The inherit bias regarding UFOs

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

Hello Psyche101. What gives you that impression? All I have done is be open to getting answers. I have argued both sides since being here.

You always make veiled refrences to ET and say 'that's what some are convinced of' 

When honesty, that's no revelation. We know some people have very active imaginations and for some reason feel a need to role play that out. 

With all the information we have to date, that's just not supported. It doesn't really bear mentioning. It's without doubt a pop culture inspired fantasy. 

If you are really chasing genuine answers that pie in the sky stuff is obviously not it. We have studied earthlights, they are often recorded at volcanoes, we are studying Arial plasmas, and black ops misidentification can only be resolved with time as history shows. UFOs are clearly not space related. That's one obvious avenue to see as a very uikely option when we do have studies in meteorology that will assist with understanding the phenomena.

And then there's the phenomena itself, earthlights seem to differ from plasmas and again from things like cloud reflections. There's no one size fits all answer to the UFO question, each case is individual. But we do have Hessdalen lights, Min Mins plasmas and a wide range of natural phenomena to consider and point us in a direction at the very least. 

1 hour ago, Fila said:

Please quote where I have said UFOs are alien spaceships. Otherwise please refrain from making false accusations without providing proof.

Thank you.

In the OP you made one of those offhand references. 

Here. 

Scoffers will say all UFO reports are lies, hoaxes and mis-IDs of known objects.., and we should stop looking into it. There is anger towards people who look into it.

Believers know ETs are here.., and don't feel the need to prove it scientifically. Its up to humans to "wake-up" whatever that means.

I am what science calls a sceptic. I can look at both sides objectively..,

In the first point, I'm sorry I just don't believe that. Some might consider the interest a complete waste of time, but I'm yet to see someone a get angry and advise against further investigation 

Right there your admitting to giving the woo stories credence. There's no objectivity with the likes of Hastings, Lazar or Freidman. It's a pop culture cash cow. I know some reputable people make wild statements such as Ed Mitchell, but let's face it, they have nothing more than hopes and dreams or this discussion would not be happening. 

And your applying the old 

If you not with us your against us

With your inaccurate reference to what you label scoffers. It doesn't matter why people think, evidence is evidence and has to be recognised upon its validity, everything genuinely associated with the UFO phenomenon that we have learned about is natural and earthly in origin. 

It just seems awful strange to be seeking answers where people post wild stories as opposed to the science section and Google scholar. 

[lost_shaman]

On 5/31/2018 at 6:24 PM, ChrLzs said:

If all they do is zoom about unidentifiably, then even if they are doing it, they might as well not exist as they have no effect on reality.

I'm sure there are some other life forms out there, but.. intelligent? spacefaring? able to reach us, let alone find us?  Not so far.

ChrLzs,

Think about the alternative that many of discuss. UAP. A UAP is not proven to be Aleinz, or intelligent (although they tend to act strangely), there is no evidence these are "spacefaring" that I'm aware of. Almost 100% of these seem to leave no trace or evidence other than people witness them. They don't seem to effect the environment or the people who witness them with a very small percentage acting on the environment or people who have close encounters. I would estimate the later at no more than 0.02% maybe even less.

So the ETH doesn't seem plausible, so some other hypothesis is bound to be more likely. Rather than consider this likely possibility that the ETH is not true you and you pals constantly berate witnesses to the Phenomena and have no interest in understanding what the Phenomena is be it some self sustaining Atmospheric Plasma or other rare phenomena. 

If someone proved UAP absolutely did not conform to the ETH, do you think I'd be any less curious as to my close encounter with a UAP? That's a rhetorical question because I'd be no less interested in explaining the UAP I witnessed! The ETH had some merit at one time but now it's simply used as a Strawman argument against the entire Phenomena!

[stereologist]

19 hours ago, Fila said:

I cannot provide, because I don't think I said that. How about you show me, seeing as you know all about it.

I attempted to gather all reports for review.., but no one else seems interested. You speak with 100% certainty about how many witnesses there were.., and what they all saw. To make such a big call, I assume you have read all reports from witnesses. Can you please provide a link to your source material? Thanks.

I have been very clear from the start that witness statements were NOT consistent. I have been very clear all along that witnesses did not agree on a huge number of factors including: height, speed, number of lights, color of lights, shape, sound, and so forth.

Links to witness reports have been produced and I see you have not examined them otherwise you'd know that to be the case.

