372 replies to this topic

[Hazzard]

Paxus, on 26 January 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Well, the 1993 Cossford triangle case then - oh wait... i think that's a man made (prob US) vehicle like TR 3B...

This isn't easy! Sorry Hazz

The Cosford Incident,... http://www.nickpope....rd-incident.htm

[Oppono Astos]

Hazzard, on 27 January 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

The Cosford Incident,... http://www.nickpope....rd-incident.htm

In many ways this sums up Pope, a whole 3 lines for what was/is supposed to be a major event.  RAF Cosford wasn't a front-line base at the time of the supposed UFO flap, and was only host to training units and a university air squadron.

[Hazzard]

Oppono Astos, on 27 January 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

In many ways this sums up Pope, a whole 3 lines for what was/is supposed to be a major event.

Feel free to post a link to a better detailed report.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

" But it wasn’t until 2005 that an airman serving at RAF Shawbury read Nick Pope’s account of the sighting and decided it was time to speak out. “The UFO supposedly seen at RAF Shawbury was later identified as a Dyfed-Powys police helicopter following a stolen car down the A5 between the A49 junction,” he wrote. “The observer was using his NiteSun to illuminate proceedings.”



http://www.uk-ufo.or...secfilcosf2.htm

(The Shawbury one, mentioned by Mr. Pop, was all part of the same inicdent).

Edited by Lord Vetinari, 27 January 2013 - 01:52 PM.

[DBunker]

There always seem to be a mundane explanation to UFOs.... the trick is to find it.

[psyche101]

DBunker, on 29 January 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

There always seem to be a mundane explanation to UFOs.... the trick is to find it.

That is because the UFOlogists go to great lengths to hide logic. ET works better when we view him as a God that can do anything.

[DBunker]

Thes why science and UFOology arent friends... many times (most of the time) there arent anything to test, or investigate.

Its the old classic Believe it or not ending.

[Slave2Fate]

DBunker, on 29 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Thes why science and UFOology arent friends...

Yeah, but they could be, and that's the part that annoys me. ETH proponents (some, not all) seem to have a very anti-science view when they should be using science to attempt to validate their claims. Instead we are asked to turn a blind eye to the single greatest method of pursuing knowledge in the history of man. It's damn near oxymoronic...

[Hazzard]

Slave2Fate, on 29 January 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

Yeah, but they could be, and that's the part that annoys me. ETH proponents (some, not all) seem to have a very anti-science view when they should be using science to attempt to validate their claims. Instead we are asked to turn a blind eye to the single greatest method of pursuing knowledge in the history of man. It's damn near oxymoronic...

Isnt that just about as big a mystery as the UFO (paranormal) phenomenon it self?  Why in the world would people that truly believe in this be so against science as a tool in their "investigation". Its even worse that that, they are against everyone else that gets close to the topic with the scientific method in mind.

Why is that, you think?

One would think that its more rewarding to have science telling us that this is real, that we are indeed being visited?

[psyche101]

Slave2Fate, on 29 January 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

Yeah, but they could be, and that's the part that annoys me. ETH proponents (some, not all) seem to have a very anti-science view when they should be using science to attempt to validate their claims. Instead we are asked to turn a blind eye to the single greatest method of pursuing knowledge in the history of man. It's damn near oxymoronic...

Near?

[DBunker]

Hazzard, on 29 January 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

Isnt that just about as big a mystery as the UFO (paranormal) phenomenon it self?  Why in the world would people that truly believe in this be so against science as a tool in their "investigation". Its even worse that that, they are against everyone else that gets close to the topic with the scientific method in mind.

Why is that, you think?

One would think that its more rewarding to have science telling us that this is real, that we are indeed being visited?

I can only think of one reason.... It would destroy their fantasy/belief.

[quillius]

DBunker, on 30 January 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

I can only think of one reason.... It would destroy their fantasy/belief.

I do not think fantasy and belief are the same as the '/' suggests.
Anyhow do you think there is a difference between the scientific method versus the scientific mindset?

I ask because I would think we can only really apply scientific method when we have evidence, without evidence we cannot apply scientific method.

what do you think?

Edited by quillius, 30 January 2013 - 10:27 AM.

[DBunker]

quillius, on 30 January 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

I do not think fantasy and belief are the same as the '/' suggests.
Anyhow do you think there is a difference between the scientific method versus the scientific mindset?

I ask because I would think we can only really apply scientific method when we have evidence, without evidence we cannot apply scientific method.

what do you think?

I agree with that, I guess.

What is your opinion on how some believers dont seem to want to use (HATE) science, the skeptical approach, and the required critical thinking in their "investigation"?

[quillius]

DBunker, on 30 January 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

I agree with that, I guess.

What is your opinion on how some believers dont seem to want to use (HATE) science, the skeptical approach, and the required critical thinking in their "investigation"?

I guess my question was really leading to this, I think anyone who hates scientific method enjoys living in fantasy land. Having said that I think it is also bad to dismiss anything that cannot be confirmed by scientific method, leaving us only with scientific  mindset, which I believe can be detrimental to progress in certain fields.

A skeptical approach is good, but there are varying degress of skeptical approach, the one that leads with ridicule and dismisses without further investigation is as damaging as those living in fantasy land IMO.

[Chrlzs]

quillius, on 30 January 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

A skeptical approach is good, but there are varying degress of skeptical approach, the one that leads with ridicule and dismisses without further investigation is as damaging as those living in fantasy land IMO.

Sure, there are a range of skeptical approaches, just as there is a range of non-skeptical ones..  

But isn't there are rather obvious quandary?  I happily admit I do sometimes dismiss cases quickly and completely - sorry Zoser.. (and sometimes I may ridicule them, although more often I'll ridicule the faux analyses or silly weightings being given to those cases) - but I do so only on those case that are unsupported anecdotes ie no supporting evidence!

You can't very usefully apply the scientific method to an anecdote, as even if the anecdote is 100% true (to the person stating it), that information they are relating is what is stored in their brains.  It is not a video or a photograph or a radar trace that can be analysed using technical principles.  It is a subjective memory, affected by that person's experience (inc. the movies they've seen), desires, beliefs, ... etc.

Things is, we have an absolute multitude of claimed sightings - and many alien=ET promoters will say that's all you need.
I say.. how is it that out of all those sightings, there isn't even one with compelling non-anecdotal evidence?