The inherit bias regarding UFOs

[Fila]

59 minutes ago, Horta said:

I think the poll is a bit superficial, offers an unrealistically limited range of answers and is therefore possibly misleading. I'll await a response.

Oh, not the whole poll. Just from question number 2.

Yea, I will get more examples. Just been a bit busy tonight.

59 minutes ago, Horta said:

You are under the mistaken assumption that to be a sceptic you must begin from the point that any claim has a 50/50 probability of being true/ untrue. This isn't so. 

No. There are a few theories on what UFOs could be. More than two. Its best not to come into a subject with bias. Just look at the history of sugar companies, tobacco, and mining companies using scientists to conduct bias studies.

59 minutes ago, Horta said:

I didn't read a nessie post. Though the only difference between aliens and bigfoot is as follows... bigfoot has a far better standard of evidence in support of it's existence (as non compelling as that in itself might be).

That's ok. I often jump to the last page of long threads. Some people rely on people like us.., and always ensure they spam their attacks hoping we will read it and assume Fila must have been lying.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318447-the-inherit-bias-regarding-ufos/?do=findComment&comment=6473038

59 minutes ago, Horta said:

Yet you simply "scoffed", jumped to a conclusion and dismissed its validity...  Despite being 100% ignorant of the specific event or the research. This is being an open minded skeptic in the same way that Liberace was straight lol.

I still would not have believed him unless it was proven, based on the little I knew about the bug incident. If it can be sufficiently proven.., then I would believe.

59 minutes ago, Horta said:

The whole point is that it was shown to be as claimed. You have concluded it doesn't and dismissed it without any knowledge of it at all.....Again, the term "proof" only points to a personal acceptance/ non acceptance. People can find "proof" that jesus loves and cares for them in a cloud formation.

That's what I mean. Not rigorous scientific analysis by a team of crack scientists... I just wouldn't believe them.., I would need to check how the study was conducted.., read more than the abstract and conclusion. If I find a flaw in their method, then no.

59 minutes ago, Horta said:

Let me put a possibility to you..." at least some ufo sightings are likely to be explainable by cognitive science, while the entirety of alien experience claims are relevant only to cognitive science". Could you provide anything in the way of evidence that would rule this out? I can at least provide examples where such things have happened for psychological reasons, accepted as fact by professionals and the experiencer. It isn't that uncommon.

I only brought up that researchers should at least have some grounding in basic cognitive science, because it is relevant. Why would you find this so offensive?

I don't get into that stuff hey...

Perhaps I should make that my signature as people confuse my interest in UFOs with Aliens, bigfoot and ghosts.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Fila

[Horta]

That's fair enough, though the ufo community overwhelmingly uses this phenomena to infer aliens, so to that extent it can be considered paranormal regardless how you view it. 

As to ufo's, while people do see things they can't explain, the subject really seems little more than that. With novel human craft, mistake/ misperception of mundane phenomena, hoax and delusion the most plausible explanation for it. In other words, it's folklore IMO.

That this seems unsatisfying to you as an explanation doesn't really matter. Arguing with skeptics over some imaginary philosophical way to view things, simply because you claim to, isn't convincing in an way.

I do find it interesting that you eschew research that offers highly probable/plausible explanations as worthless, while at the same time give great weight to what are really no more than stories. Yes, it is possible that all of these "reliable observers" are wrong. Though what seems more important is that as yet not one of the "can't be explained by human technology" claims has ever been shown to be right. It's difficult task you have given yourself.

Though it's great that you have taken this on. It would be great if aliens were piloting craft around earth.

[Minimalists]

14 minutes ago, Horta said:

That's fair enough, though the ufo community overwhelmingly uses this phenomena to infer aliens, so to that extent it can be considered paranormal regardless how you view it. 

As to ufo's, while people do see things they can't explain, the subject really seems little more than that. With novel human craft, mistake/ misperception of mundane phenomena, hoax and delusion the most plausible explanation for it. In other words, it's folklore IMO.