You have tried to suggest that the object was large yet cannot show that to be the case. You once tried to claim that witnesses reported a vee shape yet could not support that claim. You now try to suggest a triangle yet cannot support that. 

You now suggest that you have no access to witness reports so where are you getting any of these statements?

I provided reasons for the PL being planes and you scoff at that without any rational reason.

Here is what you wrote in this thread

Quote

I attempted to gather all reports for review..

So how many did you find? I don't think you found any and you certainly did not examine what was provided. Had you done that then you too would know that the PL witnesses reported all sorts of inconsistent statements.

[Old Ugh]

Scientists estimate there are thousands of alien civilisations in our galaxy alone, so the maths say yes, aliens do exist..:)

"According to Drake, the average of people's best estimates suggests that there are about 10,000 technically advanced civilisations spread across our galaxy"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/universe/questions_and_ideas/drake_equation

[Dejarma]

27 minutes ago, Old Ugh said:

Scientists estimate there are thousands of alien civilisations in our galaxy alone, so the maths say yes, aliens do exist..:)

the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is not in question here

[Old Ugh]

3 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is not in question here

Well if we're all agreed on that, what's this thread for?..;)

[Dejarma]

25 minutes ago, Old Ugh said:

Well if we're all agreed on that, what's this thread for?..;)

are they here on earth?

[Old Ugh]

30 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

are they here on earth?

Depends what we mean by "aliens"..:)

For example oldfashioned words for them could include "angels" or "demons"-

"Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels unawares" (Bible:Hebrews 13:2)

[Minimalists]

Not a religion thread either.

[Dejarma]

1 hour ago, Old Ugh said:

Depends what we mean by "aliens"..:)

read through this thread & tell us all what you think we mean by aliens...

[ChrLzs]

12 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

{rather obvious statements removed, as they didn't address what I said (as usual)....}

...you and you pals constantly berate witnesses to the Phenomena and have no interest in understanding what the Phenomena is be it some self sustaining Atmospheric Plasma or other rare phenomena. 

If that is happening REPORT the dam posts or QUOTE the dam posts so we can look at the full context of this alleged beration.

I'm sick of this sort of handwaved hogwash - so, yeah, consider yourself berated.  When I complain about behavior, I do it AT THE TIME, and I QUOTE the behavior.  Maybe you should try that or just toughen up and take your petty dislike of me somewhere else.

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, Old Ugh said:

Scientists estimate there are thousands of alien civilisations in our galaxy alone, so the maths say yes, aliens do exist..:)

"According to Drake, the average of people's best estimates suggests that there are about 10,000 technically advanced civilisations spread across our galaxy"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/universe/questions_and_ideas/drake_equation

It should be pointed out that the Drake equation uses a series of probabilities all of which are made up and not based on facts. It even states that in the link. We just don't know. About all we do know is that all of the factors are nonzero.

[Fila]

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You always make veiled refrences to ET and say 'that's what some are convinced of' 

When honesty, that's no revelation. We know some people have very active imaginations and for some reason feel a need to role play that out. 

You said that I don't want answers. I asked why you think this? You reply above doesn't really make much sense to me. Sorry, can you elaborate?

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

With all the information we have to date, that's just not supported. It doesn't really bear mentioning. It's without doubt a pop culture inspired fantasy. 

Another person trying to dissuade me from looking into UFOs. Yeesh, thanks for your opinions, but I'll be right hey.

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

If you are really chasing genuine answers that pie in the sky stuff is obviously not it. We have studied earthlights, they are often recorded at volcanoes, we are studying Arial plasmas, and black ops misidentification can only be resolved with time as history shows.

Sure, that's all interesting stuff. Beats watching TV hey. Thanks for your input.

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

UFOs are clearly not space related.

I agree UFO are not space related. They seem more localised to Earth.

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

There's no one size fits all answer to the UFO question, each case is individual. 

I agree. 

18 hours ago, psyche101 said:

In the OP you made one of those offhand references. 

Scoffers will say all UFO reports are lies, hoaxes and mis-IDs of known objects.., and we should stop looking into it. There is anger towards people who look into it.

Believers know ETs are here.., and don't feel the need to prove it scientifically. Its up to humans to "wake-up" whatever that means.

I am what science calls a sceptic. I can look at both sides objectively..,

I asked you to quote where I said UFOs are alien spaceships. You have not done this.

I will ask again.., can you please provide an example? If not.., please refrain from making false accusations about me.

