Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Midyin

How are all these people crazy?

100 posts in this topic

So there seem to be a lot of skeptics on this site, and that doesn't bother me. Lots of Ghosts stories, Monster sighting, and Alien encounters have been explained to my liking because someone ignored the superstitions and found a natural explanation to what manny assumed was the magic or the boogeyman.

But there seems to be SOOOO many sightings of UFOs from SOOOO many people from SSOOO many walks of life. hell, some of these people are respected scientist, Politicians, and even celebrities.

Now I understand that a % of all these sightings are from crazy or undereducated people, and a percentage of these people are just running a con, but how can someone feel 100% comfortable with just assuming that 100% of these sightings are inaccurate?

I mean, just by the laws of Mathematics alone at least a small percentage of these claims have to be true...

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there seem to be a lot of skeptics on this site, and that doesn't bother me. Lots of Ghosts stories, Monster sighting, and Alien encounters have been explained to my liking because someone ignored the superstitions and found a natural explanation to what manny assumed was the magic or the boogeyman.

But there seems to be SOOOO many sightings of UFOs from SOOOO many people from SSOOO many walks of life. hell, some of these people are respected scientist, Politicians, and even celebrities.

Now I understand that a % of all these sightings are from crazy or undereducated people, and a percentage of these people are just running a con, but how can someone feel 100% comfortable with just assuming that 100% of these sightings are inaccurate?

I mean, just by the laws of Mathematics alone at least a small percentage of these claims have to be true...

Thoughts?

Id say a lot of people leap to conclusions of UFO's, without considering more likely reasons. Have you seen the ISS whizz over on a clear night? If not how can you rule that out as an option? Or seen satellites do the same? Or a planes/choppers headlight coming straight toward your direction? Do you know which planet is Venus in the night sky? Do you know what a drone may look like? A Chinese lantern? Reflections on clouds? Meteors? Flares? A mylar balloon? A weather balloon? An RC flying toy? A plastic bag blowing high up?

You see - a lot of folks dont run these scenarios by in their minds. They dont know what they saw, so its a UFO. And lots of people dont know what they saw, so there are lots of reports

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not crazy or uneducated and not running a con but I still have no answers to what I've seen.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what the acronym UFO stands for right?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, please enlighten us.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what the acronym UFO stands for right?

This alone explains why people are misguided. UFO <> equal alien space ships. Of course the internet/media rarely make this distinction.

Rarely do people WANT to think their sighting (regardless of what it was) is anything prosaic. That is not to say that some sightings might really be unknown. Unfortunately too often the ordinary is ruled out before the leap to extraordinary is assumed.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing crazy, just the normal human instinct of curiosity. As long as men keep making UFO objects, then the other man will always wonder "what the heck was that?".

Thats why man has come so far in terms of technology, curiosity leads to discoveries and inventions with "quite a few" trials and errors along the way and these men tend NOT to tell us little people about their "experiments" until they are ready...some times they are never ready and we never get to know "what the heck that was" and this is where the spaceship/ghosts/UFO comes into it.

There have also over time been many UFO`s from space, but most can be explained today.

I would imagine that if there are so many spaceships out there, that just by the laws of Mathematics alone, one of them would have landed by now and made themselves known to all of us. (Roswell does not count) that was NOT a spaceship with little aliens.

Edited by freetoroam
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but how can someone feel 100% comfortable with just assuming that 100% of these sightings are inaccurate?

martian_automotive_service_writer.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

martian_automotive_service_writer.jpg

WOW, I`m convinced.

And this is how easy its done to convince some of the people. feed them a load a garbage about something they do not understand, with garbage they will never understand and they presto! they are putty in your hands. (some are anyway)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Hazzard said it best, in his first post from one of the Best Evidence threads.....

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?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id say a lot of people leap to conclusions of UFO's, without considering more likely reasons. Have you seen the ISS whizz over on a clear night? If not how can you rule that out as an option? Or seen satellites do the same? Or a planes/choppers headlight coming straight toward your direction? Do you know which planet is Venus in the night sky? Do you know what a drone may look like? A Chinese lantern? Reflections on clouds? Meteors? Flares? A mylar balloon? A weather balloon? An RC flying toy? A plastic bag blowing high up?