That this seems unsatisfying to you as an explanation doesn't really matter. Arguing with skeptics over some imaginary philosophical way to view things, simply because you claim to, isn't convincing in an way.

I do find it interesting that you eschew research that offers highly probable/plausible explanations as worthless, while at the same time give great weight to what are really no more than stories. Yes, it is possible that all of these "reliable observers" are wrong. Though what seems more important is that as yet not one of the "can't be explained by human technology" claims has ever been shown to be right. It's difficult task you have given yourself.

Though it's great that you have taken this on. It would be great if aliens were piloting craft around earth.

Well as Neil Degrasse Tyson puts it "the human perception system is rife with all ways of getting it wrong." He also says that we are poor data taking devices. In the video he talks about this:

https://youtu.be/NSJElZwEI8o

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by Alien Origins

[+OverSword]

13 hours ago, Fila said:

1. First thing.., you are required to provide examples of me being a "believer".., otherwise you are simply going around making false accusations against random people you don't know anything about.

The first question is what leads me to believe this.  If you see something in the sky and don't know what it is where is the need to lie or hoax it?  IMO you have presented it, that rather than someone saying I don't know what that is they have either lied about it, are being deceitful or have misidentified it.  But misidentified what?  An airplane?  A bird?  No, you are surely implying space craft.

 

13 hours ago, Fila said:

2. Please explain with examples how I am a zealot. Please explain in point form what steps I would need to take in order to look into UFOs objectively? I would consider reading this thread before replying. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318431-how-to-document-ufo-sightings/
So far.., I am the only true sceptic around. If anything.., those who have formed a conclusion.., and persistently argue their side are people I would consider Zealot.

Okay then, uninformed believer if you prefer.

13 hours ago, Fila said:

Those that come here day after day.., to a sub-forum called Extra-terrestrial like and the UFO phenomenon.., just to spam the exact same spiel every day. That is a Zealot.

Anyway.., yea I have an agenda. That is to look into UFO objectively and scientifically. I think its time people stopped getting angry and all worked up over my honest attempts.., and take a look in the mirror and ask yourselves.., what is your agenda?

If any of this were true then you would recognize that I and others like me are the ones looking at it objectively and scientifically.  If you were looking at it scientifically you would recognize the entirely unscientific nature of question number three, which is anything but an honest attempt at getting an honest answer it's a trap to get a particular answer.  How is that scientific?

 

14 hours ago, Fila said:

I am trying to move forward scientifically and objectively. This is very obvious in my post history and threads started.
I have realised that its actually people like yourself who ruin UFO study by relying on eye-witness testimony to form a conclusion. Not realising this is an incorrect method. I would estimate that 99.9% of all members here are the same, regardless of which 'team' they are on. 

I have no choice but start boycotting those who display bias for either side.

I did not come up with my opinion by relying on eye-witness testimony, I came to  my conclusion based on:

• what we know about physics
• our understanding of evolution and the mathematical and other difficulties that could lead to the evolution of intelligence
• and the immenseness of both time and space 

You are the one rejecting reasoned scientific conclusions my friend, not I.  You somehow have mistaken assumptions based on things impossible to prove as science.

[Horta]

20 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

Well as Neil Degrasse Tyson puts it "the human perception system is rife with all ways of getting it wrong." He also says that we are poor data taking devices. In the video below he talks about this:

 

That's an excellent video, he makes some great points.

Though if he were here, he would be just another scoffer .

[Minimalists]

25 minutes ago, Horta said:

That's an excellent video, he makes some great points.

Though if he were here, he would be just another scoffer .

Quote

Though if he were here, he would be just another scoffer .

Very true. Very true indeed.

[Horta]

7 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

Very true. Very true indeed.

I particularly liked his sentiment about the Roswell aliens.

Navigate their way across light years of interstellar space with incredible technology,  through the oort cloud, the kuiper belt, past the gaseous giants, van allen belts, into earths atmosphere...

Then crash.

Sounds legit .

[freetoroam]

6 minutes ago, Horta said:

I particularly liked his sentiment about the Roswell aliens.