18 hours ago, psyche101 said:

In the first point, I'm sorry I just don't believe that. Some might consider the interest a complete waste of time, but I'm yet to see someone a get angry and advise against further investigation 

I can start a new thread about it and provide examples if you like.

18 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Right there your admitting to giving the woo stories credence

Really? Please explain how.

[Fila]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

It should be pointed out that the Drake equation uses a series of probabilities all of which are made up and not based on facts. It even states that in the link. We just don't know. About all we do know is that all of the factors are nonzero.

lol stereo. Of course we don't know. That's why its a theory.

The probabilities are made up? Not based on facts? Can you please go into more detail? What did they make up?

[Fila]

6 hours ago, stereologist said:

Links to witness reports have been produced and I see you have not examined them otherwise you'd know that to be the case.

You speak with 100% certainty about how many witnesses there were.., and what they all saw. To make such a big call, I assume you have read all reports from witnesses.

How many reports did you look into?

Edited June 8, 2018 by Fila

[Tim Hebert]

7 hours ago, Old Ugh said:

Scientists estimate there are thousands of alien civilisations in our galaxy alone, so the maths say yes, aliens do exist..:)

"According to Drake, the average of people's best estimates suggests that there are about 10,000 technically advanced civilisations spread across our galaxy"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/universe/questions_and_ideas/drake_equation

Quote

 

The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the first scientific meeting on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).

Criticism related to the Drake equation focuses not on the equation itself, but on the fact that the estimated values for several of its factors are highly conjectural, the combined effect being that the uncertainty associated with any derived value is so large that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions.

 

The above from wiki which gives a decent synopsis of how the equation came to be.  It's more of a tool derived from speculation and conjecture.  You can put any number in the equation and come up with something as long as "0" is not in the equation (game over!)  Drake is probably more known for his equation rather than being the "father" of the SETI program.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

lol stereo. Of course we don't know. That's why its a theory.

The probabilities are made up? Not based on facts? Can you please go into more detail? What did they make up?

Actually, it's not a theory. It's an equation and it's not based on facts.

What did they make up? Seriously? What didn't they make up?

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

You speak with 100% certainty about how many witnesses there were.., and what they all saw. To make such a big call, I assume you have read all reports from witnesses.

How many reports did you look into?

How did you look into before you came up with the claim that the shape was a vee?

How many reports did you look at before suggesting large and a triangle?

I'll bet I looked at 1000 more than you.

[Resume]

3 hours ago, Fila said:

lol stereo. Of course we don't know. That's why its a theory.

The probabilities are made up? Not based on facts? Can you please go into more detail? What did they make up?

A theory in science is a framework of facts that explain an observed phenomenon.  It isn't a guess.

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Fila said:

You said that I don't want answers. I asked why you think this? You reply above doesn't really make much sense to me. Sorry, can you elaborate?

1. You cite the witnesses claiming alien spaceships 

2. Your looking in UFO forums as opposed to academic sources who are slowly but surely providing answers to the questions you are asking. 

3 hours ago, Fila said:

Another person trying to dissuade me from looking into UFOs. Yeesh, thanks for your opinions, but I'll be right hey.

How on earth do you see that as dissuading you? I'm saying your motives don't appear genuine and that the pop culture side seems to be more what your looking at rather than genuine avenues. I feel the Phoenix case really illustrated this beyond doubt. Go for it, woo away to your hearts content  Im not saying stop it, I'm saying your approach does not appear to be what you are making it out to be. A closet believer if you will. It's how your posts read whether you intend that or not. 

3 hours ago, Fila said:

Sure, that's all interesting stuff. Beats watching TV hey. Thanks for your input.

Its going to provide the answers you claim to be seeking. 

3 hours ago, Fila said:

I agree UFO are not space related. They seem more localised to Earth.

Then why seek out ufo site as opposed to earth sciences? 

3 hours ago, Fila said:

I agree. 

I asked you to quote where I said UFOs are alien spaceships. You have not done this.

You stated that you look at both sides objectively. What does woo have to do with a realistic  serious answer to the UFO question? 

3 hours ago, Fila said:

I will ask again.., can you please provide an example? If not.., please refrain from making false accusations about me.

In the passage I quoted you clearly state believers have their story and skeptics another and that you can consider both. Well the skeptical explanations offer the most likely and logical conclusion so I fail how there even can be objectivity when considering both. 

3 hours ago, Fila said:

I can start a new thread about it and provide examples if you like.

Knock yourself out. 

3 hours ago, Fila said:

Really? Please explain how.