You see - a lot of folks dont run these scenarios by in their minds. They dont know what they saw, so its a UFO. And lots of people dont know what they saw, so there are lots of reports

That explains some stuff. Mostly the encounters wherein strange(strange in this case meaning unrecognized by its observer at least) lights doing strange stuff from very far away, but what about the millions of people that see odd arial vehicles hovering, then blinking to the left at the speed of light, then seemingly floating away?

And don't get me started on the people that claim to have been taken, or have had their homes invaded...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, just by the laws of Mathematics alone at least a small percentage of these claims have to be true...

And just what laws of mathematics are those and what numbers have been put into those laws and what were the results?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just what laws of mathematics are those and what numbers have been put into those laws and what were the results?

Just let me bust out my giant chalkboard and start the equations... I'll post a photo of it for you when I'm done.. lol

How about the laws of probability? If you do something(like flip a coin and try to guess if its heads or tails) a million times eventually you're bound to get it right. Even if its just by accident..

I cant look at all these claims if ET Encounters and assume that I know everything so they MUST ALL be wrong..

I think that's a very naive and arrogant way of looking at the world...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant look at all these claims if ET Encounters and assume that I know everything so they MUST ALL be wrong..

Why not? It happens in every thread here.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That explains some stuff. Mostly the encounters wherein strange(strange in this case meaning unrecognized by its observer at least) lights doing strange stuff from very far away, but what about the millions of people that see odd arial vehicles hovering, then blinking to the left at the speed of light, then seemingly floating away?

And don't get me started on the people that claim to have been taken, or have had their homes invaded...

yes and some people simply make stuff up for whatever reason, and some people may see something a bit odd, and by the time they tell their story a few times they have embellished it to a larger degree...like fisherman's tales - of how big the fish was that got away,

On another thread here, a chap claimed to have found an item discharged from a ufo. Hardly anyone knew or could explain the strange object. Turns out of course, the object was common in industry grinders... so his story was shot down. In other words, it was pure BS and a totally earthly object. But it made the news!! And its still on many ufo sites as a genuine undebunkable story of an actual alien metal!! UFO sites never list the debunks, its not good for business!

read about the ufo metal object here :tu:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=255265&hl=

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just let me bust out my giant chalkboard and start the equations... I'll post a photo of it for you when I'm done.. lol

How about the laws of probability? If you do something(like flip a coin and try to guess if its heads or tails) a million times eventually you're bound to get it right. Even if its just by accident..

Maths and probability doesn't work like that. If (and it's only an if) aliens have never visited Earth then millions of people claiming they have won't make it true.

More people claiming something does not make it true. If there were ten times as many people claimed to be the reincarnation of Napoleon, is it ten times more likely that some of them actually are? Not if reincarnation is impossible. Ten times zero is still zero.

Look at it another way. Let's say that aliens have never visited earth (for argument's sake). We'd still have stories of alien visitations though. Because people have been known to see mundane things like satellites, airplanes, stars, etc. and calling them UFOs. And there's a sorry history of people hoaxing claims of UFOs by doctoring photos, faking alien artefacts, etc. And some people see stuff in photos that they claim are alien spacecraft (we had a thread with a link to a story about a supposed alien spacecraft in a photo which turned out to be the top of a lampost). Etc.

In that scenario, you'd still have a huge volume of stories and claims about aliens even though they have never visited earth. And according to your logic you'd incorrectly conclude that aliens were visiting earth based upon the mere fact that there are so many claims about them. And you'd be utterly wrong.

There's a thinking fallacy that goes along the lines that if enough people say something is true, that they can't all be wrong. Well, they can.

It's poor thinking to base conclusions based upon the popularity of an idea or the amount of people making claims about it.

When it comes to UFO claims, all you really can do is to examine the claims and see if they stand up to scrutiny. That's the only way of determining how likely any given one is to be true.

