Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Fila

The inherit bias regarding UFOs

Sceptics, scoffers and believers  

46 members have voted

  1. 1. Are all UFO reports lies, hoaxes and mis-IDs?

  2. 2. Is it possible that advanced ET life exists?

  3. 3. Can an advanced ET race visit Earth secretly?



217 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

tmcom
On 5/31/2018 at 11:36 AM, Fila said:

I think I see the problem with UFOlogy. There are 2 teams.., scoffers and believers.

The problem is that both sides have made up their minds.., and don't feel the need to pursue it scientifically to prove their conclusion. This is what's wrong. Both sides claim to be 100% correct.

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.., and this can be shown in my posts. I would like everyone to take some time and look over their posts.., and see if they argue both sides.., or if they have an agenda.

What's needed are more "sceptics". Not sceptical of one theory (ETH).., but sceptical of information. That is what sceptic means. We can twist it around and say I am sceptical of UFO reports.., but that still means you would need to look at both sides. IF you only argue one side.., you are biased. Universities and science in general does not allow this. If you submit a paper arguing one side.., it will be thrown out.

This thread is not designed to start a war between the 2 sides.., more of an attempt to help people reflect on themselves to see their patterns.., eliminate 100% certainty in discussions.., and encourage unbiased scientific discourse.

Post #59 inwards.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314663-why-are-ufo-images-always-so-bad/?page=3

And l was skeptical, but if the evidence is overwhelming then that is what it is.

It isn't not believing in something for the sake of it, fear, conditioning and being unsettled are the key reasons.

 

Some carry on about "l will believe it, if irrefutable evidence is given" but give the evidence, that is virtually impossible to dismiss or explain away, and the so called open minded become the closed minded.

 

Impossible to convince someone who seems open, but is not.

 

A skeptic who should reflect on being stubborn, and closed minded, lol, forget it, virtually impossible.

 

Best to find a place where if you present very good evidence they accept it and move on. And avoid places where a handful of people use a well worn, dirty bag of tricks to shut a thread down, when they feel threatened.

 

Why such individuals frequent a forum that attracts such debates, is a contradiction in terms, and why they attack someone when the evidence is hard to dismiss more so.

 

One day the "Mass Media" that they have relied on for so long, will reverse their present stance on what is hidden and what isn't, then we will really see who is closed minded.

B)

Edited by tmcom
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
14 hours ago, Fila said:

I am having difficulty understanding your points. What are proofs?

We can use maths and logic to predict something with great accuracy.., but we still design experiments and observations to confirm. How can we use maths and logic to prove someone saw ball lightning?

Yes, I do remember you saying that. But you seem to have overlooked my response, and just repeated the same thing.

I am pretty sure I said the same thing Stereo. Can you please compare your response to what I "think".., and show where I am wrong? Because I agree, and I don't really know what we are disagreeing on.

I am having difficulty finding "the method". Can you please provide a link?

I often have to repeat myself because you obstinately continue on with your errors. You claim to  be a skeptic but refuse to move forward.

Science does not prove. You seem unwilling to  understand that. You can start with this link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence#Concept_of_scientific_proof

Predictions are not proofs. Verifying predictions is not proof.

You seem unable to understand your mistakes about Einstein. He used math to make predictions He developed a mathematical description of observations. You clearly have not understood that he based his ideas on a long series of experimental observations. Here is your statement " I think his theories were based on math. " That's incorrect. His theories were based on facts. Scientific theories are based on facts. They explain facts.

Here is a description of The Method. The Method avoids infinite processes which Greeks sought to avoid.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Archimedes-Lost-Method-1084593

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

The problem with believers is that they accept without evidence. A distant light in the sky becomes a UFO. A satellite becomes a UFO. A discarded piece of unidentified industrial waste becomes a UFO device. Ancient stone buildings become UFO constructions. An apparently abstract art piece becomes a map of the heavens. And so it goes with believers seeing UFOs wherever they go.

So people want people to accept anything as UFO evidence. They'd rather go to a place where any old nonsense prevails and declare themselves open minded. It is nice to pretend to be open minded, but the reality is that the correct term is being gullible. Being open minded means willing to examine the issue. It does not mean accepting without a thought. The latter is being gullible or at least a clutter collector.

There does not seem to be any " very good evidence ". I would challenge anyone to point out " when the evidence is hard to dismiss " Frankly, I have yet to see anything along those lines and would welcome seeing it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
4 hours ago, stereologist said:

I often have to repeat myself because you obstinately continue on with your errors.

Instead of repeating yourself.., try going into more detail for me.., and please don't overlook my questions (i.e. ball lightning). Your responses are getting vague. I am asking for more details.., not for you to repeat yourself.

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

You claim to  be a skeptic but refuse to move forward.

I am not comfortable being on this forum with you constantly accusing me of things. Please provide an example where I deny information or refuse to move forward.

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

Science does not prove. You seem unwilling to  understand that.

I seem unwilling to understand?
I am going to have to ask a moderator for some advice on how to go about dealing with this from now on. I am quite open to learn new things.., and can't see where you are coming from.

