372 replies to this topic

[quillius]

Chrlzs, on 30 January 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

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

hello Chrlzs, yes agreed.

Chrlzs, on 30 January 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

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!

but why would one choose to ridicule an anecdote or even dismiss it? I am not suggesting it should be blindly believed or that it constitutes scientific evidence...but to dismiss or ridicule I think is preventitive in making progress.

Chrlzs, on 30 January 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

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.

Heres the rub, I dont see the major difference between an anecdote versus the video or photograph or even the radar trace. I say this to the extent that none of the above constitute the level of evidence required so why are they superior? maybe in establishing a hoax/misidentification etc but none can prove anything the other way. video and photo are subject to manipulation whilst a RADAR return can be caused by many things. Therefore they are as useful in trying to prove ET as an anecdote is IMO.

Chrlzs, on 30 January 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

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?

firstly the multitude of claims means little as even if there are 10000 and only 5 are real, how do we find the level of evidence needed within those five 'real' events? I dont see why evidence has to have been left behind? If the 10000 cases were all real then yes, maybe some evidence should have been left but this still doesnt equate to 'has to have been left behind'...

I would also add that you say 'compelling non anecdotal evidence'. Such as? as explored earlier -video, photos and RADAR do not constitute compelling evidence, right? which really leaves us with alien body or part of craft (I dont even think an unknown substance is enough), so I ask, if only an alien body or piece of craft will suffice, why should there be either ever left behind?

[Chrlzs]

quillius, on 30 January 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

but why would one choose to ridicule an anecdote or even dismiss it?

Simple - anecdotes are human perceptions.  They may also be deliberate hoaxes.  They are also influenced by popular culture, even tacit approval or encouragement from sectors that are often ignored, like the defence forces that almost certainly got additional funding and were allowed to do things not normally allowed in peacetime - and all the pilots had to do was claim 'a UFO made me do it'...

Quote

I am not suggesting it should be blindly believed or that it constitutes scientific evidence...

Same here.

Quote

but to dismiss or ridicule I think is preventitive in making progress.

I disagree and I think the reverse effect, namely the constant claim that with so many anecdotes it must be true, is extremely counter-productive.  It not only is completely flawed, it also almost begs for those wishing to stir the pot, to invent more stories..  Ufology isn't exactly enjoying much credibility at the moment, and I think that's the main reason why.  People are sick of exotic tales of ... lights in the sky.

Quote

Heres the rub, I dont see the major difference between an anecdote versus the video or photograph or even the radar trace.

Nup, sorry, can't go with that.. Although I would concede that if you had a multiple sighting by multiple highly credible witnesses (and no, I don't mean just pilots or police officers - I mean a UN- or mainstream-scientists- convention (I'm only partially kidding), and that the sighting was agreed upon and had inescapably alien characteristics.. then fair enough, I'd listen....

Quote

I say this to the extent that none of the above constitute the level of evidence required so why are they superior?

Simply because they can be examined dispassionately, and scientifically.  IF there was a sighting that involved genuinely matching radar and photographic evidence, again that was of inescapably alien origin, then you have something quite different to two witnesses with stories to tell (who often will be found to know each other, or one of which has since heard the other's description..).

Quote

video and photo are subject to manipulation

The miserable crud we get to see here, are.. but if there was a genuine case of this recorded by decent equipment and with access to the original media (ie before Jaime Maussan and his disgusting ilk get hold of it), then a number of real forensic techniques can be applied to verify and analyse the data.  Seriously, when was the last time you saw anything of genuine interest being investigated properly, ie via reputable test labs, or by a genuine forensic image specialist?  Or for that matter, a sighting coming from, say, a known amateur astronomer, like a comet-hunter?  In the case of the latter, those guys (and there are many thousands of them) simply aren't seeing anything that they can't explain.  In the former, it's because the charlatans like Maussan jump onto these people in a flash, buy their footage and feed it to their shareholder 'experts' for the outcome they want, or .. it was a hoax from the start.

Quote

whilst a RADAR return can be caused by many things.

That's why you need a genuine radar expert to look at this stuff, and again, proper access to the original data.  If it ISN'T a false return, that will be obvious.

Quote

Therefore they are as useful in trying to prove ET as an anecdote is IMO.

