AATIP has sparked a renewed interest in UFOs

[UM-Bot]

The US government's recent foray in to UFO research has helped to reignite interest in the phenomenon.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/316190/aatip-has-sparked-a-renewed-interest-in-ufos

[Fila]

Kean also hopes that the reveal will help reduce the stigma of conducting research in to UFOs. "Professional people feel like they're going to be laughed at, and it's the same problem for scientists and academic institutions and universities and research facilities who want to work on this topic, but they feel that it would be detrimental to their careers," she said.

I am finding this to be the biggest issue with looking into UFOs. I think this is an interesting topic to discuss in itself.., but don't want to offend anyone or start flame wars. The fact that offending people and starting flame wars is a real threat also shows how emotional the conversation about UFOs and aliens can get. Very strange...

[Dejarma]

38 minutes ago, Fila said:

"Professional people feel like they're going to be laughed at, and it's the same problem for scientists and academic institutions and universities and research facilities who want to work on this topic, but they feel that it would be detrimental to their careers," she said.

No intention of creating a flame war here. A serious question to you & anyone else who's interested:

how would scientists and academic institutions etc go about studying/ researching ufos? What data do you think they will use?

 

[ChrLzs]

'Professional' (that just means money-making) people SHOULD be laughed at when they present ludicrous and ill-investigated claims.  Kean has no scientific kudos or credit in any of the required disciplines, and in the past, every claim she has made in her books and seminars (note - NOT scientific reports) has been shown to be not just wanting, but often downright ridiculous (like the insects at El Bosque - despite it being debunked and despite her being busted presenting falsehoods, she still rolls that one out at her seminars...

People who do real science and proper investigations do NOT get laughed at.  Feel free to pick any of Kean's 'cases' (in fact any case at all you feel has been unwarrantedly debunked or 'laughed at') and I'll be happy to go through it politely and show why..

Edited March 5, 2018 by ChrLzs

[Dejarma]

15 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

despite it being debunked and despite her being busted presenting falsehoods, she still rolls that one out at her seminars...

 

 

yet people STILL pay to hear her speak! Therefore people like her will STILL carry on..

This is & always will be the problem with this enigma. This is the reason this subject still exists= there's money to be earned 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Dejarma

[Fila]

Just now, Dejarma said:

No intention of creating a flame war here. A serious question to you & anyone else who's interested:

how would scientists and academic institutions etc go about studying/ researching ufos? What data do you think they will use?

This is a great question. One I have asked many people with no real answer.

Its a catch 22. We demand scientific proof that UFOs exist.., yet we cannot formulate a proper way to conduct the study.

All we are left with are the original claims made by witnesses. Then people have to make a decision based on this small amount of anecdotal evidence that is only meant to prompt an investigation.., not conclude it.

[Dejarma]

2 minutes ago, Fila said:

This is a great question. One I have asked many people with no real answer.

i've got a real answer for you:

science can't study it because there's nothing to study-- that's why science has never studied it, & never will!

ask science to study god/ gods/ religion-- they are not going to say: 'yeah ok then'

science will not study stuff like this because clever logical minded people are involved with science.

ooow let me pick one hmmmmm= crop circles:

despite what we're told; science (i mean REAL science & not some ridiculous fringe thingy that tries to palm it's self off to those who believe it being science)

has never looked into it!! And why is that?

i'll leave it for others to answer.. have fun

[Fila]

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

'Professional' (that just means money-making)

Haha yea. I take it your not a fan of capitalism? Neither am I. I am getting into media, science and electronics for fun. To learn and discover something new to benefit mankind.

Seems like everyone else is just out for money and to be popular. Bunch of weirdos.

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

People SHOULD be laughed at when they present ludicrous and ill-investigated claims.

I disagree. Even if someone is wrong.., I think that the power of imagination is incredible. For someone to come up with the notion that God doesn't exist, and that the Earth is round, and rocks can fall from the sky not long ago they'd be mocked.., just because they didn't provide proof.

Why are new ideas such a trigger for anger? 

If I actually see something strange tonight.., am I supposed to just keep my mouth shut? What if I have the onset of some new type of disease coming on.., and this is a warning sign. I leave it untreated and continue to my job as a commercial pilot, teacher or police officer. Then I have another hallucination episode and start envisioning aliens everywhere and start opening fire on them.., or crash my plane trying to avoid an alien mothership killing all onboard.

Why is there so much anger when someone makes a claim? Shouldn't we treat this as a VERY serious issue?

