumpsuits? I think we could learn to live with that.

Actually, this could be another one of the UFOs with Windows stories for the other thread.

LOL not sure if they were female though.  It's a nice thought however.

Hope that response satisfies Haz's initial question.

Can't see why it shouldn't.

[Hazzard]

zoser, on 20 January 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

LOL not sure if they were female though.  It's a nice thought however.

Hope that response satisfies Haz's initial question.

Can't see why it shouldn't.

Chrlzs pretty much answered that question for me when he said,...

Please note that I'm *not* talking about well-told stories! I'm talking about cases where there is good quality documentation, highly credible corroboration, very compelling imagery, physical evidence, matching radar data.. or at least a reasonable combination of some of those..

It was a cool story though,... but unfortunately that is not enough.

[zoser]

Hazzard, on 20 January 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

Chrlzs pretty much answered that question for me when he said,...

Please note that I'm *not* talking about well-told stories! I'm talking about cases where there is good quality documentation, highly credible corroboration, very compelling imagery, physical evidence, matching radar data.. or at least a reasonable combination of some of those..

It was a cool story though,... but unfortunately that is not enough.

Some people are just never satisfied.

[Hazzard]

zoser, on 20 January 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

Some people are just never satisfied.

Well, I think we should have a little higher bar than someone just saying something. People can (and do) claim all sorts of wacky stuff.

Extraordinary claims should, and in fact demands, extraordinary evidence.

An old lady saying that she saw the Loch Ness monster slither around on the beach, a fire breathing dragon up in the air, or an alien space ship over her house is interesting and all, but I wouldnt go around claiming there are dragons on Earth because of it.

Would you?

[DONTEATUS]

Come on theres Dragons ,right ?

[bmk1245]

Chrlzs, on 20 January 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

[...] I'm talking about cases where there is good quality documentation, highly credible corroboration, very compelling imagery, physical evidence, matching radar data.. or at least a reasonable combination of some of those..[...]

Depends on how you look at those cases: with "open mind" - helluva, with strict and deep digging into the details - zero.

Chrlzs, on 20 January 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

[...]
But I'd like to make sure I am spending my time where it is likely to be useful, so I'm keen to hear of other cases that should be in, say, the top five...

Sorry to disappoint you, but many solid cases were shredded to pieces (not enough info,misrepresentations, translation problems, etc etc etc).
Although believers will always come up with the same ol' "OMG, alienz!" stuff.

Edited by bmk1245, 20 January 2013 - 08:33 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

bmk1245, on 20 January 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

Depends on how you look at those cases: with "open mind" - helluva, with strict and deep digging into the details - zero.



Sorry to disappoint you, but many solid cases were shredded to pieces (not enough info,misrepresentations, translation problems, etc etc etc).
Although believers will always come up with the same ol' "OMG, alienz!" stuff.

... yes, and when people still insist on "balloons" or "Flares" or "Lighthouses" as all-purpose off the shelf explanations, (not forgetting of course, that even more all-purpose one, Secret Military Doings), there is, I fear, little chance of a constructive dialogue ever getting anywhere.

[Chrlzs]

Lord Vetinari, on 20 January 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

... yes, and when people still insist on "balloons" or "Flares" or "Lighthouses" as all-purpose off the shelf explanations

Do they..?  And let's be honest, some of the reports very likely are one of those..  Apart from any other cases, consider the Mexican Air Force / Cantarell oil flares one as a prime example...

Quote

(not forgetting of course, that even more all-purpose one, Secret Military Doings), there is, I fear, little chance of a constructive dialogue ever getting anywhere.

I don't agree - I see plenty of constructive dialogue.  But anyway, surely that is as it should be.  If there are earthly possibilities - known, testable, accepted possibilities, shouldn't they be preferred over something that, to date, has no substantive evidence?  If anyone claims there is that substantive evidence of ET origin, I'm simply asking them to nominate the case/s.

After all, that is how science works - we build up the body of knowledge from proving and testing stuff.  If something new comes along, it isn't added to that accepted body of knowledge until the evidence is compelling.

No-one denies there are UFO's (dictionary meaning).  But UNTIL the day that ET steps out and identifies themselves - either by saying so or by demonstrably using non-terrestrial technology, then the ET origin theory is not accepted.  Should it be?

And frankly, given that hasn't happened - what exactly is the difference between *not* having aliens here, and having them here .. but always just out of reach, furtively appearing as distant lights in the sky, or being told of in story form?  We already have movies and books that do a much better job..

I await the reality.  I don't think anything close to that is here yet, but I (and just about every scientist on this planet, I'll wager), would absolutely LOVE it to become true..

[psyche101]

zoser, on 20 January 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

LOL not sure if they were female though.  It's a nice thought however.

Hope that response satisfies Haz's initial question.

Can't see why it shouldn't.

The obvious does tend to escape you frequently though doesn't it.

Of course it does not answer the question, but I bet in your mind, it is irrefutably answered.

Sad really.

[psyche101]

Lord Vetinari, on 20 January 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

... yes, and when people still insist on "balloons" or "Flares" or "Lighthouses" as all-purpose off the shelf explanations, (not forgetting of course, that even more all-purpose one, Secret Military Doings), there is, I fear, little chance of a constructive dialogue ever getting anywhere.

That's ridiculous, they are real and qualified items that we know for sure do exist, and also do definitely explain a portion of sightings. You would dismiss those for the sake of conversation as opposed to debate?

How is not offering the most likely explanation not constructive? If more exotic explanation can be qualified, they will be entertained, but why jump on the woo woo train just for the sake of it?