I can look at both sides objectively..,

[Fila]

7 hours ago, stereologist said:

Actually, it's not a theory. It's an equation and it's not based on facts.

What did they make up? Seriously? What didn't they make up?

The drake equation is an equation. That's true, I agree. I meant the idea of aliens is a theory.., of course we don't know for sure. 

You said its not based on facts. Can you tell me what they made up. You haven't actually answered my question. I will just keep asking....

7 hours ago, stereologist said:

How did you look into before you came up with the claim that the shape was a vee?

How many reports did you look at before suggesting large and a triangle?

I'll bet I looked at 1000 more than you.

Stereo I am trying to get answers from you.., but you do a great job of dragging things out.

You speak with 100% certainty about how many witnesses there were.., and what they all saw. To make such a big call, I assume you have read all reports from witnesses.

How many reports did you look into? Can you please provide a link.

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

The drake equation is an equation. That's true, I agree. I meant the idea of aliens is a theory.., of course we don't know for sure. 

You said its not based on facts. Can you tell me what they made up. You haven't actually answered my question. I will just keep asking....

Stereo I am trying to get answers from you.., but you do a great job of dragging things out.

You speak with 100% certainty about how many witnesses there were.., and what they all saw. To make such a big call, I assume you have read all reports from witnesses.

How many reports did you look into? Can you please provide a link.

 

Look at the Drake equation. Which of the probabilities are knowable? Any of them?

Take f sub l, the fraction of planets on which like appears. Do you think that is knowable? Do you think that can be anything other than a wild guess?

The "idea of aliens is a theory" is not a scientific theory. It is a theory as the word is used in the vernacular, a wild eyed guess with no supporting facts.

Your wrote " You speak with 100% certainty about how many witnesses there were " where did you get that notion? That's simply not true. This is just another example of something you made up and are pretending is true. I read around 1000 witness reports and it describes "and what they all saw"

The number of reports I looked over give me a pretty good idea of the wide range of statements made. Now I know from all of the posts you make that you never bothered to look at any reports at all yet you made a claim of vee, which was not mentioned by many witnesses. You made that up probably from Tim Ley's report. I know you'll claim you don't know who that is but the simple fact of the matter is that his report has been presented to you many times. For you to claim you don't know who that is, which you've done multiple times, simply tells all that you know nothing at all about the Phoenix Lights.

The link to the reports was in the Phoenix Lights thread. Go find it.

[Fila]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

1. You cite the witnesses claiming alien spaceships 

2. Your looking in UFO forums as opposed to academic sources who are slowly but surely providing answers to the questions you are asking. 

I am not understanding you for some reason. I don't want answers.., because I cite the witness claiming alien spaceships. I'm sorry, where did this happen? Can you please provide an example.

As for number 2.., I have looked through Proquest and other databases, but there isn't much there. I am not relying on a UFO forum for information. I know that's the excuse some people have claimed.., but I realise that IF there is ever going to be a scientific breakthrough.., its going to be on the news, tv, radio, papers long before its posted on a forum.

Seeing as we are discussing this.., why do you come to this forum?

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

How on earth do you see that as dissuading you?  Then why seek out ufo site as opposed to earth sciences? 

When you said "If you are really chasing genuine answers that pie in the sky stuff is obviously not it." Saying its all BS and to not look into it. Telling me what UFOs really are.., and to look into "earthlights and plasmas etc" to find the answers. I disagree, and have my own plan of attack. Thank you though for your advice.

Rather than concluding what UFOs are.., and looking into "earthlights" and black ops tech.., I'll do the opposite and ask what are UFOs.

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You stated that you look at both sides objectively. What does woo have to do with a realistic  serious answer to the UFO question? 

Before I go on.., what is woo?

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

In the passage I quoted you clearly state believers have their story and skeptics another and that you can consider both. Well the skeptical explanations offer the most likely and logical conclusion so I fail how there even can be objectivity when considering both. 

What is "most likely" will always be based on what we currently know.

To use this 'logic' to form conclusions means we can never discover new things.., because it's "most likely" something we already know.

I cannot disprove the ETH scientifically, so it is still on the table. Its a theory. An option. Just as valid as the rest. To ignore options is biased. I am not biased. To remove a hypothesis as being an option is very strange. 

Why is there so much effort spent trying to have the ETH removed as an option?

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I can look at both sides objectively..,

I disagree that looking objectively is giving "woo" stories credence.
I read a lot of UFO reports. I don't really see UFO witnesses claiming they saw an ETV as much as its made out to be.