Navigate their way across light years of interstellar space with incredible technology,  through the oort cloud, the kuiper belt, past the gaseous giants, van allen belts, into earths atmosphere...

Then crash.

Sounds legit .

I have been saying this for years. You got to be a pretty good pilot to make it through the Universe, reach Earth, but then you mess it all up by forgetting to break.

[Minimalists]

1 minute ago, Horta said:

I particularly liked his sentiment about the Roswell aliens.

Navigate their way across light years of interstellar space with incredible technology,  through the oort cloud, the kuiper belt, past the gaseous giants, van allen belts, into earths atmosphere...

Then crash.

Sounds legit .

Yeah I really like some of his analogies...Watch some this.

 

[Fila]

8 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Well as Neil Degrasse Tyson puts it "the human perception system is rife with all ways of getting it wrong." He also says that we are poor data taking devices. In the video he talks about this:

https://youtu.be/NSJElZwEI8o

8 hours ago, Horta said:

That's an excellent video, he makes some great points.

Though if he were here, he would be just another scoffer .

 

Wow, this guy is pathetic. I always figured he wasn't a real scientist who does anything. He just reads articles.., and reports on other people's findings.

As the saying goes.., those who can't do.., teach. He isn't even a good teacher. He is a bad lecturer.

 

Tysons claims are in bold. My resopnses are not.

0:35 UFO remember that the U stands for Unidentified.
But then proceeds to use UFO to mean alien. This is a huge issue that keeps popping up. I discuss UFOs and get accused of discussing aliens all the time. Then the same people will say U stands for Unknown. So its a subconscious thing people do that keeps going around in circles.

0:48 - Psychologists know all about "it".
Know all about "it"? I cannot find one research paper that proves  "we are uncomfortable being ignorant" nor can I find any correlation with this and why people formed a ETH. The eth is based on a theory that alien life exists (which most scientists agree on). Where is the psychological link?

This is a huuuuge stretch to make. I know of highly educated scientists that support (or at least don't dismiss) the ETH.
These people are not ignorant. That's just a rude and false accusation with no substance designed to belittle anyone with an opinion that differs.

He speaks of making an argument from ignorance.., then proceeds to lead by example. He cannot dismiss the ETH logically.., so he goes into personal attack mode. When you can't discuss the facts.., start personal attacks.

He makes it seem like an impossible theory to form.., yet in the same breath contradicts himself by saying "we live at the boundary between what is known and unknown in the universe".

So although its wrong to say UFOs must be ET.., he is just as wrong to dismiss the idea based on his contradiction.

 

1:10 -  Someone see's a UFO. They say "I don't know what it is, it must be alien."
This only explains biased believers who see something strange and automatically classify it as alien in real time while making the observation.
However I think he is twisting the majority of UFO witnessess into one category. I think it might be beneficial to start a new thread showing original UFO reports.., and how very few claim "IT MUST BE ALIEN" in their original UFO report.

If someone wants to side with the ETH after making a UFO report.., then that's completely different. People are entitled to their opinions.., and it doesn't negate the report.

If someone sees a UFO and afterwards someone asks what do you think it was. They are allowed to say I think its not from this world.., and that's their opinion.

If they say it MUST be from outer space.., then that's bias.
Just as saying UFOs cannot be ET is biased.

2:00 - Every single journalists article begins with scientists have to go back to a drawing board. But they are always at the drawing board. 
This is not true. Scientists have set conclusions, and DO get challenged all the time, and have to do exactly that. Go back to the "drawing board" is an expression he is taking literally.

Also.., I would say he is being dramatic again with his statistics. I don't recall a majority or even a minority of journalists articles stating this. He is being dramatic to make his points seem more valid.

2:25 - If you're not at the drawing board, you're not making discoveries. You're something else. 
This is good advice. he should take it. This is a direct contradiction to everything he is saying about being ignorant, and shows how biased he really is. What has he discovered? If he hasn't made any.., he is "something else". A science journalist.

