How to document UFO sightings

[Minimalists]

9 hours ago, Fila said:

I don't understand. You were joking? Please explain the joke. I don't detect sarcasm, or see anything hinting you were joking.

My post is making light of the conversations here. I am having a good time also.

Of course lenticular clouds are mistaken. I have brought this up a few times also. But what are you guys rambling on about it for now?
What relevance does it have? Is there like massive percentage of UFO reports that are lenticular clouds.., that it affects the OP?

No.., Its an attempt at distracting from valid points being raised on this thread.., that directly respond to the original questions and points.
 

Are you serious? Double standards for Stereo, ChrLzs and Phyche then? Yea sure.., I am starting to see a pattern here. Its just teams sticking together. That's all. Nothing to do with the information I post.., or questions I ask.

Pfft, oh well. I thought you were the only half rational person here.,. but seems this place is completely brain dead.

Both scoffers and believer teams hate me.., because I challenge both sides equally. We could possibly us the '6 degrees of separation' formula to link all the scoffers with each other.., and all the believers with each other by examining friends / followers. Its obvious what's going on 

At least I can now show an attempt was made.., and document the reactions from people showing how emotions have affected the UFO investigation. There is no evidence for UFOs.., because people have already concluded UFOs are not worth looking into. Because there is no evidence. But fail to see there evidence paradox. Making statements like UFO witnesses need to gather "extraordinary evidence".., but then can't actually explain what that is.., or how the achieve this. And don't even want to attempt to try.., ever. At all. (Obvious bias which cannot be refuted).

No amount of witness data will solve this. But people demand witnesses to solve it.  Round and round it goes.., sometimes contradicting themselves in the same breath. Neil Tyson is a great example of this.

People choose to ignore credible data.., and focus on jokes. I'm sure that psychologists will have a term for this condition This is not a bad thing or illegal. Like a nervous reaction or whatevs. But for someone who is highly productive.., its a mere waste of time. You guys are turning my brain into mush.., sooooo..., slooooow..., geeeeeting.., pooooints.., oooouuut.

I'll do a thread summary and wrap it all up. Thanks for your time everybody.

Quote

Pfft, oh well. I thought you were the only half rational person here.,. but seems this place is completely brain dead.

Everyone here is rational in their own way..No one looks at this with the same pair of rose colored glasses....And no one here is brain dead.  You went off the rails at the mention of clouds and I do not see why...And as you can clearly see by this thread no matter what standards are applied to documenting UFOs there are inherent hazards to the whole phenomena.

Quote

 

Both scoffers and believer teams hate me.., because I challenge both sides equally. We could possibly us the '6 degrees of separation' formula to link all the scoffers with each other.., and all the believers with each other by examining friends / followers. Its obvious what's going on 

 

I don't hate you....

Quote

At least I can now show an attempt was made.., and document the reactions from people showing how emotions have affected the UFO investigation. There is no evidence for UFOs.., because people have already concluded UFOs are not worth looking into. Because there is no evidence. But fail to see there evidence paradox. Making statements like UFO witnesses need to gather "extraordinary evidence".., but then can't actually explain what that is.., or how the achieve this. And don't even want to attempt to try.., ever. At all. (Obvious bias which cannot be refuted).

No..Absolutely they are worth looking into..

Quote

People choose to ignore credible data.., and focus on jokes. I'm sure that psychologists will have a term for this condition This is not a bad thing or illegal. Like a nervous reaction or whatevs. But for someone who is highly productive.., its a mere waste of time. You guys are turning my brain into mush.., sooooo..., slooooow..., geeeeeting.., pooooints.., oooouuut.

When you say credible data what credible data do you speak of?

[stereologist]

There are posters that expect to get away telling outlandish falsehoods such as mountains of credible evidence. That's just bullox and as we have seen the best evidence is poor.

What is the response to showing how poor this mountain of credible evidence is? You are correct it is dismissive, close minded behavior.

What sort of dismissive behavior do we see?

1. The false statement that pointing out that there is no mountain of credible evidence is off-topic. That's a falsehood.
2. Flooding? That's a falsehood.
3. Why waste time with off topic crapola when I can show that the so-called best evidence of this supposed mountain of credible evidence is poor?
4. Claiming someone is avoiding the thread topic. I am not the one making the ridiculous suggestion of a mountain of credible evidence.
5. Claiming that there is something wrong with the information in the links without stating what it is is a clear sign of a dismissive poster. This is the same dismissive close minded method used when confronted with statements by real scientists.
6. The threat of being on ignore. Better than being harrassed with childish name calling PMs sent to me.

The problem with UFOs is that the documentation is poor. I have already pointed out many problems. The problem is quite clear, the evidence is simply not there. No amount of pretending that it needs to be better documented is going to create evidence. 