They are claiming they saw a UFO. To say they saw an ETV is wrong.., but most UFO reports I have read.., the witnesses don't say they saw an ETV.., they saw a UFO.

Even if we asked a UFO witness what they think it could have been.., they will not know and that should be their answer. But if they say it could be black ops project. ., then I guess that's okay. It still doesn't mean their sighting was fake.., they just think the AIrforce tests highly classified aircraft over civilian areas.

Even if a UFO witness says it could have been an ETV.., that's their opinion.., but its still a UFO. They are entitled to that opinion.., just as much as you are entitled to your opinion that its impossible for any UFO to be ET owned.., and just as entitled to my opinion that it could be anything. Including some form of energy, government owned, or even other strange theories like ET. Its just a theory.., and a cool one. Highly unlikely.., but still always a possibility. If not yet, sometime in the future.

Looking into all ideas is what I am being taught at university. If I can show all possibilities, and thoroughly explain each side without putting my own judgements into it, and remain unbiased. then I get top marks. Arguing one side will only get me a PASS.

[Fila]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Look at the Drake equation. Which of the probabilities are knowable? Any of them?

Take f sub l, the fraction of planets on which like appears. Do you think that is knowable? Do you think that can be anything other than a wild guess?

Yes of course. The variables are not made up though hey. Its just because we don't really know how many life supporting planets are out there etc etc. The figures are are just estimated.., but its still based on facts about what we do know regarding the universe and life.

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

The "idea of aliens is a theory" is not a scientific theory. It is a theory as the word is used in the vernacular, a wild eyed guess with no supporting facts.

I dunno. I think NASA is pretty keen to find alien life. They are not denying anything.., or refusing to look just because the idea is silly. One would assume the amount of time, money and effort spent.., they would have scientific reasons for doing so.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/finding-life-beyond-earth-is-within-reach

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/our-living-planet-shapes-the-search-for-life-beyond-earth

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Where did you get that notion? That's simply not true. This is just another example of something you made up and are pretending is true.

When you state "they were clearly planes"

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

I read around 1000 witness reports and it describes "and what they all saw" The link to the reports was in the Phoenix Lights thread. Go find it.

Thank you for replying finally. I think that is a great idea. Let's discuss this in the PL thread.

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Now I know from all of the posts you make that you never bothered to look at any reports at all yet you made a claim of vee, which was not mentioned by many witnesses. You made that up probably from Tim Ley's report.

I will show you my attempts at getting the reports, and quote them in the PL thread.

I am not going off Tim Ley. Just the media reports and other first hand witness testimony I have seen.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

20 minutes ago, Fila said:

Yes of course. The variables are not made up though hey. Its just because we don't really know how many life supporting planets are out there etc etc. The figures are are just estimated.., but its still based on facts about what we do know regarding the universe and life.

I dunno. I think NASA is pretty keen to find alien life. They are not denying anything.., or refusing to look just because the idea is silly. One would assume the amount of time, money and effort spent.., they would have scientific reasons for doing so.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/finding-life-beyond-earth-is-within-reach

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/our-living-planet-shapes-the-search-for-life-beyond-earth

When you state "they were clearly planes"

Thank you for replying finally. I think that is a great idea. Let's discuss this in the PL thread.

I will show you my attempts at getting the reports, and quote them in the PL thread.

I am not going off Tim Ley. Just the media reports and other first hand witness testimony I have seen.

It doesn't matter if the equation is composed of variables. That is what equations are composed of: constants and variables. As you say "we don't really know". That is why the values are made up. The values are not estimates. An estimate would be based on data. There is no data. It is  not based on facts as you state. The numbers are made up.

Please show any alien theory that is a scientific theory that is based on facts or explains facts. Looking for signs of life in the universe is not based on a scientific theory. It is simply looking. 

You keep placing demands on me. Well it is time for you to receive the same treatment. I demand that you answer the following question.

"Your wrote " You speak with 100% certainty about how many witnesses there were " where did you get that notion? "

The first event of the Phoenix Lights is clearly planes. Facts such as video evidence, telescopic viewing, sounds, speed, altitude, etc. tell us that it is planes. 

You have made comments in this thread that the object was a triangle when asked where you came to that idea you went silent. You went silent because you simply posted something you saw online. You probably went to some inane UFO site and reported what they stated. That's probably why you reported a vee shape previously. Look at the witness statements and try to come up with some consensus statement. When you see the reports you'll be amazed at their complete lack of consistency.