I don't want to drag this out any more than it needs to. For the amount of posts.., there is little information. Plenty of personal attacks.., but I would really like to see less of that in each post.., and more information. It just draaags out so much.

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

You can start with this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence#Concept_of_scientific_proof

Predictions are not proofs. Verifying predictions is not proof.

Thanks for the link. I will have a read after this post. If I still don't get your point.., I will PM various people and ask for advice. I think perhaps I just need a different perspective / method of teaching. Being yelled at and told I don't know doesn't seem to be working for me.

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

You seem unable to understand your mistakes about Einstein. He used math to make predictions He developed a mathematical description of observations. You clearly have not understood that he based his ideas on a long series of experimental observations. Here is your statement " I think his theories were based on math. " That's incorrect. His theories were based on facts. Scientific theories are based on facts. They explain facts.

I am not wrong. I simply meant he used maths to come up with his theory. Based on maths.., (and yes of course facts as opposed to ?).

I think you are starting to argue semantics.

I will attempt to end this conversation by reviewing from the beginning.., noting each point from both sides as they unfold.., and attempt to bring it back to the main point. We have deviated too far.

I'll be back with a brief overview and a response.

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

Here is a description of The Method. The Method avoids infinite processes which Greeks sought to avoid.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Archimedes-Lost-Method-1084593

That's really cool. Thank you for that link. I love learning new things :)
I actually still have an old set of Encyclopedia Britannica's on my bookshelf. They look cool, but kinda outdated info nowadays. Its good to see they are still going online.

I'm glad we can finally wrap up these side issues and start getting back to the OC

Haha, does anyone remember this?

 

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
13 hours ago, tmcom said:

mmmhmmm?  Here is where you were completely and utterly busted on your false claims:

 

To be specific and address the 'claims' you made:

Quote

The UFO, (images l previously posted here) is hogwosh, crap, and so forth, lol.

Yes, LOL away - it makes you sound so much more credible.  Or perhaps not.  What makes them hogwosh {sic} and crap is they are either ridiculously poor quality thus could be anything, OR they have no backstory or provenance.  In the case above, you had to admit that you can't cite any of the images you posted.  I'd invite readers to click on that link to see what I discovered about tmcom's FALSE claims, and read what transpired.

Quote

Eventhough {sic} panels spinning away from the Apollo astranauts {sic}, video taping it, were spinning end to end, not side to side, and certainly not moving aloneside, instead of away.

How many times do you need to be told before something gets through to your brain?  This was explained in detail to you - initial spin axis does not necessarily mean later spin axis.  Besides which, apart from you, no-one claimed a side to side spin.

Quote

And the original video that l originally took the screenshots from are all gone, but l guess NASA send them away to be steam cleaned

As discussed earlier, that claim is completely false - it is not possible.  Why?  Because of the thousands of Apollo enthusiasts like me who eat up (and save) everything Apollo the minute it is posted.  I have a full collection of every video, every journal, every image from Apollo 11 (and most from later missions), and I (and hundreds of others) would quickly recognise (and have) the video in question.  THOSE IMAGES ARE NOT FROM ANY APOLLO 11 VIDEO.  All of the A11 videos are fully accounted for, none have ever been withdrawn.  Such footage cannot possibly be withdrawn on the quiet, given the immense public interest in the mission and the copious documentation of every aspect of the mission.

Plus the images do NOT match Buzz Aldrin's description anyway - Aldrin has oft clarified his comments and pointed out, correctly and truthfully that he thinks the items were definitely the SLA panels, but of course there is no way to 100% identify them so they remain officially UFO's.  UFO does NOT mean alien.  Let's face it, you found these images on some half-assed UFO website that is now long gone.  Who knows (certainly *you* don't) what they are of/from, or even if they were just a creation.

Quote

But in the end, fear always wins.

What a silly and insulting comment - you think those who know a lot more about the topic than you do are 'fearful'?  This has nothing to do with fear and is all about people promoting utter bull5hit.

13 hours ago, tmcom said:

One day the "Mass Media" that they have relied on for so long, will reverse their present stance on what is hidden and what isn't, then we will really see who is closed minded.

B)

The irony of this coming from you, tmcom, is beyond tragic.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
8 hours ago, Fila said:

Instead of repeating yourself.., try going into more detail for me.., and please don't overlook my questions (i.e. ball lightning). Your responses are getting vague. I am asking for more details.., not for you to repeat yourself.

I am not comfortable being on this forum with you constantly accusing me of things. Please provide an example where I deny information or refuse to move forward.

I seem unwilling to understand?
I am going to have to ask a moderator for some advice on how to go about dealing with this from now on. I am quite open to learn new things.., and can't see where you are coming from.

I don't want to drag this out any more than it needs to. For the amount of posts.., there is little information. Plenty of personal attacks.., but I would really like to see less of that in each post.., and more information. It just draaags out so much.

Thanks for the link. I will have a read after this post. If I still don't get your point.., I will PM various people and ask for advice. I think perhaps I just need a different perspective / method of teaching. Being yelled at and told I don't know doesn't seem to be working for me.

