is UFO-logy starting from a miscoception

[lost_shaman]

hmmm why are you quoting occams razor?

I have already shifted the burden of proof over to you.. using occams razor is not the correct way of shifting the burden back to me.. because the simplest reason is.. rc ufo.. car lights.. tower lights.. so on and so forth..

Hey DL,

Im not picking on you, but both you and Zoser are totally misunderstanding what Occam's Razor is. It has nothing to do with the "simplest" answer. The best and often correct answer may be complex. Occam's Razor just is a guidline to say shave away all that is unnessecary for a given hypothesis. It doesnt tell us the "simplest" answers are the best, it tells us not to over complicate the Best answers.

[lost_shaman]

hmmm why are you quoting occams razor?

I have already shifted the burden of proof over to you.. using occams razor is not the correct way of shifting the burden back to me.. because the simplest reason is.. rc ufo.. car lights.. tower lights.. so on and so forth..

[lost_shaman]

If you were to describe it someone may find a match.

zoser,

I have described it and also researched the phenomena in depth for over a decade now! I've discussed the Phenomena with and even argued with lots of people who's names get bantered around in these forums! I've contributed to real reaserch on some famous cases both the old and the contemporary. Despite all this, all I can really say is that small spherical UFOs are not all that uncommon but my observation was a very close encounter so I saw some details that I havent seen other people describe.

Edited October 27, 2013 by lost_shaman

[zoser]

zoser,

I have described it and also researched the phenomena in depth for over a decade now! I've discussed the Phenomena with and even argued with lots of people who's names get bantered around in these forums! I've contributed to real reaserch on some famous cases both the old and the contemporary. Despite all this, all I can really say is that small spherical UFOs are not all that uncommon but my observation was a very close encounter so I saw some details that I havent seen other people describe.

Cheers thanks. Just as a matter of interest how close were you to the object? How large was it?

[Heroic Bishop]

Problem with UFOLOGY is that the internet is awash with nutters and fake-makers which prevent the subject ever being looked at objectively or for the people on the fence to be able to evaluate the facts in any kind of serious forum. I do find it amusing that people who are on the skeptical side of the fence constantly quote science as a reason why inter-stellar visitors are impossible due to the laws of science preventing it....conventional wisdom and that works on the supposition that we are the pinnacle of scientific advancement, and the arrogance that we know everything, could it not be conceivable that there are countless scientific discoveries that we are unable to fathom at our stage of evolution?....no?....well let us remember that it wasn't that long ago that we all thought the earth was flat....

I also remember a guy called Galileo who believed in the theory of Copernican Heliocentrism. The theory that defied conventional thinking at the time and said that the Sun was the centre of the universe and the Earth and other celestial bodies revolved around it. This flew in the face of the Church, Aristotle and Ptolemy and their steadfast belief that the sun and all the stars revolved around a stationary Earth. This saw Galileo arrested and eventually imprisoned under house arrest for the rest of his life for Heresy against the Church, there he remained until his death in 1642.

I think we all need to admit at least one thing...there is a lot we do not know, and should accept that instead of trying to talk it away as if we do.

[mcrom901]

Nothing remotely like the Fraserburgh object. They don't exist and even if they did, they wouldn't be flying around in Fraserburgh in the early hours.

[Kahn]

Congratulations qxcontinuum, now you've touched upon why many of the discussions become so heated here, and not just for UFO's, but all the other subject headings on these forums. There are always two main camps, the skeptics and the believers. Your title premise is what sets the discussions into overdrive.

Believers tend to cherry pick select attributes of a phenomenon rather than look at the phenomena in it's entirety, then use quasi-science to back up their claims. They ignore anything that does not fit into their preconceived notions of what the cause of the phenomenon is.

Skeptics will look at the entire phenomenon and look for the majority of attributes that can be explained. They will look for commonality with other phenomenon and if enough pieces fit, declare an explanation.

Both approaches have the same drawback, that they can leave some evidence "laying on the table" without explanation. As any statistician can tell you, in any experiment you will have some data points that are termed outliers, ones that do not fit neatly into the pattern that all the other data points share. In UFO, ghost cases, cryptozoology, or whatever the paranormal phenomena, the probability of outliers is exponentially higher because the conditions of the observation are not controlled as they are in an experiment. Both believers and skeptics must accept this fact. Outliers do not make a theory fail, nor do they prove the existence of any supernatural explanation, they are data points that do not fit. We can speculate why, but until the outliers themselves can be recreated or observed repeatedly under the same conditions, they cannot be used in the manner that many seem to use them here.