2:50 - Secondly, we know that the lowest form of evidence is eyewitness testimony
Early astronomy was simply observations. Most discoveries are initial observations. The trick is to move past the observation, create a hypothesis and test it. Not dwell on the observations. This is scientific bias. Not open to looking objectively or attempt moving forward.

3:08 - Which is scary because that is some of the highest form of evidence in the court of law.
It is not the hightest form of evidence in the court of law. In fact, it would probably be the lowest under polygraph tests, surveillance footage, audio recording, ducumented facts, DNA samples, fingerprints etc.

UFO witnesses cannot take samples to be tested and can only provide statements and an image. Otherwise, what else can be done?

He is contradicting himself and setting up his tests to fail.

"I need more proof from witnesses.., but they are bad. But I need more.., but can't get. etc etc."

3:20 - .Telephone whispers (relying on sound, passed onto many people) explains why first hand eye witness testimonies are untrustworthy. 
This is a game played by children, and relies on the copying of information verbally between numerous people. The original report is never heard.., and we rely on the 20th kid to tell us what happened. UFO reports are visually sighted, and reported first hand by adults. Not by the 20th person they told. There is no connection.

To make this comparison is soooooo effing lazy. This guy is pathetic. Technically to make a call like this.., you would need to replicate the 'study' with airforce personnel, trained observers and reputable witnesses including scientists, astronomers, police, and more.

This just shows how weak his research procedures are.., and amplifies his bias regarding UFOs.

4:06 - It would not matter if you saw a flying saucer. In science, you cannot simply say you saw something. You need to prove it. Go home and come back with the evidence.
This is the main problem wrapped up nicely. A catch 22. A study paradox. Another argument from ignorance. 
Scientists won't look into UFOs.., because there isn't enough physical evidence.

Its up to the witness to prove they saw a UFO. How is a UFO witness (not a scientist) meant to gather further data?
If I gathered some alien DNA or whatever.., I wouldn't need this douche to look into UFOs.., as I already have the evidence.

He wants me to do the hard work.., so he can gloat about it on public television and ride off others success. All with the attitude that "its obvious the whole time". What a knob head.

4:55 -. Human perception gets things wrong. Books on optical illusions should be called brain failures. And UFO sightings are brain failures.
No. They are called optical illusions. Purposely trying to re-word things in an attempt to make it fit your opinion is called bias.
The magic eye books relied on people purposely going "cross eyed" in order to create a 3D effect. Unless people are staring at the sky cross-eyed.., I don't see how this is relevant.

I have yet to find any "optical illusion" that can create a UFO. Many have tried (i.e. Phoenix Lights) but can only provide weak examples of optical illusions that require very specific conditions to work.., that are not present in the real world.
Its just a weak attempt at linking any illusion to UFOs. Nothing specific. Very lazy.

5:25 - We are poor data taking devices.
Yet.., he won't look into UFOs until a witness can prove it. So he has created a contradiction.,. that means he never has to look into it. Nice job.

5:30. That's why we have science. Because we have machines that will get the data right.
Ignore witness testimony.., because machines are better? Better at collecting data on UFOs? But to get the machines out there looking.., we first need a reason. First.., we need people to see an event. This is backwards logic being twisted. 

Listen to claims.., and design experiments to test. What does he suggest. Not reporting anything.., and going home quitting my day job and design my own UFO observation station?

As he mentions a lot.., he won't do any of this.., until witnesses provide the proof. 
The research paradox summed up nicely by Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

6:00 - If you saw a UFO / ETV I need more than witness testimony and photographs. 
I totally agree. I think this quote should be read by everyone here who maintains the stance that viewing witness testimony is enough to form a conclusion.
If you are then going to argue that you're entitled tyo your opinion.., please note the hypocrisy and double standards placed on people with their opinions it could be ET.

6:30 - Scientists will not study UFOs.., until an abductee steals technology from an an advanced alien spaceship. Until then, we can't do anything.
This is a beautiful example of an argument from ignorance. Perfect representation of attitudes and 'logical thinking'.
He just said "The evidence thus far does not satisfy the standards of evidence that any scientists would require for any other claim."
The standards of evidence jumps extremely high for UFO witnesses however. This is a great example of hypocricy, bias and double standards. An argument from ignorance.