But can't you see that IF there was even just one genuine alien-origin UFO flying about, then evidence like this, eg continuous footage of an obviously non-terrestrial craft doing non-terrestrial things, recorded both photographically and on an unequivocal radar trace from forensically verifiable footage/data (eg from NASA, or some other space agency, or an airport, or an aircraft, or a webcam, or an amateur astronomer, or...) SHOULD exist by now?   If anything, such data is getting more rare - the best cases seem to date back many years, despite the unprecedented level of observation being applied to our skies.

Quote

even if there are 10000 and only 5 are real, how do we find the level of evidence needed within those five 'real' events?

Scientifically, not by anecdote.  And surely the statistics are in et's favour IF anecdotes can be believed.  That 'real' evidence must surely be just around the corner, any day now..

Quote

I would also add that you say 'compelling non anecdotal evidence'. Such as? as explored earlier -video, photos and RADAR do not constitute compelling evidence, right?

Nope - the problem is the lousy quality of the evidence, and the fact that many aspects of it don't add up or corroborate as they should, or the data is no longer available (if it ever was).  If you genuinely think one or two cases are absolutely compelling, then fire away.  I doubt you can come up with 1, let alone 5..

Quote

if only an alien body or piece of craft will suffice, why should there be either ever left behind?

Devil's Advocate here...  Seriously, if we are NEVER going to see genuinely non-terrestrial craft, or an alien or even a bit of beyond-physics flight characteristics, then ... what is the big deal - they effectively don't exist!  I mean all you are left with is unidentifiable lights in the sky and people telling cool-bro stories.  I live near airports and highway patrol choppers and an RC club - I see dem ufos all the time.  And I used to have a Grandpa whose stories were, frankly, completely unbelievable..

I'm hoping for something a little more exciting, and palpable...

[quillius]

Chrlzs, on 30 January 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

[/size]
Simple - anecdotes are human perceptions.  They may also be deliberate hoaxes.  They are also influenced by popular culture, even tacit approval or encouragement from sectors that are often ignored, like the defence forces that almost certainly got additional funding and were allowed to do things not normally allowed in peacetime - and all the pilots had to do was claim 'a UFO made me do it'...

I appreciate that it is just perception and that they may be hoaxes etc (I did try to address this in my post) my point is that whether its anecdotes, photos, videos or RADAR none can constitute evidence in as far as proving ET, so to an extent they all leave us with perception most of the time and scientific proof never.

Chrlzs, on 30 January 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

I disagree and I think the reverse effect, namely the constant claim that with so many anecdotes it must be true, is extremely counter-productive.  It not only is completely flawed, it also almost begs for those wishing to stir the pot, to invent more stories..  Ufology isn't exactly enjoying much credibility at the moment, and I think that's the main reason why.  People are sick of exotic tales of ... lights in the sky.

  I agree its completely flawed but dont see it as extremely counter productive.
tales of lights in the sky is the same as photos of lights, videos of lights etc....never going to be conclusive in regards to ET should it be ET...

Chrlzs, on 30 January 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Nup, sorry, can't go with that.. Although I would concede that if you had a multiple sighting by multiple highly credible witnesses (and no, I don't mean just pilots or police officers - I mean a UN- or mainstream-scientists- convention (I'm only partially kidding), and that the sighting was agreed upon and had inescapably alien characteristics.. then fair enough, I'd listen....

inescapably alien characteristics needs quite a bit of defining dont you think? and ok so you would listen? what next? it cant prove it so the best result is making you believe......thats it, but then the response wil be I want to know not to believe.

Chrlzs, on 30 January 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Simply because they can be examined dispassionately, and scientifically.  IF there was a sighting that involved genuinely matching radar and photographic evidence, again that was of inescapably alien origin, then you have something quite different to two witnesses with stories to tell (who often will be found to know each other, or one of which has since heard the other's description..).

ok so it can be scientifically examined but this examination could never led to proof of ET...this is my point, it can prove conclusively that it is not, but not that it is.

Chrlzs, on 30 January 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

The miserable crud we get to see here, are.. but if there was a genuine case of this recorded by decent equipment and with access to the original media (ie before Jaime Maussan and his disgusting ilk get hold of it), then a number of real forensic techniques can be applied to verify and analyse the data.  Seriously, when was the last time you saw anything of genuine interest being investigated properly, ie via reputable test labs, or by a genuine forensic image specialist?  Or for that matter, a sighting coming from, say, a known amateur astronomer, like a comet-hunter?  In the case of the latter, those guys (and there are many thousands of them) simply aren't seeing anything that they can't explain.  In the former, it's because the charlatans like Maussan jump onto these people in a flash, buy their footage and feed it to their shareholder 'experts' for the outcome they want, or .. it was a hoax from the start.

and if they did it would be anecdotal still? And as for the data and footage etc this cannot b scientific proof ever and at best will leave an anomoly/unknown

Chrlzs, on 30 January 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

That's why you need a genuine radar expert to look at this stuff, and again, proper access to the original data.  If it ISN'T a false return, that will be obvious.

even with this supporting an story...bottom line is that it is still an anecdote...with or without supporting evidence.