This is why the discussions become so heated at times.

[Space Commander Travis]

Congratulations qxcontinuum, now you've touched upon why many of the discussions become so heated here, and not just for UFO's, but all the other subject headings on these forums. There are always two main camps, the skeptics and the believers. Your title premise is what sets the discussions into overdrive.

Believers tend to cherry pick select attributes of a phenomenon rather than look at the phenomena in it's entirety, then use quasi-science to back up their claims. They ignore anything that does not fit into their preconceived notions of what the cause of the phenomenon is.

Skeptics will look at the entire phenomenon and look for the majority of attributes that can be explained. They will look for commonality with other phenomenon and if enough pieces fit, declare an explanation.

Both approaches have the same drawback, that they can leave some evidence "laying on the table" without explanation. As any statistician can tell you, in any experiment you will have some data points that are termed outliers, ones that do not fit neatly into the pattern that all the other data points share. In UFO, ghost cases, cryptozoology, or whatever the paranormal phenomena, the probability of outliers is exponentially higher because the conditions of the observation are not controlled as they are in an experiment. Both believers and skeptics must accept this fact. Outliers do not make a theory fail, nor do they prove the existence of any supernatural explanation, they are data points that do not fit. We can speculate why, but until the outliers themselves can be recreated or observed repeatedly under the same conditions, they cannot be used in the manner that many seem to use them here.

This is why the discussions become so heated at times.

And don't forget the use of lolpics and facepalms, they always make a very helpful contribution to the discussion.

[sinewave]

The OP makes the proposition that Ufology starts off on a misconception.

How much of a misconception is this:

Full viewing recommended:

It another anecdote. Just throw it on the pile with the others.

[Kahn]

And don't forget the use of lolpics and facepalms, they always make a very helpful contribution to the discussion.

Point taken and guilty as charged. I will admit that I use the faceplam or similar when confronted by someone who wishes to ignore overwhelming evidence, rules of logic, physics and/or common sense, or proposes an "explanation" that fails to actually explain anything. It is a sign that I'm frustrated with a debater that failed to abide by even the least rigorous rules of debate. For anyone with a scientific background this is exasperating.

Then again, sometimes it's just for comic relief. It's a stylistic choice to avoid confrontation or add some levity to the proceedings.

[imrunningthismonkeyfarm]

I is proven that we are alone in our solar system. I doubt we are the only life existent in universe tho. However it seems unlikely civilizations located thou sent of light years away can visit each other. Universal physics is making it impossible. Every organic matter will be squashed in uncontrollably higher speeds required to do so...

Bending distances in universe through the black hole concept "warm holes" is a nice supposition but everyone comes to the conclusion that is Sci - Fi only.

Sci fi is only Sci fi until it becomes a reality & then It's more a case of Sci fact!

Before WE visited space, space travel was still only Sci fi & NOW It's a matter of fact.

We may have to wait a while but one day I'm sure the conclusion WILL have changed to Actuality.

[qxcontinuum]

are you really naming what we do "space travel" ?

Comparing to human walking , space travel in modern times is like attempting to go around the world but moving just a toe every 10 years.

We could have achieved much more... like a heck lot more ...

Edited October 28, 2013 by qxcontinuum

[lost_shaman]

Cheers thanks. Just as a matter of interest how close were you to the object? How large was it?

About 20 yards or so, and was about 3 feet in diameter roughly.

[psyche101]

I shan't disagree and I was merely quoting what I had read but of course interpretation of such anomalies will always lend themselves to such far fetched speculation and while I don't doubt that there may be a more mundane explanation for this curious phenomena until it is conclusively explained it remains open to some quite novel possibilities which confound the predictable responses of the sceptics.

Conclusive explanation still does not satisfy the faithful, Buzz Aldrin himself said he was taken out of context, and the UFO he saw was only unidentified until they worked out which part of the debris they were looking at, yet The Science Channel - of ALL people - outright refused to correct their deceptive editing to make it appear as if Buzz saw an alien spaceship, we even had the resident recalcitrant push the same lie, posting the erroneous science channel "edited" version.