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Kean has no scientific kudos or credit in any of the required disciplines, and in the past, every claim she has made in her books and seminars (note - NOT scientific reports) has been shown to be not just wanting, but often downright ridiculous (like the insects at El Bosque - despite it being debunked and despite her being busted presenting falsehoods, she still rolls that one out at her seminars...

People who do real science and proper investigations do NOT get laughed at.  Feel free to pick any of Kean's 'cases' (in fact any case at all you feel has been unwarrantedly debunked or 'laughed at') and I'll be happy to go through it politely and show why..

No scientific kudos or credit in required disciplines.., so not a professional. Yet if she was.., then she'd just be "in it for the money". This kinda shows a hint of bias from my perspective as both scenarios are considered wrong.

I'm not familiar with Kean. I do not research each individual I come across.., I only research claims.
I believe that ;

1) Everyone here has said something wrong in the past.., or thought differently about a topic today.

2) I will find out if the claim made is true or false by looking more into the claim being made.., not by looking at people's history.

Einstein made maaaaany mistakes in the past.., so does that mean we shouldn't read his other work that was correct?

Edited March 6, 2018 by Fila

[Fila]

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

i've got a real answer for you:

science can't study it because there's nothing to study-- that's why science has never studied it, & never will!

That was your "serious question" with "no intention of creating a flame war? How would scientists and academic institutions etc go about studying/ researching ufos? What data do you think they will use?"

"WRONG! The correct answer was NO DATA! There is none, and there never will be!"

 

Now I don't want to start a war either.., but can you see how that turned very quickly to anger? You initially appeared calm and quite reasonable.., asking a very good question.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Fila

[ChrLzs]

Working backwards....

4 hours ago, Fila said:

That was your "serious question" with "no intention of creating a flame war? How would scientists and academic institutions etc go about studying/ researching ufos? What data do you think they will use?"

"WRONG! The correct answer was NO DATA! There is none, and there never will be!"

So, you quoted him, and then added capitals to SHOUT his viewpoint... and then 

Quote

Now I don't want to start a war either.., but can you see how that turned very quickly to anger? You initially appeared calm and quite reasonable.., asking a very good question.

Yes, *you* turned it into anger with the silly shouting.  Frankly, Fila, this sort of meta discussion is painful and hypocritical.  You inject the anger .. than tell others off for being angry?????

 

Just stick to the topic.  It was quite a good question - you tell us, how would scientists investigate UFO's further?  Should they investigate every light in the sky, or just how would you go about it?  This is the sort of stuff I'm very good at, helping people design studies, using logical, step by step systems analysis and problem solving, all added to the Scientific method.  I'm not seeing much sign of you doing that.

I'm also not seeing much sign of even the remotest interest in real scientists for this sort of undertaking.  The only people looking at it at those like the ludicrous "To The Stars" circus troupe of money-grabbing and completely unqualified promoters..

And do you know why that is?  Here, let me tell you.  Investigating UFO's ISN'T rocket science... and in this current day and age, any/all ufo claims can be a} freely promoted and exposed to the world, and thus b} investigated by anyone with the required skills in public view.

Those skills would usually involve photographic and digital imaging analysis skills (to spot fakery and use photogrammetry if possible to extract information about the object), some knowledge of all the stuff in the skies and what it can look like from all angles, and some ability to research, ie see what events, aircraft, etc might have been in that region at that time, check timelines, examine the backstory, etc.

From all that, a lot of unidentified objects will remain exactly that - we simply won't have anywhere near enough information to take it any further.  Also, from that process, which is done publicly at forums like this one, we can also see if any decent cases percolate to the top.

Scientists, quite rightly, don't like working with anecdotes, especially when dealing with cultural phenomena like the desire to be scared/fascinated by aliens from other worlds...  So if the best cases are anecdotal, then that's the end of story right there.  At this point Fila, you can now run away as you always do, from nominating the very best documented case you've encountered....

As for your earlier comments:

4 hours ago, Fila said:

... Seems like everyone else is just out for money and to be popular. Bunch of weirdos.

I used to work at a large marine research centre.  Not as a practising scientist, but as the operations manager.  During that time, I was the guy who coordinated and looked after all the facilities, from boats to seawater pumps & aquaria, computer suites, laboratories, video conferencing, scuba gear, chemical testing equipment,  - you name it, I was the guy who made sure it all worked and everything went smoothly and safely.  That meant I was working with people ranging from world renowned Professors and Doctors, all the way down to those still working on their degrees or theses.  Not one was a weirdo.  Not one was egotistical or unwilling to share their knowledge.  Every one was dedicated, hard working, and loved their chosen field (which was marine biology, but I imagine this extends to other science disciplines).  They were indeed professionals, most of them being paid quite well to do what they did.