8:15 - Astronomers are "always looking up".
This is a huuuuge misconception. Astronomers don't stare at the sky.., or stare through a telescope for hours scanning the sky.
When Astronomers are looking through a telescope, zoomed in on a fixed location, which covers a tiny percentage of a distant part of outer space.., they look, observe the distant star formations.., and record the data. This is why astronomers do not see UFOs.,. even if they were 50 metres away.

The UFO phenomenon is more localised, generally reported being 7000 ft and under..,  which would be like moving a pen or even a hand past a pair binoculars, and you see nothing but a blur (if that) as if the hand did not pass by the binoculars at all. They also do not see 100% coverage of the sky.., its like a pin hole in a piece of paper, but focused way out into space. This is why someone standing outside the observatory would see a UFO, but the astronomer didn't (but could see Venus, therefore it was Venus).

Astronomers do not really look through telescopes as much as everybody thinks. This is more of a romanticised version of what we think happens. the very few remote stations are accessed via SSH or VNC on a computer wherever you live.

Competition for telescope time is fiercely prioritised. Even if you as an astronomer managed to snag 2 hours next week, you would be focused on your specific task of studying a distant solar system's planet wobble past it's sun, or whatever your project is.

 

8:50 - All human testimony is bad, regardless of reputation, position
This really adds to the issue of relying on witnesses to gather sufficient data. People fail to see the irony here. The contradictions.
He demands high amounts of evidence from a witness.., but then says they are unable to produce this data. But then goes back saying he requires proof from witnesses. Then goes back saying how its all bad. Back, forth.., whenever he needs to make his point he switches stance.

He has created the paradox himself.

9:35 - Says he would mis-ID a star if he didn't study astronomy.
I knew what a star was by age 5. I knew what a shooting star was by then also. I think this guy may have some serious issues. Did anyone else freak out about the sky until they studied astronomy? Or is this some kind of over dramatised statement attempting to say everyone is an idiot and doesn't know what a star is.

10:20 - UFOs only land in farmer's yards.
This really shows how little he has researched the subject. I have no respect professionally for this man. He makes stupid assumptions all the time. He recently tweeted "An airplane whose engine fails is a glider.  A helicopter whose engine fails is a brick." in his smart ass, know it all attitude. But as happens frequently with this fool.., he is proven wrong by a great man Destin.., who very calmly explained how he was wrong without the arrogant "know it all" attitude displayed by Tyson.

https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/neil-degrasse-tyson-smartereveryday-helicopters/

Tyson just wants to brag about (how little) he knows about physics and astronomy.

View Destin's educational videos.., and notice how he is able to actually teach a subject and provide data on why and how.

Now study Neil Tyson's attempts at explaining anything. He is frustrated, emotional and over dramatic. Provides as little data as possible.., instead just talks a bunch of useless vague crap with total arrogance.., and ridicules anyone who doesn't know already. Very bad teacher (unless scripted by Seth McFarlane).

Veritassium, VSAUCE or Seeker etc. The new wave. This "I know more than you. and you're a fool for not knowing what I know" attitude is old school. Clear concise and no emo. Tyson loves over complicating.., and not explaining. Zzzzz.

11:08 - If an alien could traverse space.., they would not crash on Earth.
Another argument from ignorance assuming he knows exactly how an advanced alien race would run. He asumes that one day when humans have developed the technology that will allow long distance space travel.., then we as a race are infallible.

We use lander modules, instead of landing long distance space ships designed not designed for specific planets atmosphere's and gravity.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Fila

[Minimalists]

OK.....Don't agree but thats me.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Alien Origins

[Horta]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

We use lander modules, instead of landing long distance space ships designed not designed for specific planets atmosphere's and gravity.

That might be what the little green men are doing. They have travelled across interstellar space to try to copy our more advanced landing technology .