So when the Science Channel is caught lying for the sake of ratings, I feel it is quite a strong indicator that no moral fibre exist in woo woo UFOlogy in general.

[psyche101]

Read the statement.

Eventually we all went back to bed. I woke up a further two times, the second time was about four hours later and it was still there, but when I next woke up it was daylight and they had gone

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2il3DEq4w

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

And you state no bias hey? Yes, lets look at that article shall we, I like this bit:

A family has spoken of the terrifying moment they saw a UFO hovering above their house for four hours.

A moment that lasts for hours, interesting. Not hyping the claim up at all are they, particularly when they state it is TERRIFYING!!!!!

The grandmother-of-one woke her family up and her daughter’s fiance caught the shocking images of four blinking lights on video.

SHOCKING IMAGES!!!!!

*Deep breath*

Four blinking lights are incredibly shocking hey?

But hey, I digress, let's get back to the families TERROR!!!!!

The statement:

‘I just woke up all of a sudden and looked out of the window to see all these twinkling lights - they looked like they were moving.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MOVING!!! THEY WERE MOVING!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!! MOVING LIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND

TWINKLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank goodness I did not have to endure an ordeal like that!!!!!!

But no hype, no Tongue In Cheek or anything, like the Northern Territory Times were forced into admitting?

LIving out in a rural area in Scotland, aren't ghost lights like St Elmo's Fire quite common? Not quite the impact for the headline though huh.

NATURAL PHENOMENA WITNESSED IN RURAL SCOTLAND

or

FAMILY'S TERROR AS UFO "HOVERS" OVER HOME!!!

What is going to sell more papers hrmmm?

Occam's Razor. Two drones the same type, never before seen by humans of no known type one in remote Scotland one in Wales. By the one in Wales is close to the ground.

How do you ascertain the lights were attached to drones, there was no sound at all. Lights in the sky like this have been seen by humans, lots of times, and the glow looks very much like earthlights.

How do you not see this as more likely connected to what we see at Hessdalen or Biloela? Some of those sightings have had very long time frames and can be stationary, or even pace a vehicle. Min Mins have chased vehicles over many kilometers even, in what some might perceive as intelligent control.

Edited October 29, 2013 by psyche101

[psyche101]

are you really naming what we do "space travel" ?

Comparing to human walking , space travel in modern times is like attempting to go around the world but moving just a toe every 10 years.

We could have achieved much more... like a heck lot more ...

To be fair, we have left the solar system, I think that's pretty impressive. We all have to start someplace.

[DONTEATUS]

Me too We are At least moving in the Right direction !

p.s. Just cut that nut cases Hair on H2 Gerigio whatever !

[Kahn]

Let's be fair. We are still bound to this piece of rock. Our machines have left the solar system. (Remind you of another recent thread?)

[psyche101]

Let's be fair. We are still bound to this piece of rock. Our machines have left the solar system. (Remind you of another recent thread?)

And yet the woo crowd says we are the only ones in the galaxy who are primitive, and everyone else is advanced all the while stating they use logic to ascertain the likelihood of life in the Universe????

And to be fair, he only said space travel.

Not sure of the thread, so much woo, so little time......

I dunno, my name is up there on the Kepler telescope, NASA took names before it was launched, and placed them on it, I have the NASA certificate and everything And if we talk to the Voyager probes, is that not in a sense being there?

Edited October 29, 2013 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Me too We are At least moving in the Right direction !

p.s. Just cut that nut cases Hair on H2 Gerigio whatever !

There ya go!

[Kahn]

It was this thread I was referring to: http://www.unexplain...topic=254677=

You commented quite extensively in it.

[psyche101]

It was this thread I was referring to: http://www.unexplain...topic=254677=

You commented quite extensively in it.

Ahh, that chestnut!

Thanks for that, I had lost that thread.

:D

Edited October 29, 2013 by psyche101

[zoser]

About 20 yards or so, and was about 3 feet in diameter roughly.

Pretty close then?

That must have been an awesome experience. Thanks for sharing

[zoser]

Let's be fair. We are still bound to this piece of rock. Our machines have left the solar system. (Remind you of another recent thread?)

To do what? To run down and corrode in inter-stellar space? Is that it?

[Space Commander Travis]

How would they corrode? For that you'd need oxygen. Or microrganisms, perhaps.

Sorry, I came over Pedantic there.