Only a few of these folks wrote books and did seminars, and those folks without exception had, prior to getting onto the seminar/book trail, written hundreds if not thousands of reports and papers that were/are published at reputable science journals.  And in spite of their 'fame', they were mostly still lecturing to students, still contributing to the field...  And everything they promote is easily verifiable and also backed by their peers and the huge body of published, 'accepted' research.

Real scientists are only weirdos to those who have never actually worked in the sciences, or have a barrow to push where they wish to sound superior, or delude themselves into thinking they know something that the ordinary folk don't..

Quote

I disagree. Even if someone is wrong.., I think that the power of imagination is incredible. For someone to come up with the notion that God doesn't exist, and that the Earth is round, and rocks can fall from the sky not long ago they'd be mocked.., just because they didn't provide proof.

That is just silly.  Until you see a rock falling from the sky or get the required education, what is wrong with being skeptical?  Similarly, it was correct for people to think the earth was likely flat, back when they didn't travel far and had no evidence otherwise - it was a sensible assumption (and indeed, just like Newton's theories, entirely correct within reasonable parameters).  That's what science DOES, it expands and changes to suit new ideas when they are provably observed.  Not before.  And science then uses existing knowledge to work out what the new phenomena is.

Quote

Why are new ideas such a trigger for anger?

Give your best example.  I'm not angry, although when some of the claims are deliberately misrepresented - that makes me a little cross...  This 'anger' bulldung is a strawman - report anyone who breaks the rules, otherwise stop trying to mind-read people's emotions.  Just read the words and deal with them.

Quote

If I actually see something strange tonight.., am I supposed to just keep my mouth shut?

No, of course not.  Similarly, are we supposed to not then ask questions and look at what evidence you have to present?  If you got nuthin', then take it to a blog and tell your stories there.  Hereabouts, at this forum dedicated to finding unexplained mysteries (which means getting rid of the one's that a} can't even be shown to exist, or b} are explainable) we like evidence.   If all you have is a story that you cannot document either now or in the future, then let's face it - might as well not have happened.

Quote

What if I have the onset of some new type of disease coming on.., and this is a warning sign. I leave it untreated and continue to my job as a commercial pilot, teacher or police officer. Then I have another hallucination episode and start envisioning aliens everywhere and start opening fire on them.., or crash my plane trying to avoid an alien mothership killing all onboard.

Why is there so much anger when someone makes a claim? Shouldn't we treat this as a VERY serious issue?

I'm sorry, I do not understand your 'analogy' at all.  Did this all happen?  What are you suggesting we should do differently, or which case are you referring to?

Quote

No scientific kudos or credit in required disciplines.., so not a professional.

Well, I'm glad you concede that.  She really is totally out of her depth.

Quote

Yet if she was.., then she'd just be "in it for the money". This kinda shows a hint of bias from my perspective as both scenarios are considered wrong.

Thing is, here you go again -avoiding discussing what she has actually claimed...  Why not cite what you think is the most compelling case she has presented, and let's look at why she gets criticism.  She certainly ain't in it to promote good science or investigation techniques - I can very immodestly say I know such techniques VERY well, and I'llbe delighted to elaborate.  That's why I'd like to discuss specifics.  It's also why you should be (rightly) afraid to do so.

 

Quote

I'm not familiar with Kean.

Sigh.  There's (one of) your problem(s).

Quote

I do not research each individual I come across.., I only research claims.

So POST the most compelling one she has made, and let's look at how your knowledge isn't up to scratch.  Sorry, but I think it's time we started calling this spade a bloody shovel.

Quote

1) Everyone here has said something wrong in the past.., or thought differently about a topic today.

Yes, and I embrace those occasions when I'm wrong and I thus learn something new.  So what?  This justifies being wrong continually, like Kean?  And not even admitting when you got it wrong .. like Kean?

Quote

2) I will find out if the claim made is true or false by looking more into the claim being made.., not by looking at people's history.

You say this, but rarely do it.  Post your favorite Kean claim.  The one you have looked at most closely and used all your skills...

Quote

Einstein made maaaaany mistakes in the past.., so does that mean we shouldn't read his other work that was correct?

I don't think that there were quite that maaaaaaany...  But anyway, we have, by working through observations and gathering more knowledge over the years, worked out what he was right about and what was wrong.  Again, so what, and why on earth would a few mistakes - in his case, mostly due to a lack of available observations - mean that his other absolutely brilliant work shouldn't be read?