Chrlzs, on 30 January 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

But can't you see that IF there was even just one genuine alien-origin UFO flying about, then evidence like this, eg continuous footage of an obviously non-terrestrial craft doing non-terrestrial things, recorded both photographically and on an unequivocal radar trace from forensically verifiable footage/data (eg from NASA, or some other space agency, or an airport, or an aircraft, or a webcam, or an amateur astronomer, or...) SHOULD exist by now?   If anything, such data is getting more rare - the best cases seem to date back many years, despite the unprecedented level of observation being applied to our skies.

I think your mistake here (hows that for fight talk ) is that the phrasing used suggests a continuous prolonged invasion of our airspace.......why cant it have come 5 times only, once in 1942 once in 1946 etc etc...
Is this bordering a strawman MrC?

Chrlzs, on 30 January 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Scientifically, not by anecdote.  And surely the statistics are in et's favour IF anecdotes can be believed.  That 'real' evidence must surely be just around the corner, any day now..

yes but how does science do this scientifically without the evidence?

Chrlzs, on 30 January 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Nope - the problem is the lousy quality of the evidence, and the fact that many aspects of it don't add up or corroborate as they should, or the data is no longer available (if it ever was).  If you genuinely think one or two cases are absolutely compelling, then fire away.  I doubt you can come up with 1, let alone 5..

compelling how? I think I have a few but lets clarify what you are after

Chrlzs, on 30 January 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Devil's Advocate here...  Seriously, if we are NEVER going to see genuinely non-terrestrial craft, or an alien or even a bit of beyond-physics flight characteristics, then ... what is the big deal - they effectively don't exist!  I mean all you are left with is unidentifiable lights in the sky and people telling cool-bro stories.  I live near airports and highway patrol choppers and an RC club - I see dem ufos all the time.  And I used to have a Grandpa whose stories were, frankly, completely unbelievable..

I'm hoping for something a little more exciting, and palpable...

I think this happens often (bolded)....establishing that this is a craft is another story let alone that ET was the pilot.

[Slave2Fate]

Hey Quill, a couple of questions for you. What would you consider to be solid evidence? The kind that nearly anybody with a critical mind could get behind and say "Okay, it looks like we might have something here". And second, in your time investigating the ETH has your skepticism grown or diminished over the years? Just curious.

[quillius]

Slave2Fate, on 30 January 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

Hey Quill, a couple of questions for you. What would you consider to be solid evidence? The kind that nearly anybody with a critical mind could get behind and say "Okay, it looks like we might have something here". And second, in your time investigating the ETH has your skepticism grown or diminished over the years? Just curious.

Hello there S2F.....hmm ok, I see you did try to qualify what you meant by 'solid evidence', I think I would need further clarification on a) solid evidence of what? ET, UFOs, unknown phenomenon??? I think I have seen enough evidence to confirm to me that UFOs are real at very least in the sense there is an unknown phenomenon at work. I also believe I have seen enough to be confident that certain powers/organisations within the government (historically) have either known or believed that the 'UFO' phenomenon was indeed ET.....granted they could have got this wrong and made a leap 'some' of us make....i.e. metallic object making impossible manouevers at incredible speeds 'must' be a craft....our technology at best is many many years behind such technology therefore must be ET....(ofcourse we now know 'plasma' can create these 'factors' which may or may not have previously been the driving force behind their 'conclusion/belief'.
b ) 'solid evidence' to have belief, know for sure or create an interest in everyone...I guess you suggest its the last named 'create an interest in everyone'.

My skeptisism has actually reduced.....you may ask why, I would say that the large number of hoaxes and misidenfications actually increase confidence....if there really were no hoaxes and every case was/is top be believed then I think as mentioned to Chrlzs, we could at least reasonably expect some form of scientific evidence to be had, or at very least multiple clear videos of a craft doing impossible manouevers....not sure at what point we could invoke ET, even if we see beings are they classed as ET if they appear as humans do....Father Gill good example of this potential issue.

edit to add: leaving for home shortly so may not respond to any further post until tomorrow

Edited by quillius, 30 January 2013 - 05:41 PM.