[stereologist]

There are those that cannot accept that their position is in the minority the majority of the time. This is often due to their lack of understanding of how the world works. They end up attacking others by saying such things as " but seems this place is completely brain dead." 

The issue is that they are lashing out instead of learning. If they stopped their close minded approach and instead turned to learning they'd improve their personal standing. There is the game of pretending not to be a scoffer when in fact they are the worst of the worst. They do not realize that scientists like Tyson are in fact scientists and simply go off on a string of ad hominems as they dispense their dismissive attack.

Oddly enough they rely on a journal article about ECREE in this journal article. "Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?"

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-016-9779-7

The journal article in a philosophy journal is one person's philosophical commentary that in two years managed one citation. That's hardly a groundbreaking article. I'm not sure the insistence on a precise meaning for extraordinary is actually valid. On the other the ECREE statement should not be invoked in a dismissive manner. We'll allow the scoffers to do that.

BTW, the single citation was used in an article on a controversial site suggested to be an archaeological site.

As to the nonsensical suggestion that Tyson only reads and comments on articles written by others please look here because this is Tyson's CV

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/curriculum-vitae#research

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Everyone here is rational in their own way..No one looks at this with the same pair of rose colored glasses....And no one here is brain dead.  You went off the rails at the mention of clouds and I do not see why...And as you can clearly see by this thread no matter what standards are applied to documenting UFOs there are inherent hazards to the whole phenomena.

I don't hate you....

No..Absolutely they are worth looking into..

When you say credible data what credible data do you speak of?

Thanks for bringing up the issue of credible data. There are claims of mountains of credible data and yet the post of the best evidence is a joke.

Here are statements made right here in this thread. That makes it on topic.

1. "I can provide a mountain of evidence"
2. "Similar to the mountain of credible evidence for UFOs."

I pointed out that the best of the best of this supposed mountain of credible evidence is hardly credible. Yet, my posted was supposedly off topic. Probably off topic because it now exposed this claim as the rubbish it is.

[Fila]

Hi Stereo. Still talking about "those people" I see? I hope you and "those people" can sort out your issues.

lol Another day.., another attempt at propaganda.  At least you aren't calling me a liar all the time. I never actually got an apology for that either. ChrLzs blocked me out of embarassment.., but you are just in denial.
The high frequency of posts are proof of this. People who talk crap.., talk a lot. People like me are concise and to the point asap.

It would be great to have a discussion about the threads OP for once.

I'll do a thread summary..,  so I can collate all the great points I have made.

[stereologist]

Not a single relevant on topic post about my posts. What we do see is continued dismissive behavior by the close minded.

As all can see there is no propaganda. There are facts. The facts show that off the cuff remarks such as mountains of credible evidence are rubbish. The off the cuff remark that Tyson only reports on other people's work is rubbish.

Seems we have one spewer of rubbish - a consistent spewer.

[Fila]

Not a single relevant on topic post.., about my posts either. This is just your attempt at derailing threads.

I can prove you were the first one to avoid answering questions in this thread.., and I can prove how this all started in other threads, and show you were the first to avoid questions..., and how I answered every single one.., even when you kept refusing to answer mine.., to the point where you could just keep saying anything.., and I would have to reply otherwise you'd call me every name under the sun.

Its just obvious troll tactics.., designed to waste my time while you avoid being accountable for your actions.

You keep making wild claims.., without backing them up with a rationale or providing an example. I have explained how to work around this.., and you ignore me. OBVIOUS TROLL BEHAVIOUR.

You ignore my requests to keep discussions relative to the threads OP. I have provided links where we can discuss other topics. You keep spamming the same assumptions over multiple threads.., while not actually posting in the thread your discussing. WHY?. OBVIOUS TROLL TACTICS

You keep making accusations I am a liar.., then when shown wrong.., you ignore me. OBVIOUS TROLL TACTICS

You refuse to discuss the OP. Instead bringing up anything.., ANYTHING else. OBVIOUS TROLL.

I think everyone has caught onto your troll patterns.., which is why you don't get any more "likes" on your posts.., even from your team mates. I have asked your peers to step in.., and help moderate your posts. But only 1 person has attempted and failed. So its not looking good for you, sorry. At least I know its not just me. 

 

If anyone else wants to read your posts and pick out some good points.., I'm always up for a chat. I think we'll move forward quicker if someone else can explain it more thoroughly and perhaps provide examples.

See you round Steretrollogist. You are either a troll.., or something else regarding your mental capacity.., which I cannot say without being banned from the forum.

P.S. Will u ever apologise for falsely accusing me of being a liar across countless threads.., now its been shown I wasn't?

Edited June 29, 2018 by Fila

[Horta]

On 6/27/2018 at 5:07 PM, Fila said:

My hypothesis is fine. I didn't assume you said anything about climate change.., if you re-read the post you will clearly see I was making a metaphor like you. I am not demanding anything.., just pointing out that you were avoiding my question / point. And.., I did mean in general regarding your hypothesis. Thank you for admitting it yous is lacking.