NO-ONE is saying that, but you Fila.  WE are the ones wanting to investigate SPECIFICS.  You seem to be the one avoiding it.  I suspect the reason for that is you are not confident in your skill base.

Prove me wrong by getting all brave and nominating something.  If you refuse, I'll pick the El Bosque fiasco, OK?

Edited March 6, 2018 by ChrLzs
to tidy up

[Dejarma]

13 hours ago, Fila said:

Now I don't want to start a war either.., but can you see how that turned very quickly to anger?

nope, you've lost me 

[Fila]

On 3/6/2018 at 5:06 PM, ChrLzs said:

Working backwards....

So, you quoted him, and then added capitals to SHOUT his viewpoint... and then 

Yes, *you* turned it into anger with the silly shouting.  Frankly, Fila, this sort of meta discussion is painful and hypocritical.  You inject the anger .. than tell others off for being angry?????

Anger begets anger. I react to anger with anger which is something I am trying to stop. It is hard to gauge tone from written text.., and I took it that way based on the change in how the post was written, and the apparent shift from the original question asked.

I did use capital letters though. I'm sorry about that. You did use them first so perhaps you can also apologise..

On 3/6/2018 at 5:06 PM, ChrLzs said:

Just stick to the topic.  It was quite a good question - you tell us, how would scientists investigate UFO's further? 

I did not shift from the topic. The fact that you are telling me to stick to the topic.., and not Dejarma kinda shows a hint of bias from my perspective.

On 3/6/2018 at 5:06 PM, ChrLzs said:

As for your earlier comments:

I used to work at a large marine research centre...  ...And everything they promote is easily verifiable and also backed by their peers and the huge body of published, 'accepted' research.

Real scientists are only weirdos to those who have never actually worked in the sciences, or have a barrow to push where they wish to sound superior, or delude themselves into thinking they know something that the ordinary folk don't..

I don't get what your point is sorry.

On 3/6/2018 at 5:06 PM, ChrLzs said:

That is just silly.  Until you see a rock falling from the sky or get the required education, what is wrong with being skeptical?  Similarly, it was correct for people to think the earth was likely flat, back when they didn't travel far and had no evidence otherwise - it was a sensible assumption (and indeed, just like Newton's theories, entirely correct within reasonable parameters).  That's what science DOES, it expands and changes to suit new ideas when they are provably observed.  Not before.  And science then uses existing knowledge to work out what the new phenomena is

Ridicule. You confuse ridicule with being sceptical. And you confuse sceptical with being sceptical of information.., and what you consider yourself to be.., which I assume is a UFO sceptic.

History is full of events where people were ridiculed or worse for looking into new ideas. Being sceptical is fine. I just disagree people should be laughed at.

On 3/6/2018 at 5:06 PM, ChrLzs said:

No, of course not.  Similarly, are we supposed to not then ask questions and look at what evidence you have to present?  If you got nuthin', then take it to a blog and tell your stories there.  Hereabouts, at this forum dedicated to finding unexplained mysteries (which means getting rid of the one's that a} can't even be shown to exist, or b} are explainable) we like evidence.   If all you have is a story that you cannot document either now or in the future, then let's face it - might as well not have happened.

I may have to start a new thread about this.., as it seems to come up a lot.

What evidence can a UFO witness provide? If you see one out your window flying past right now.., what can you do? Not much. Now when you go to provide your "proof" to me.., I have nothing to go off but your story and maybe some bad video.  I understand your frustration with the lack of evidence also.

On 3/6/2018 at 5:06 PM, ChrLzs said:

.I'm sorry, I do not understand your 'analogy' at all.  Did this all happen?  What are you suggesting we should do differently, or which case are you referring to?

No. I said "if" I see something strange tonight (in the future.., so it hasn't happened yet) as an example.

"If I actually see something strange tonight.., am I supposed to just keep my mouth shut? What if I have the onset of some new type of disease coming on.., and this is a warning sign. I leave it untreated and continue to my job as a commercial pilot, teacher or police officer. Then I have another hallucination episode and start envisioning aliens everywhere and start opening fire on them.., or crash my plane trying to avoid an alien mothership killing all onboard."

This was in response to when you said: "People SHOULD be laughed at when they present ludicrous and ill-investigated claims."

So I disagree that people should be laughed at. I don't think this is being "sceptical of information".., just someone being arrogant.

What should we do differently? I don't know right now. Maybe just raise awareness for starters.