[Slave2Fate]

quillius, on 30 January 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

Hello there S2F.....hmm ok, I see you did try to qualify what you meant by 'solid evidence', I think I would need further clarification on a) solid evidence of what? .

Sorry, I meant solid evidence of alien visitation. I agree that UFO's are a demonstrable phenomena I, like everybody else, would like to know what they are. Be it ET or 'other'. The evidence for ET though hasn't been nearly as definitive as some would make out though and honestly, that's not the fault of the skeptical minded, it's just the nature of the phenomena I believe. Someday though I think we will get some good data on an anomaly and we will be able to quantify and qualify at least an aspect/s of the phenomena. I think though that there will be those who will hold out hope for ET until everything under the sun (and everything not) is clearly defined and categorized. It is the 'romance of the unknown', to coin a phrase. I'm not totally against alien visitation yet I'm certainly not sold on it either.

[quillius]

Slave2Fate, on 30 January 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

Sorry, I meant solid evidence of alien visitation. I agree that UFO's are a demonstrable phenomena I, like everybody else, would like to know what they are. Be it ET or 'other'. The evidence for ET though hasn't been nearly as definitive as some would make out though and honestly, that's not the fault of the skeptical minded, it's just the nature of the phenomena I believe. Someday though I think we will get some good data on an anomaly and we will be able to quantify and qualify at least an aspect/s of the phenomena. I think though that there will be those who will hold out hope for ET until everything under the sun (and everything not) is clearly defined and categorized. It is the 'romance of the unknown', to coin a phrase. I'm not totally against alien visitation yet I'm certainly not sold on it either.

I actually agree with everything you have said there and find my position relatively similar. I guess I am in a way a bigger skeptic than most of the 'skeptics' here, I say this because I will challenge and doubt any ET story but at the same time I will also challenge a 'solution/debunk' just as vigorously if not more so.

I really couldnt agree more with the sentence bolded I too am of the opinion that the nature of the phenomenon be it ET or natural makes it diificult.

going back to the question, what about point b? so solid evidence for visitation, ok I get that but to achieve what end result? belief...fact....start an interest in etc....if its for it to create a belief then the 'solid evidence bar' is lower, not as low as 'start an interest' but no where near as high as 'fact'...the last needing alien corpse or maybe at very least piece of exotic craft.

[Slave2Fate]

quillius, on 30 January 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

... I will also challenge a 'solution/debunk' just as vigorously if not more so.

As long as it is coupled with logic and reason then I'd say it's something we need around here just as much as skepticism. I've always been a fan of a believer/skeptic corroboration method as opposed to tit for tat debates we seem to see so often around here. I'm interested in answers more so than trying to prove a point, although that doesn't mean I'm immune from the latter.

Always a pleasure Quill.

[psyche101]

quillius, on 30 January 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

Hello there S2F.....hmm ok, I see you did try to qualify what you meant by 'solid evidence', I think I would need further clarification on a) solid evidence of what? ET, UFOs, unknown phenomenon??? I think I have seen enough evidence to confirm to me that UFOs are real at very least in the sense there is an unknown phenomenon at work.

Gidday Mate

Hope you do not mind me butting in, you always expose the most interesting of angles.

I think you would be hard pressed to find opposition to the above I think the average skeptic hold Hessdalen as good proof and a shining example that some UFO's that display decidedly unusual behaviour are most definitely very much terrestrial. I am not sure of the reality of UAP are discounted by anyone. At any one point there is millions of reactions going on beneath our feet, with temps and pressures we can only imagine. There is absolutely no doubt that some of these processes offer display that we would consider optically unusual. Many indeed have been catalogued to date already. That list I expect to grow with time.

quillius, on 30 January 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

I also believe I have seen enough to be confident that certain powers/organisations within the government (historically) have either known or believed that the 'UFO' phenomenon was indeed ET.....granted they could have got this wrong and made a leap 'some' of us make....i.e. metallic object making impossible manouevers at incredible speeds 'must' be a craft....our technology at best is many many years behind such technology therefore must be ET....(ofcourse we now know 'plasma' can create these 'factors' which may or may not have previously been the driving force behind their 'conclusion/belief'.