I cant look at all these claims if ET Encounters and assume that I know everything so they MUST ALL be wrong..

I think that's a very naive and arrogant way of looking at the world...

It is in deed naive thinking. As naive as thinking that you can look at all these ET claims and conclude that because there's so many of them, some must be true.

You don't need to know everything to make a sound conclusion. I don't know everything there is to know about young earth creationism but I've no doubt based upon what I do know that it's utter nonsense on stilts.

Disclaimer: None of this is intended as an argument against ET visitation. Just against concluding that ET has visited based upon specious logic.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres one guy making a genuine ufo report to the police. This is the police taped recording. (its the moon and he is pished)

he says... "Its hovering with all these lights on it" :lol:

[media=]

[/media] Edited by seeder
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres one guy making a genuine ufo report to the police. This is the police taped recording. (its the moon and he is pished)

he says... "Its hovering with all these lights on it" :lol:

[media=]

[/media]

There was a story a while back about a British policeman who followed a "suspicious light" and radioed back that as he was alone he might be calling for backup depending on what he found when he got close.

It turned out to be the moon.

Makes me suspicious about those reports that highlight the fact that the observers was a policeman (or pilot or doctor, etc.) and is thus a "trained observer" and can be relied on.

Edited by JesseCuster
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were ten times as many people claimed to be the reincarnation of Napoleon, is it ten times more likely that some of them actually are? Not if reincarnation is impossible. Ten times zero is still zero.

But there isn't that many people claiming to be Napoleon. Hell, there isn't even half as many people claiming to be Jesus as there are people claiming to have had some kind of ET encounter...

Disclaimer: None of this is intended as an argument against ET visitation. Just against concluding that ET has visited based upon specious logic.

But assuming that 100% of the people that are claiming to have had an ET encounter are wrong/crazy/lying is far more speculative than believing that at least a handful of those could be true...

Edited by Midyin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres one guy making a genuine ufo report to the police. This is the police taped recording. (its the moon and he is pished)

he says... "Its hovering with all these lights on it" :lol:

[media=]

[/media]

I wonder how many more "ufo / spaceships / little green men having a pee in my back yard " have turned out to be the moon after a few too many special brews?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there isn't that many people claiming to be Napoleon. Hell, there isn't even half as many people claiming to be Jesus as there are people claiming to have had some kind of ET encounter...

What if there was that many people claiming to be Napoleon (or Jesus or Attila the Hun or whoever)? What would you think then?
But assuming that 100% of the people that are claiming to have had an ET encounter is far more speculative than believing that at least a handful of those could be true...

But is it necessarily an assumption?

How do you feel about ghost sightings, faith healers, bigfoot sightings, speaking in tongues, breatharians, etc.? I'd be willing to bet there's plenty of things claimed by lots of people that you think is nonsense.

Are YOU arrogant and naive for assuming 100% of people (who claim or believe things you don't believe) are wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there isn't that many people claiming to be Napoleon. Hell, there isn't even half as many people claiming to be Jesus as there are people claiming to have had some kind of ET encounter...

But assuming that 100% of the people that are claiming to have had an ET encounter are wrong/crazy/lying is far more speculative than believing that at least a handful of those could be true...

and believing that ET would make an incredibly hard and long (impossible for us) voyage here - just to flit about in the skies, abduct someone and give them a probing, then vanish into thin air ... is WHAT exactly? Plausible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Hazzard said it best, in his first post from one of the Best Evidence threads.....

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.