On 3/6/2018 at 5:06 PM, ChrLzs said:

Well, I'm glad you concede that.  She really is totally out of her depth.

Thing is, here you go again -avoiding discussing what she has actually claimed...  Why not cite what you think is the most compelling case she has presented, and let's look at why she gets criticism.  She certainly ain't in it to promote good science or investigation techniques - I can very immodestly say I know such techniques VERY well, and I'llbe delighted to elaborate.  That's why I'd like to discuss specifics.  It's also why you should be (rightly) afraid to do so.

Sigh.  There's (one of) your problem(s).

I was just making a point.,. showing the double standards. I was not avoiding a discussion. If anything my discussion was being avoided...

I don't know anything about the person.., or any other topics or things discussed apart from what was in this article. I only wanted to quote what was said.., but added the whole paragraph. Regardless of who said it.., I still think it is true.

On 3/6/2018 at 5:06 PM, ChrLzs said:

So POST the most compelling one she has made, and let's look at how your knowledge isn't up to scratch.  Sorry, but I think it's time we started calling this spade a bloody shovel.

Yes, and I embrace those occasions when I'm wrong and I thus learn something new.  So what?  This justifies being wrong continually, like Kean?  And not even admitting when you got it wrong .. like Kean?

You misunderstand. I research claims made (regardless of the person). I look into the validation of the claim. I look into whether or not the claim is true.
Don't be so hard on yourself when you are wrong. I am wrong heaps. Everyone is wrong. Not one person is perfect. It doesn't justify weakness. I am just saying that because we are all wrong at some stage.., this shouldn't be used as some type of "black marker" that means we can't listen to the rest of what they have to say from this day forth.

Its possible this person has said things that have been "de-bunked" but I have de-bunked de-bunkers so its only de-bunked until someone can counter the de-bunker. I currently don't have the time to look into this persons past on what they have said wrong.., and I am sure they have said wrong things in the past. I am agreeing here.

This is why we need less of a requirement to laugh at people who want to look into UFOs or other new topics. As this deters professional scientists and serious studies from being conducted.., and all we are left with are the weirdos doing what they think is correct.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Fila

[Saru]

Keep it civil please folks.

[imrunningthismonkeyfarm]

2 hours ago, Fila said:

Anger begets anger. I react to anger with anger which is something I am trying to stop. It is hard to gauge tone from written text.., and I took it that way based on the change in how the post was written, and the apparent shift from the original question asked.

I did use capital letters though. I'm sorry about that. You did use them first so perhaps you can also apologise..

I did not shift from the topic. The fact that you are telling me to stick to the topic.., and not Dejarma kinda shows a hint of bias from my perspective.

I don't get what your point is sorry.

Ridicule. You confuse ridicule with being sceptical. And you confuse sceptical with being sceptical of information.., and what you consider yourself to be.., which I assume is a UFO sceptic.

History is full of events where people were ridiculed or worse for looking into new ideas. Being sceptical is fine. I just disagree people should be laughed at.

I may have to start a new thread about this.., as it seems to come up a lot.

What evidence can a UFO witness provide? If you see one out your window flying past right now.., what can you do? Not much. Now when you go to provide your "proof" to me.., I have nothing to go off but your story and maybe some bad video.  I understand your frustration with the lack of evidence also.

No. I said "if" I see something strange tonight (in the future.., so it hasn't happened yet) as an example.

"If I actually see something strange tonight.., am I supposed to just keep my mouth shut? What if I have the onset of some new type of disease coming on.., and this is a warning sign. I leave it untreated and continue to my job as a commercial pilot, teacher or police officer. Then I have another hallucination episode and start envisioning aliens everywhere and start opening fire on them.., or crash my plane trying to avoid an alien mothership killing all onboard."

This was in response to when you said: "People SHOULD be laughed at when they present ludicrous and ill-investigated claims."

So I disagree that people should be laughed at. I don't think this is being "sceptical of information".., just someone being arrogant.

What should we do differently? I don't know right now. Maybe just raise awareness for starters.

I was just making a point.,. showing the double standards. I was not avoiding a discussion. If anything my discussion was being avoided...

I don't know anything about the person.., or any other topics or things discussed apart from what was in this article. I only wanted to quote what was said.., but added the whole paragraph. Regardless of who said it.., I still think it is true.