Indeed, however, rather than an indicator of the validity of the phenomena, to me it more display's the narrow mindset pointed at the phenomena, no doubt preempted by a love and fear of space. This was before we even had a good look at Mars, and Lowells' canali managed to captivate the imagination of the globe. People were quite comfortable with the idea of Martians. IN fact, many simply wondered how we would initiate first contact, and that intelligent species was a given.

And that my friend, is why Orson Wells' radio stunt had such an impact on the nation. Everyone thought the "Martians" had finally come. Social studies I feel help to unlock the enigma of the UFO=Aliens answer that came from the 40's and 50's. Not the Martians themselves.

quillius, on 30 January 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

b ) 'solid evidence' to have belief, know for sure or create an interest in everyone...I guess you suggest its the last named 'create an interest in everyone'.

I find that sounds an awful lot like "self validation" when expressed by a believer - in general.

quillius, on 30 January 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

My skeptisism has actually reduced.....

You are a most perplexing poster!

quillius, on 30 January 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

you may ask why,

I cannot fathom how one could avoid this question........

quillius, on 30 January 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

I would say that the large number of hoaxes and misidenfications actually increase confidence....if there really were no hoaxes and every case was/is top be believed then I think as mentioned to Chrlzs, we could at least reasonably expect some form of scientific evidence to be had, or at very least multiple clear videos of a craft doing impossible manouevers....

That is interesting. This means that you have confidence that there is a genuine report out there, that ET has landed, we just need to find the evidence in this haystack of nonsense?

Or that because this is what one would expect, if such a genuine item happened, someone would find it credulous, and copycat the idea, which has caught on?

quillius, on 30 January 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

not sure at what point we could invoke ET, even if we see beings are they classed as ET if they appear as humans do....Father Gill good example of this potential issue.

Beings classed by whom is the problem. Father Gill's description goes as far as to state what was seen appears to be a human being. Then the ETH shoehorn comes in and squeezes ET in by saying things like, "He could not see below the waist  the legs might have been 20 foot long (yeah right, and a 35 foot craft!) This is the problem with the ETH. Some are to eager to invoke it. Vallee's saucer with propellors and the 1896 airship show this conundrum is not as straightforward as simply invoking a higher power and saying "That'll do"

quillius, on 30 January 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

edit to add: leaving for home shortly so may not respond to any further post until tomorrow

Looking froward to it.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101, 31 January 2013 - 02:19 AM.

[quillius]

Slave2Fate, on 30 January 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

As long as it is coupled with logic and reason then I'd say it's something we need around here just as much as skepticism. I've always been a fan of a believer/skeptic corroboration method as opposed to tit for tat debates we seem to see so often around here. I'm interested in answers more so than trying to prove a point, although that doesn't mean I'm immune from the latter.

Always a pleasure Quill.

likewise S2F, gave a lot of thought to this last night and will post some of these thoughts on your new thread

[quillius]

psyche101, on 31 January 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

Gidday Mate

Hope you do not mind me butting in, you always expose the most interesting of angles.

Gidday Psyche, and of course not, I dont seem to see things the way you do, so its always fascinating to see 'angles' that I would not, which I guess is why it works well.

psyche101, on 31 January 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

I think you would be hard pressed to find opposition to the above I think the average skeptic hold Hessdalen as good proof and a shining example that some UFO's that display decidedly unusual behaviour are most definitely very much terrestrial. I am not sure of the reality of UAP are discounted by anyone. At any one point there is millions of reactions going on beneath our feet, with temps and pressures we can only imagine. There is absolutely no doubt that some of these processes offer display that we would consider optically unusual. Many indeed have been catalogued to date already. That list I expect to grow with time.

I agree, but I suppose the burning question for me is did the Government (or relevant organisations within) make the mistake or did they have more information than we have therefore were able to determine that some UFOs were indeed unknown craft.

psyche101, on 31 January 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

Indeed, however, rather than an indicator of the validity of the phenomena, to me it more display's the narrow mindset pointed at the phenomena, no doubt preempted by a love and fear of space. This was before we even had a good look at Mars, and Lowells' canali managed to captivate the imagination of the globe. People were quite comfortable with the idea of Martians. IN fact, many simply wondered how we would initiate first contact, and that intelligent species was a given.