Though you make great points about amateur astronomers not looking at the sky. In the same way mechanics don't spend much time looking at cars. Surely they are only looking at one specific part of the car, wouldn't notice the rest of it. When they find a good area to watch meteor shower, wouldn't notice a ufo, not looking for it.

This is sounding more and more like bigfoot apologetics.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

8:15 - Astronomers are "always looking up".
This is a huuuuge misconception. Astronomers don't stare at the sky.., or stare through a telescope for hours scanning the sky.
When Astronomers are looking through a telescope, zoomed in on a fixed location, which covers a tiny percentage of a distant part of outer space.., they look, observe the distant star formations.., and record the data. This is why astronomers do not see UFOs.,. even if they were 50 metres away.

The UFO phenomenon is more localised, generally reported being 7000 ft and under..,  which would be like moving a pen or even a hand past a pair binoculars, and you see nothing but a blur (if that) as if the hand did not pass by the binoculars at all. They also do not see 100% coverage of the sky.., its like a pin hole in a piece of paper, but focused way out into space. This is why someone standing outside the observatory would see a UFO, but the astronomer didn't (but could see Venus, therefore it was Venus).

Astronomers do not really look through telescopes as much as everybody thinks. This is more of a romanticised version of what we think happens. the very few remote stations are accessed via SSH or VNC on a computer wherever you live.

Competition for telescope time is fiercely prioritised. Even if you as an astronomer managed to snag 2 hours next week, you would be focused on your specific task of studying a distant solar system's planet wobble past it's sun, or whatever your project is.

 

Despite being corrected dozens of times you continue this incompetent claptrap nonsense. I guess learning is not something you are interested in.

Astronomers don't need to be professionals. Amateur astronomers are much more common.

Guess you still haven't learned that there are wide field scopes. You've been told over a dozen times, but it still is not sinking in - probably never will.

Astronomers do more than look at distant star formations - another piece of common knowledge that escapes you.

Astronomers don't see UFOs because they have the tools and knowledge to identify the objects.

Another thing knot heads do not understand is that unless an object is directly overhead it is farther than it's purported height. Line of sight in the atmosphere we can see in excess of 400 kilometers on a clear day/night. Some high elevation clouds can be 1000km away. Typical puffy cumulus clouds over 150km away. And these are objects within the atmosphere.

The fact that professional astronomers are using electronic devices to capture the faint signals is a well known fact. It might be a surprise to those with little to no idea of how astronomers operate. The suggestion of "what we think happens" applies to almost no one today. People know about digital cameras and that astronomers have been using them for a long time.

The rest of the commentary is irrelevant.

The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of astronomers are amateurs and they do use their eyes or they look around as they allow their devices to capture images.

I know I've told Fila this a dozen times or more. There are an estimated 200,000 plus amateur astronomers in the US alone. ut facts such as this interfere with his HUUUUUGGGGGGEEEEE misconceptions.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

11:08 - If an alien could traverse space.., they would not crash on Earth.

 

Another argument from ignorance assuming he knows exactly how an advanced alien race would run. He asumes that one day when humans have developed the technology that will allow long distance space travel.., then we as a race are infallible.

We use lander modules, instead of landing long distance space ships designed not designed for specific planets atmosphere's and gravity.

No. This is just your argument from ignorance as are all of your ideas.

[Fila]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Astronomers don't need to be professionals. Amateur astronomers are much more common.

Guess you still haven't learned that there are wide field scopes.

professional astronomers are using electronic devices to capture the faint signals is a well known fact.

Unless an object is directly overhead it is farther than it's purported height. Line of sight in the atmosphere we can see in excess of 400 kilometers on a clear day/night. Some high elevation clouds can be 1000km away. Typical puffy cumulus clouds over 150km away. And these are objects within the atmosphere.

The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of astronomers are amateurs and they do use their eyes or they look around as they allow their devices to capture images.

I love 'amateur astronomers'. Astronomers are trained scientists. I didn't know we could have "amateur" scientists, simply by purchasing equipment and making an attempt. I'm going to start calling myself that too  

I deleted all the nasty bits from your post.., but yes I remember this conversation. 