You misunderstand. I research claims made (regardless of the person). I look into the validation of the claim. I look into whether or not the claim is true.
Don't be so hard on yourself when you are wrong. I am wrong heaps. Everyone is wrong. Not one person is perfect. It doesn't justify weakness. I am just saying that because we are all wrong at some stage.., this shouldn't be used as some type of "black marker" that means we can't listen to the rest of what they have to say from this day forth.

Its possible this person has said things that have been "de-bunked" but I have de-bunked de-bunkers so its only de-bunked until someone can counter the de-bunker. I currently don't have the time to look into this persons past on what they have said wrong.., and I am sure they have said wrong things in the past. I am agreeing here.

This is why we need less of a requirement to laugh at people who want to look into UFOs or other new topics. As this deters professional scientists and serious studies from being conducted.., and all we are left with are the weirdos doing what they think is correct.

youll never win an argument with no proof my freind. when proof does become available we'll probably all be dead anyway. we know what the future holds and when we do finally leave our solar system and settle somewhere else that is proof of intelligent life elsewhere in its self isnt it. even if it is in the future.

And its easier to block someone whos antagonistic than to get wound up. thats what i did.

[ChrLzs]

9 hours ago, Fila said:

Anger begets anger. I react to anger with anger which is something I am trying to stop. It is hard to gauge tone from written text.., and I took it that way based on the change in how the post was written, and the apparent shift from the original question asked.

I saw no anger in the post. You added the capitals.  end of debate.

Quote

I did use capital letters though. I'm sorry about that. You did use them first so perhaps you can also apologise..

Capitals may also be used for emphasis - in your case when you added them, it was obvously not for that purpose...And here's what I said:

"people SHOULD be laughed at when they present ludicrous and ill-investigated claims."  Yes, I do get angry at people presenting ludicrous and ill-investigated claims.  Note that I wasn't aiming my anger at anyone specific.

"..every claim she has made in her books and seminars (note - NOT scientific reports) has been shown to be not just wanting, but often downright ridiculous"  Clearly, the use of capitals there was for emphasis.

"People who do real science and proper investigations do NOT get laughed at." - again, the use for emphasis is quite clear. 

Quote

I did not shift from the topic. The fact that you are telling me to stick to the topic.., and not Dejarma kinda shows a hint of bias from my perspective.

Yes, you did, by introducing meta discussion about how angry we were allegedly getting.

Quote

Ridicule. You confuse ridicule with being sceptical. And you confuse sceptical with being sceptical of information.., and what you consider yourself to be.., which I assume is a UFO sceptic.

History is full of events where people were ridiculed or worse for looking into new ideas.

Hypocrisy.  QUOTE me and address what I said - and answer this question:

Do you agree that for a group of people who lived in a relatively confined area and had no ability to fly, nor have long-distance transport as part of their culture, that the assumption of a flat earth was in fact valid?  If not, specify why.  See what I'm doing there?  Giving a direct example - where people might have ridiculed the notion of a round earth.  They had no knowledge of any observations suggesting a round earth, so why *wouldn't* they make the simplest assumption?  And if they did ridicule someone for suggesting a spherical earth, what does that have to do with science, or current observations?

This is the problem with 99.9% of your posts, you handwave and do not address specifics.  Your logic is clearly wrong here - the way you avoid that is to not deal with specifics, and that makes your handwaves worthless.

Quote

I just disagree people should be laughed at.

So, if you see it happening - REPORT IT TO MODS.  Or give specific examples right here and now.  STOP HANDWAVING, Fila.   Yes, anger!

Quote

I may have to start a new thread about this.., as it seems to come up a lot.

What evidence can a UFO witness provide?

To clarify this rather silly question - what do you mean here by 'UFO'?  I see plenty of things every night that I can't or don't bother to identify, commercial aircraft, traffic choppers, satellites and pother space junk.  All UFO's.  If, however, by UFO you incorrectly mean something undeniably of alien or non-terrestrial nature - in other words, something specifically 'unexplainable' and thus interesting... Well, I'd ask you what evidence for the material things that you see each day could *you* provide?  To make this a bit more to the point, I don't see bears around my neck of the woods.  But I accept they exist elsewhere, because of the evidence of them I've seen and can quote.. eg decent, clear imagery, showing what are undeniably bears.  A number of witnesses all corroborating that they saw a bear.  Trail cameras showing bears.  Claw marks in trees, scat, skeletal remains, etc, etc, etc.  For  a mysterious UFO, there are obviously some different possibilities .. but seriously, you don't know what evidence would suffice?  Pretty much any decent, undeniable, thoroughly investigated, documented or found evidence. 

Do feel free to point me to a UFO case that has *any* of that.