As I just mentioend above that would depend on what they based their conclusion on. If it is just on certain visual characteristics then of course the lack of knowledge then may have created this mistaken conclusion, but I dont think its certain that it was based on this and this alone.

psyche101, on 31 January 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

And that my friend, is why Orson Wells' radio stunt had such an impact on the nation. Everyone thought the "Martians" had finally come. Social studies I feel help to unlock the enigma of the UFO=Aliens answer that came from the 40's and 50's. Not the Martians themselves.

the hazy fog that engulfs our mind as soon as fear starts to take hold is quite something.

psyche101, on 31 January 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

I find that sounds an awful lot like "self validation" when expressed by a believer - in general.

hmmm, not sure if I expressed my point correctly. What I am saying is that if someone says what is solid evidence, then I would need to know what the target is. So if I see something with my own eyes, this is solid enough evidence for me to believe. I cannot know as science is needed to validate what I saw thus eliminating misidentification, hallucination etc etc.

If someone I trust 100% tells me they saw something, this is solid enough evidence for me to have an interest.

For me to know something is true then a different level of solid evidence is needed.

psyche101, on 31 January 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

You are a most perplexing poster!

confuse myself at times mate

psyche101, on 31 January 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

I cannot fathom how one could avoid this question........

psyche101, on 31 January 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

That is interesting. This means that you have confidence that there is a genuine report out there, that ET has landed, we just need to find the evidence in this haystack of nonsense?

Or that because this is what one would expect, if such a genuine item happened, someone would find it credulous, and copycat the idea, which has caught on?

I meant that if every report is to be believed then it would be reasonable to think some 'solid evidence' may be in amongst the haystack, if however the real events are limited to say 5, then evidence is highly unlikely to be found, at least in the sense of solid evidence that science could study and conclude with certainty.

I would also say if the Government didnt base their 'conclusion' that UFOs were indeed unknown craft on just the visual aspect then yes I would think there is evidence somewhere.

psyche101, on 31 January 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

Beings classed by whom is the problem. Father Gill's description goes as far as to state what was seen appears to be a human being. Then the ETH shoehorn comes in and squeezes ET in by saying things like, "He could not see below the waist  the legs might have been 20 foot long (yeah right, and a 35 foot craft!) This is the problem with the ETH. Some are to eager to invoke it. Vallee's saucer with propellors and the 1896 airship show this conundrum is not as straightforward as simply invoking a higher power and saying "That'll do"

Looking froward to it.

Cheers.

I have been aware of your point in that thread with regards to this aspect, I guess if say 'Nordics' i.e. human looking aliens are to be believed, how would you a-describe them and b-classify them?

[DBunker]

quillius, on 31 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

I have been aware of your point in that thread with regards to this aspect, I guess if say 'Nordics' i.e. human looking aliens are to be believed, how would you a-describe them and b-classify them?

Easy.... Beautiful people from Scandinavia.

[psyche101]

quillius, on 31 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Gidday Psyche, and of course not, I dont seem to see things the way you do, so its always fascinating to see 'angles' that I would not, which I guess is why it works well.

'

Gidday Mate

Cheers, that is very much a 2 way street.

quillius, on 31 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

I agree, but I suppose the burning question for me is did the Government (or relevant organisations within) make the mistake or did they have more information than we have therefore were able to determine that some UFOs were indeed unknown craft.

Indeed, there are enough conspiracy ideals out there to make one consider that the Government might be involved in someone, and I cannot blame someone for wanting to look at that angle, as I did myself. However, we have been running around this very bush since 1947. I think it seems rather obvious that if an answer exists in that haystack, that we are going to have to start again, by ourselves. If there really is something, and some amazing group has managed to keep this a secret for so many decades, then I think that more protest will achieve the same result - naught. I think that if we continue to try and prove the Government has, and is hiding cases, that nobody is going to get to that information in any case. It seems a waste of time to try.

quillius, on 31 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

As I just mentioend above that would depend on what they based their conclusion on. If it is just on certain visual characteristics then of course the lack of knowledge then may have created this mistaken conclusion, but I dont think its certain that it was based on this and this alone.

Speaking historically, everyone expected Mars to be inhabited and people too be living there. In a time of war, it was just another conflict to people already in a grip of fear. I have no doubt at all that the prevalent mindset is indeed the inspiration for many, if not most of the claims from the day, which is why as time wore on, stories got less spectacular. In such a mindset, many visual aspects could well be seen as objects to fear. Death rained from the skies, this was just higher up. I am not sure if anything is based on anything "alone" I think that people being individual, have varying degrees of credibility or skepticism as a result from upbringing. Surely that is a major factor? Unless something as bizzare as the Pacagoula case happened personally to such a person, it strikes me that their position is likely to be predetermined, at least to an extent. A YEC is less likely to describe a light in the sky as ET, but as an Angel.

quillius, on 31 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

the hazy fog that engulfs our mind as soon as fear starts to take hold is quite something.