Strange that I hear so much about the scientific method, yet after 33 years in electronics engineering, control systems, working with a ton of those same scientists, seldom have I encountered truly scientific individuals. That being said, I must say I tend towards my own methods, which do not include blind belief in science that is popularized, nor do I include the majority of the theoretical that is based on mathematics. As I've said in other places, if there is something on my bench in front of me with my instrumentation telling me something is, then whatever the popular theories are must be incorrect if they do not agree. What's real is real, what's theory is theory, and to any engineer, the reality must trump the theory. That is in fact why we have the bit bucket. To wit, I have constructed experimental devices that do not follow the standard "laws" and allowed engineers (with a lot of experience and much college) to instrument, examine and test those devices. These engineers have admitted, at the times of test, that the machines don't follow the "laws", I've made money from those engineers on bets, yet within a few weeks, sometimes a few days, those same engineers will deny having witnessed the testing, even though they were the ones who did the testing. You science advocates can explain that too, I suppose. Point is, current paradigms are not necessarily accurate.

Now then, I've seen a whole bunch of things I can't explain, don't know what they were. Only two of that bunch will I state are complete unknowns. Many flying objects I've seen don't fit any of my aircraft recognition stuff, but that doesn't mean those are from another planet or whatever; what it does mean is that they are things that are not F16s or F18s or F22s or whatever, but are most likely some sorts of experimental craft. Some even have lift mechanisms I haven't seen before, but still it can be stated fairly firmly that they were not ET. I've even watched satellites alter direction to avoid collision. I was watching a pair of identifiable satellites that appeared to be on a collision course, didn't think much of it (since space is pretty big, after all) when one of them altered course by 30 degrees for a bit then changed back to its original course. Now that was interesting, but I doubt it was ET. I'm certain that many, if not most, current satellites have the means to avoid space junk, and I did a lot of work in aerospace in my years in the industry.

But those two still have me puzzled since they did things that don't make sense in the world of macrophysics. Still, I wouldn't attribute them to ET, and they certainly weren't balloons or swamp gas or whatever other nonsensical explanations people might want to use. They were intelligently controlled somethings that defied the laws of momentum somehow.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange that I hear so much about the scientific method, yet after 33 years in electronics engineering, control systems, working with a ton of those same scientists, seldom have I encountered truly scientific individuals. That being said, I must say I tend towards my own methods, which do not include blind belief in science that is popularized, nor do I include the majority of the theoretical that is based on mathematics. As I've said in other places, if there is something on my bench in front of me with my instrumentation telling me something is, then whatever the popular theories are must be incorrect if they do not agree. What's real is real, what's theory is theory, and to any engineer, the reality must trump the theory. That is in fact why we have the bit bucket. To wit, I have constructed experimental devices that do not follow the standard "laws" and allowed engineers (with a lot of experience and much college) to instrument, examine and test those devices. These engineers have admitted, at the times of test, that the machines don't follow the "laws", I've made money from those engineers on bets, yet within a few weeks, sometimes a few days, those same engineers will deny having witnessed the testing, even though they were the ones who did the testing. You science advocates can explain that too, I suppose. Point is, current paradigms are not necessarily accurate.

Now then, I've seen a whole bunch of things I can't explain, don't know what they were. Only two of that bunch will I state are complete unknowns. Many flying objects I've seen don't fit any of my aircraft recognition stuff, but that doesn't mean those are from another planet or whatever; what it does mean is that they are things that are not F16s or F18s or F22s or whatever, but are most likely some sorts of experimental craft. Some even have lift mechanisms I haven't seen before, but still it can be stated fairly firmly that they were not ET. I've even watched satellites alter direction to avoid collision. I was watching a pair of identifiable satellites that appeared to be on a collision course, didn't think much of it (since space is pretty big, after all) when one of them altered course by 30 degrees for a bit then changed back to its original course. Now that was interesting, but I doubt it was ET. I'm certain that many, if not most, current satellites have the means to avoid space junk, and I did a lot of work in aerospace in my years in the industry.

But those two still have me puzzled since they did things that don't make sense in the world of macrophysics. Still, I wouldn't attribute them to ET, and they certainly weren't balloons or swamp gas or whatever other nonsensical explanations people might want to use. They were intelligently controlled somethings that defied the laws of momentum somehow.

Where did you witness the two that left you puzzled? Can you describe them for us?

And the first paragraph of your post was excellent.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very hard to identify everything you see in the sky. People have been conditioned to presume that everything that hasn't been identified must be extraterrestrial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.