You just admitted your hypothesis is flawed. Our friend Dejarma said "We have absolutely no idea what's out there. This is why the use of phrases like: 'highly unlikely/ I doubt etc'  -has IMO no meaningful impact in a discussion of this nature" and I totally agree.

The user Resume posted some great information about why feel this need to label things quickly.., like alien believers do.., well as do scoffers. Its just that neither side can see it. Kinda like two religious fanatics., who simply have no tolerance fore each other. 

I don't think its about 'accepting' each other and all that baloney. Tolerance is about tolerating other people's crap. Even if you don't like it.., you tolerate it. But you can't be a noong about it.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318447-the-inherit-bias-regarding-ufos/?do=findComment&comment=6477056

I meant that my hypothesis is not relevant to this thread.., yet here we are talking about it. It was a joke about being irrelevant. Soz broz. And yea, it does allow me to observe whatever I want. That's a good thing.

Attempting to avoid the evidence paradox...

 

Mkay. I guess that's your way of saying yes Fila.., I see your point or cannot refute it.

I am not going to "research" (and I use that term very loosely here) potential alien lifeforms, or what bigfoot 'may be like'.., in order to look into UFOs. It won't yield anything.., or get me further to finding an actual answer. No amount of reading stories will solve this.

If you wish to side with Condon and hypothesise that UFOs must be BS like bigfoot and nessie etc.., then that's your opinion and approach to the matter. I am not into psychology, but I do know lecturers in that discipline and about the replication crisis  Its a real issue.

I am more hands on.., and thus my tests will be aimed in that direction. My work can be replicated, tested and measured. Your's is all hairy fairy guess work.

 I said..,  I was willing to listen if you could provide sufficient evidence to make it a case. Similar to the mountain of credible evidence for UFOs. Then you come back with this one document claiming I dismissed it? If this document is so overwhelming.,. then what does that say for the evidence surrounding UFOs?

Unless you can link it back to UFOs.., I am not interested. And I don't mean by saying "some" think they are related to UFOs.., then handing me a document that isn't saying that.

PM the article if you want.

When you reach the point where you feel this hypothesis that "some things people see in the sky, are real things that exist" can be supported (sorry, that would be conclusively proven to you personally), it might be worth coming back then. We can then all congratulate you for realising something that normal people would need no hypothesis for because it is an accepted fact and has been well understood and accepted going way back beyond antiquity, which of course includes the roughly the 70 yrs spanning this phenomena lol. 

Then, once you have at least convinced yourself of much, it might be possible to concentrate on the ufo phenomena which is in some ways vaguely relevant to your hypothesis (even if everyone else accepts as a fact of common sense).

It appears that you might be the most biased believer in this thread, no matter how much  (word salad) dressing it is given. 

 

Edited June 29, 2018 by Horta
because

[Fila]

On 29/06/2018 at 4:06 PM, Horta said:

When you reach the point where you feel this hypothesis that "some things people see in the sky, are real things that exist" can be supported (sorry, that would be conclusively proven to you personally), it might be worth coming back then. We can then all congratulate you for realising something that normal people would need no hypothesis for because it is an accepted fact and has been well understood and accepted going way back beyond antiquity, which of course includes the roughly the 70 yrs spanning this phenomena lol. 

Then, once you have at least convinced yourself of much, it might be possible to concentrate on the ufo phenomena which is in some ways vaguely relevant to your hypothesis (even if everyone else accepts as a fact of common sense).

It appears that you might be the most biased believer in this thread, no matter how much  (word salad) dressing it is given. 

 

Dejarma is right

34 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

do you actually understand what this thread is about?

And I guess if ChrLzs is right about me.., then the same rules apply to you.

31 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

It's just Fila's standard strawman. (not discussing the thread topic directly.., but replying to Alien Origins in context)

There you go. Now that's a great unbiased group.., as opposed to a team of people ignoring each others faults.

Care to discuss the actual thread topic?

[Dejarma]

4 minutes ago, Fila said:

Care to discuss the actual thread topic?

not with you

[Fila]

16 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

not with you

Tired of being wrong?

[stereologist]

On 6/16/2018 at 7:25 AM, stereologist said:

There are some basic ideas  to follow:

1. Shake the camera  that's very important

2. Make sure that your report is in conflict with other reports

3. Provide only enough information to make the report of little use

I am quoting myself here. This is exactly what we see in this rash of hoax videos being posted in this forum.

1. The camera is being shaken ruthlessly

2. As I pointed out with the hoax of the UFO during the eclipse we have a claim that is in conflict with the millions of watchers that did not see a UFO.

3. The videos are not being introduced and there is little to go on

How to document UFO sightings? Work hard at making the documentation worthless as we see in the recent slew of videos.