You sent me a link discussing the difference between a 4 inch scope, compared to a 6 inch scope as evidence my "idea of how astronomers work is rather limited".

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/83925-wide-field-telescope/ <--- YOUR LINK

Even though they are considered "wide-field" this is relative to telescopes.

Perhaps smaller scopes can see clouds.., but I don't think this is a requirement in determining lenticular clouds and such. I can do this with the naked eye.

"Amateurs look up while devices capture images"..., well sure. But that doesn't take long from my understanding. Certainly not enough to vaguely imply the sky is monitored thoroughly.., and amateur astronomers would see a UFO if there was one (but only at night time). The few I know actually walk away once setup, and start working on data regression.

Staring at the sky will not produce any results, and wastes time. Its like staring at black paper with white dots that don't move. Very amateur, lol.

Regarding your 2nd post. You made a claim. This must be backed up with a rationale an example, and sources. Otherwise it will just be "Nuh uh.., you are wrong" "Nah.., you are" back and forth all day long.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

24 minutes ago, Fila said:

I love 'amateur astronomers'. Astronomers are trained scientists. I didn't know we could have "amateur" scientists, simply by purchasing equipment and making an attempt. I'm going to start calling myself that too  

I deleted all the nasty bits from your post.., but yes I remember this conversation. 

You sent me a link discussing the difference between a 4 inch scope, compared to a 6 inch scope as evidence my "idea of how astronomers work is rather limited".

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/83925-wide-field-telescope/ <--- YOUR LINK

Even though they are considered "wide-field" this is relative to telescopes.

Perhaps smaller scopes can see clouds.., but I don't think this is a requirement in determining lenticular clouds and such. I can do this with the naked eye.

Amateurs look up while devices capture images..., well sure. But that doesn't take long from my understanding. Certainly not enough to vaguely imply the sky is monitored thoroughly.., and amateur astronomers would see a UFO if there was one.., but only at night time.

Regarding your 2nd post. You made a claim. This must be backed up with a rationale an example, and sources. Otherwise it will just be "Nuh uh.., you are wrong" "Nah.., you are" back and forth all day long. Explain how.

Thanks for another response based on your personal ignorance complete with some of the typical nonsensical illogical constructs that are your trademark.

The fact of the matter is I referred to your ludicrous poor thinking and pointed all of the fallacies you posted. As usual you appear to NOT want to learn.

There are all sorts of wide field scopes and they range from professional to amateur status. There are whole sky surveys and even wide images  wide as a human can see. I gave you one instance to show you that you needed to learn more before bumbling along. I see you can't figure out that an example of a wide field scope is an example. That example I used seems to have been too difficult for you to comprehend.

I guess the cloud issue was too difficult for you to comprehend. Let's see if we can get this through your thick head AGAIN! Anyone in an open area can see at least 160km out if the sky s clear. Your 7000 foot nonsense is apparent that - nonsense.

The simple fact is that astronomers do not report things like the general public. They have the knowledge and tools to determine what they see. All of your rather illogical blather has no effect on that.

There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of amateur astronomers world wide. just because you know nothing at all about the topic means little.

As for the second post. Yes you are definitely showing your ignorance. It seems to be too difficult for you to understand. I do believe that. I do.

Edited June 21, 2018 by stereologist

[stereologist]

Quote

9:35 - Says he would mis-ID a star if he didn't study astronomy.
I knew what a star was by age 5. I knew what a shooting star was by then also. I think this guy may have some serious issues. Did anyone else freak out about the sky until they studied astronomy? Or is this some kind of over dramatised statement attempting to say everyone is an idiot and doesn't know what a star is.

I don't believe you at all. You do have serious issues if you think you can always correctly identify a star. All of the people posting videos and photos of Venus or Sirius and telling us they think it is a UFO are good examples of people that misidentify stars and planets and even planes and in one case where I was standing a car.

A car on a hillside was thought to be a star by someone. I had forgotten about it until I thought of you Fila.