Quote

If you see one out your window flying past right now.., what can you do? Not much.

Well, *I* could (and perhaps you have some neighbors who would be more ready...) - I'd grab my DSLR and image it, with a bit of luck. Properly capture it.  But in my entire lifetime, both out of my window, or driving my car, or just spending the large amount of time that I do stargazing and satellite watching... Nothing all that mysterious.

Now, if I was less familiar with the sky, like Jill and Joe Average, some of the sights I've seen might have astonished or even scared me, eg Iridium flares, the ISS, aircraft on approach that happen to be directly facing me, traffic choppers with searchlight blazing, LED adorned drones, even 'inter-cloud' projections (it's a long story) and so on.  Some of my friends and family are Jills & Joes, and I've seen how they exaggerate and misremember and struggle with understanding what they see.  That's why I wouldn't trust their (or anyone's) anecdote to be accurate.  That's not insulting, it's just life.  I'm partially colorblind, so my observations in that regard would be highly suspect, and I'm not special - I misremember and exaggerate too.

 

Thing is, with them bears and such, you don't need all that many real ones for them to be documented properly.  And until they are - like I said, they may as well not exist, and the earth may as well be flat.  Until decent evidence comes along.. I still await the first truly mysterious, well-documented and evidenced UFO case.  I'm good with bears and the spherical earth now - there's good evidence for both...

 

So, in summary, I'd suggest you stop whining unless you post quotes and specifics.  Your handwaving is getting tiresome, and frankly, is pointless.

 

Edited March 7, 2018 by ChrLzs
fixed some awful grammar

[Fila]

7 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

I saw no anger in the post. You added the capitals.  end of debate.

I explained how I did.., and I disagree with your perspective.

8 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Capitals may also be used for emphasis - in your case when you added them, it was obivously not for that purpose...And here's what I said:

I paraphrased and emphasised the stress.

10 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Yes, I do get angry at people presenting ludictrous and ill-investigated claims.  Note that I wasn't aiming my anger at anyone specific.

Yes. Calm down. You get angry a lot compared to me so please calm down. You are making such a drama out of this while ignoring the main point. Please man. Please calm down. I can read you anger in this post also.

12 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

"..every claim she has made in her books and seminars (note - NOT scientific reports) has been shown to be not just wanting, but often downright ridiculous"  Clearly, the use of capitals there was for emphasis.

This is no different to what I did. Calm down.

13 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Yes, you did, by introducing meta discussion about how angry we were allegedly getting.

No. I raised a point first. This is my point raised from the article. It is strange how people get angry at someone looking into UFOs.

[Fila]

15 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Hypocrisy.  QUOTE me and address what I said - and answer this question:

No. I am making a valid point that seems lost on you. I will attempt to explain once more but then have to leave it there.
Regardless of what the original claim, idea or thought is. Albeit it climate change or flat earth theory. I disagree that people SHOULD be laughed at.

18 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

This is the problem with 99.9% of your posts, you handwave and do not address specifics.  Your logic is clearly wrong here - the way you avoid that is to not deal with specifics, and that makes your handwaves worthless.

So, if you see it happening - REPORT IT TO MODS.  Or give specific examples right here and now.  STOP HANDWAVING, Fila.   Yes, anger!

I am discussing real life world issues. A forum moderator has no jurisdiction over UFOlogy in general or science and the behavior of people past and present. I think my point is lost on you. Your anger is clouding your ability to think and talk rationally.

Please calm down.

21 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

To clarify this rather silly question - what do you mean here by UFO?  I see plenty of things every night that I can't or don't bother to identify, commercial aircraft, traffic choppers, satellites and pother space junk.  All UFO's.  If, by UFO you mean something undeniably of alien or non-terrestrial nature - in other words, something specifically 'unexplainable' and thus interesting... Well, I'd ask you what evidence for the material things that you see each day could *you* provide.  To make this a bit more to the point, I don't see bears around my neck of the woods.  But I accept they exist, because of the evidence of them I've seen and can quote.. eg decent, clear imagery, showing what are undeniably bears.  A number of witnesses all corroborating that they saw a bear.  Trail cameras showing bears.  Claw marks in trees, scat, skeletal remains, etc, etc, etc.  For  a mysterious UFO, there are obviously some different possibilities .. but seriousy, you don't know what evidence would suffice?  Pretty much any decent, undeniable, thoroughly investigated, documented or found evidence. 

We discussed this in detail in a thread titled "Redefining the term UFO".  I actually used to include it in many thread topics to keep people from getting angry about the terminology, but assumed we were all past that now. I see a pattern forming... interesting.