Indeed! But I would consider it merely a defence mechanism. We do need to respect that which we are not familiar with.

quillius, on 31 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

hmmm, not sure if I expressed my point correctly. What I am saying is that if someone says what is solid evidence, then I would need to know what the target is. So if I see something with my own eyes, this is solid enough evidence for me to believe. I cannot know as science is needed to validate what I saw thus eliminating misidentification, hallucination etc etc.

If someone I trust 100% tells me they saw something, this is solid enough evidence for me to have an interest.

For me to know something is true then a different level of solid evidence is needed.

Sorry my bad, and in what you say above I do agree. The problem lies when an open testimony, such as Father Gills is taken, and interpreted by UFOlogists. He said he saw Human Beings, which is not at all remarkable. But because he also said, they were on a craft that hovered, and took off at great speed, we say, this cannot be human. That to me is a massive leap, and not listening to Father Gill. I find it bizarre that someone would promote the case as ET, an then say the Humans were Aliens. the Father just did not know it.
Not one person has had a fair go at trying to solve the real mystery - the performance of the craft. This is where solid evidence turns to liquid.

quillius, on 31 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

confuse myself at times mate

LOL   

It amazes me that you maintain support for the other side when all you have had to work with is 99% woo woo. As I have mentioned to others,. I think there are 2 types of believer. Good ones and bad ones. The Good ones have names like Sagan, Drake, Hawking, and Quillius. The bad ones are not worth mentioning. They feed of the good work. It more pains me that real believers have to carry the credulous.

quillius, on 31 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

I meant that if every report is to be believed then it would be reasonable to think some 'solid evidence' may be in amongst the haystack, if however the real events are limited to say 5, then evidence is highly unlikely to be found, at least in the sense of solid evidence that science could study and conclude with certainty.

I would also say if the Government didnt base their 'conclusion' that UFOs were indeed unknown craft on just the visual aspect then yes I would think there is evidence somewhere.

I do wonder what that actual number of what can one can consider solid reports to be? In 3,000+ pages of Best Evidence, only three stories "made the cut" so to speak. Zamora, Teheran and Portage. Father Gill deserves a place in that perplexing three, so it really should be 4. But as you know, I do not consider Father Gill to be ET, but a conundrum like Vallee's flying saucer powered by propellors, and the 1896 airship.

quillius, on 31 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

I have been aware of your point in that thread with regards to this aspect, I guess if say 'Nordics' i.e. human looking aliens are to be believed, how would you a-describe them and b-classify them?

Aliens that look very much like human's. Could Father Gill have got this incorrect? Yes. But I do not believe it is being interpreted as ET for the right reasons. There is no reason to think Father Gills "men" were Aliens, but there is reason to question the origin of the vehicle. Methodology demands the two are separated.  Nobody is prepared to do that, because it put's the ET aspect in jeopardy.
As soon as we assume that Father Gill was incorrect in a description, we are re-writing the description. That to me is a no-no. We can then bias and influence it in any way we want, hence a reference to time travellers. This illustrates that another answer is more plausible than ET, even if it is not the answer. They explain the situation better than ET, but next thing you know I have people telling me time travel is not possible, Yet one man has actually time traveled. Granted only one 50th of a second into the future, but he actually did it. Therefore, I do not feel it is any more than bias that indicates that time travel is more likely than ET, in fact, using a wormhole for time travel would be easier than building one for space. We could do it now, if we could make the wormhole. All we need is two ends of a wormhole, and a very fast spaceship.

Edited by psyche101, 01 February 2013 - 07:41 AM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

psyche101, on 01 February 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

'

Gidday Mate

Unless something as bizzare as the Pacagoula case happened personally to such a person, it strikes me that their position is likely to be predetermined, at least to an extent. A YEC is less likely to describe a light in the sky as ET, but as an Angel.

sorry, waht's a YEC?

* What, not waht.

[quillius]

DBunker, on 01 February 2013 - 05:57 AM, said:

Easy.... Beautiful people from Scandinavia.

so you describe them as - easy
and classify as - beautiful people