[Dejarma]

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Thanks for another response based on your personal ignorance complete with some of the typical nonsensical illogical constructs that are your trademark.

the individual 'Fila' is a wind up= you should have worked this out by now.. all due respect

she/he is winding you up mate

[stereologist]

I recall telling Fila and others to visit an amateur astronomy club to learn how amateurs do real science. They discover all sorts of amazing things including impacts on Jupiter, and comets. Until recently amateurs were finding most of the asteroids. Despite not being on the cutting edge of discoveries as full sky surveys increase in detection beyond the capabilities of amateur scopes, the clubs are very active.

[Fila]

16 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Thanks for another response based on your personal ignorance complete with some of the typical nonsensical illogical constructs that are your trademark.

The fact of the matter is I referred to your ludicrous poor thinking and pointed all of the fallacies you posted. As usual you appear to NOT want to learn.

I gave you one instance to show you that you needed to learn more before bumbling along. I see you can't figure out that an example of a wide field scope is an example. That example I used seems to have been too difficult for you to comprehend.

I guess the cloud issue was too difficult for you to comprehend. Let's see if we can get this through your thick head AGAIN!

The simple fact is that astronomers do not report things like the general public. They have the knowledge and tools to determine what they see. All of your rather illogical blather has no effect on that.

There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of amateur astronomers world wide. just because you know nothing at all about the topic means little.

As for the second post. Yes you are definitely showing your ignorance. It seems to be too difficult for you to understand. I do believe that. I do.

11 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You do have serious issues if you think you can always correctly identify a star. 

A car on a hillside was thought to be a star by someone. I had forgotten about it until I thought of you Fila.

11 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

the individual 'Fila' is a wind up= you should have worked this out by now.. all due respect

she/he is winding you up mate

Meow. Hiss spit hiss.  If you cannot argue the facts.., start with those personal attacks.
I'm always open to discussing facts.., but you guys are really showing your your true colours here.

Stezza.., if you want to counter anything I posted.., you will need to provide more detail than the initial claim. to justify your position.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, Fila said:

Meow. Hiss spit hiss.  If you cannot argue the facts.., start with those personal attacks.
I'm always open to discussing facts.., but you guys are really showing your your true colours here.

Stezza.., if you want to counter anything I posted.., you will need to provide more detail than the initial claim. to justify your position.

You've already been given the information a dozen times. It doesn't sink in for whatever reason.

The problem is that you don't discuss facts. You misrepresent facts.

1. You misrepresented why I gave you the link about wide field telescopes.

2. You misrepresent the amateur astronomers worldwide

3. You misrepresented my post about viewing distances

4. You misrepresented what astronomers do

5. You misrepresented full sky surveys

If you want to do something useful why not post something of value

[stereologist]

I do often have to counter everything you post since your posts are poorly thought out illogical blathering messes.

[Dejarma]

2 minutes ago, Fila said:

Meow. Hiss spit hiss.

meow hiss spit, wind-up, wind-up, wind-up.. though you are weak in certain areas; your wind-up skills are quite good i must admit.. are you an old: 'the art of the wind-up & sarcastic wit' pupil of mine?

[Dejarma]

6 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You've already been given the information a dozen times. It doesn't sink in for whatever reason.

the reason is= wind-up...

come on wake up stereo me ol' mate... wots the matter wiv ya!?

[Fila]

7 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

meow hiss spit, wind-up, wind-up, wind-up.. though you are weak in certain areas; your wind-up skills are quite good i must admit.. are you an old: 'the art of the wind-up & sarcastic wit' pupil of mine?

Another accusation.., with no evidence or rationale. Care to explain how I wound you up by disagreeing with Neil Tyson? https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318447-the-inherit-bias-regarding-ufos/?do=findComment&comment=6476799
I guess this is the part where I do it back.., start calling you both names.., and the thread get closed.

Nah.., I'm all G. You guys are just making fools of yourself. I am guessing internet trolls. I hope so anyway. If this is ya'll normally.., then its kinda sad.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Fila