Anyway.., U stands for unidentified. UFO means objects that are still unidentified (reports of advanced craft flying with no sound and breakneck speeds etc). The moon or a star would be an identified object. A UFO is something still unexplained that does not match the characteristics of any known objects. Unknown.

25 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Well, *I* could (and perhaps you have some neighbors who would be more ready...) - I'd grab my DSLR and image it, with a bit of luck. Properly capture it. 

I'm not sure I understand. If you saw one right now. I mean now. This very second reading this. You would be more ready?
I don't think you are properly thinking about the scenario.., and just providing me with answers quickly in the hopes to win an argument.., rather than having an actual discussion.

Okay look.., we will just have to leave it there I think. You have a good one okay?

[Fila]

39 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

So, in summary, I'd suggest you stop whining unless you post quotes and specifics.  Your handwaving is getting tiresome, and frankly, is pointless.

I think I am done talking to you about this. Please take some time out to reflect on how you treat others. Stress is very bad.., and being negative all the time is very bad. Life is what we make it. Just try to laugh things off.., and not take things so personally. Anger and reacting badly affects out ability to think clearly.

I'm only here on this forum for a specific reason.., and only stick to a few threads. So we don't have to speak to each other, but if we do we should try and be more civil.

I hope you can have a great day full of happiness, fun and learning. (Fun without mocking people for new ideas or looking into something new)

Edited March 7, 2018 by Fila

[Dejarma]

7 minutes ago, Fila said:

A UFO is something still unexplained that does not match the characteristics of any known objects.

no that is not what the term means- this is what it means to you & i feel this is where your confusion lies.. all due respect

7 minutes ago, Fila said:

I think my point is lost on you.

it's lost on me as well

[toast]

On 5.3.2018 at 11:27 PM, Dejarma said:

What data do you think they will use?

"Testimonials" from "reliable persons" like police officers, pilots, "former" NASA/CIA/FBI employees. And drunken farmers.

[Dejarma]

9 minutes ago, toast said:

"Testimonials" from "reliable persons" like police officers, pilots, "former" NASA/CIA/FBI employees. And drunken farmers.

yep or even drunken police officers, pilots, "former" NASA/CIA/FBI and sober farmers:

don't matter who tells it= it's still: 'JUST A STORY' 

[Fila]

18 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

no that is not what the term means- this is what it means to you & i feel this is where your confusion lies.. all due respect

That was just the last thing we seemed to have come up with. Please feel free to raise any concerns or post your own ideas here. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314101-redefining-the-term-ufo/

17 minutes ago, toast said:

"Testimonials" from "reliable persons" like police officers, pilots, "former" NASA/CIA/FBI employees. And drunken farmers.

Haha it does seem like only country people see UFOs hey.
It could be that that these things are similar to ball lightning and only form in particular areas. Perhaps cities of concrete and bitumen creates some type of barrier or layer that stop this from occurring?

It is strange.., but there are reports from many reliable people. Although people with crappy jobs like a farmer or fisherman might be able to see some type of UFO or new energy source.., I prefer to stick to the more credible sources just to keep things clearer. I don't dismiss the farmer reports.., but don't take them as gospel or let them add or subtract scientific weight. I treat it like I would any other subject.

I'm sure we don't rely on what Bubba thinks about climate change or quantum physics.., well I don't. Bubba might say its getting colder.., but I won't use him as my main source for an essay to disprove climate change. Doing this kinda shows bias from my perspective and a lame attempt at trying to discredit a topic by saying only dumb people accept this as being true.

7 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

don't matter who tells it= it's still: 'JUST A STORY' 

So true. But that's how some discoveries are made. With an initial observation. We shouldn't make a conclusion based on an observation. We cannot say its an ET. But.., we also cannot say it doesn't exist simply because it currently has not been tested or measured correctly.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Fila

[Dejarma]

11 minutes ago, Fila said:

We cannot say its an ET. But.., we also cannot say it doesn't exist simply because it currently has not been tested or measured correctly.

who's saying ET doesn't exist?

[Fila]

8 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

who's saying ET doesn't exist?

No one. I think you misunderstood me.

We cannot say a UFO is ET owned, simply from an observation.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Fila

[Dejarma]

1 minute ago, Fila said:

No one. I think you misunderstood me.

I was saying we cannot say a UFO is ET from an observation.

well that's bleeding obvious- we all know that- so what else is there? how are we supposed to 'discover' alien life on this planet if there's nothing more than a story to go by?