I am not wrong. I simply meant he used maths to come up with his theory. Based on maths.., (and yes of course facts as opposed to ?).

I think you are starting to argue semantics.

I will attempt to end this conversation by reviewing from the beginning.., noting each point from both sides as they unfold.., and attempt to bring it back to the main point. We have deviated too far.

I'll be back with a brief overview and a response.

That's really cool. Thank you for that link. I love learning new things :)
I actually still have an old set of Encyclopedia Britannica's on my bookshelf. They look cool, but kinda outdated info nowadays. Its good to see they are still going online.

I'm glad we can finally wrap up these side issues and start getting back to the OC

Haha, does anyone remember this?

 

Yes, Fila l give you exhibit A.

Pick, attack and discredit anyone who presents information that they cannot handle, regardless of if some honest mistakes were made, so the mods close down the thread.

 

As for the rest, run through all of my posts past what l gave, and the images are credited, (video) and what Buzz saw and what he claimed to see does not stack up in any way, shape or form, (the panel being 11k away, while supposedly moving alongside being the slam dunk).

In other words it proves that UFO's are real.

 

And the reactions here clearly show the open minded from the closed.

B)

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
8 hours ago, Fila said:

Instead of repeating yourself.., try going into more detail for me.., and please don't overlook my questions (i.e. ball lightning). Your responses are getting vague. I am asking for more details.., not for you to repeat yourself.

I am not comfortable being on this forum with you constantly accusing me of things. Please provide an example where I deny information or refuse to move forward.

I seem unwilling to understand?
I am going to have to ask a moderator for some advice on how to go about dealing with this from now on. I am quite open to learn new things.., and can't see where you are coming from.

I don't want to drag this out any more than it needs to. For the amount of posts.., there is little information. Plenty of personal attacks.., but I would really like to see less of that in each post.., and more information. It just draaags out so much.

Thanks for the link. I will have a read after this post. If I still don't get your point.., I will PM various people and ask for advice. I think perhaps I just need a different perspective / method of teaching. Being yelled at and told I don't know doesn't seem to be working for me.

I am not wrong. I simply meant he used maths to come up with his theory. Based on maths.., (and yes of course facts as opposed to ?).

I think you are starting to argue semantics.

I will attempt to end this conversation by reviewing from the beginning.., noting each point from both sides as they unfold.., and attempt to bring it back to the main point. We have deviated too far.

I'll be back with a brief overview and a response.

That's really cool. Thank you for that link. I love learning new things :)
I actually still have an old set of Encyclopedia Britannica's on my bookshelf. They look cool, but kinda outdated info nowadays. Its good to see they are still going online.

I'm glad we can finally wrap up these side issues and start getting back to the OC

Haha, does anyone remember this?

 

The repetition gets old especially when you disregard the corrections and continue to bluster along incoherently such as in attempting to tell you that the image was not 1x.

Where do you deny information? In the PL discussion you continued to claim quite falsely that witness statements were consistent. You never stated what the consistent statement was. In the FLIR thread you blustered on about the object being big because the image was 1x when you were repeatedly told it was  not. Two simple examples, but if I went through the threads I'd likely find dozens of other cases.

When you repeatedly refuse to correct your mistakes it seems of little use to help you out. It is simpler to continue to point out your failures. If you bothered to stop your blustering you might learn something.

I'm not arguing semantics about Einstein. His work was based on facts. Scientific theories are based on facts. Here I am repeating myself because you REFUSE to try and learn. Jut because he used math does not mean his theories are based on math. The math is used to explain the facts. Math is important in quantifying science. Math problems using The Method avoided infinite processes. Einstein used math to connect fact and to make predictions. His theory was not based onn math. It used math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
51 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Yes, Fila l give you exhibit A.

Pick, attack and discredit anyone who presents information that they cannot handle, regardless of if some honest mistakes were made, so the mods close down the thread.

 

As for the rest, run through all of my posts past what l gave, and the images are credited, (video) and what Buzz saw and what he claimed to see does not stack up in any way, shape or form, (the panel being 11k away, while supposedly moving alongside being the slam dunk).

In other words it proves that UFO's are real.

 

And the reactions here clearly show the open minded from the closed.

B)

Are you suggesting that people that have a position that you like should be allowed to post poppycock with impunity?

BTW, you seem to know nothing about the incident. Do you know how the panel moving in parallel to the craft was viewed? I'd love to tell you but it would be best if you learned yourself. Let's see if you can do this better than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
9 hours ago, Fila said:

Instead of repeating yourself.., try going into more detail for me.., and please don't overlook my questions (i.e. ball lightning). Your responses are getting vague. I am asking for more details.., not for you to repeat yourself.

I am not comfortable being on this forum with you constantly accusing me of things. Please provide an example where I deny information or refuse to move forward.

I seem unwilling to understand?
I am going to have to ask a moderator for some advice on how to go about dealing with this from now on. I am quite open to learn new things.., and can't see where you are coming from.

I don't want to drag this out any more than it needs to. For the amount of posts.., there is little information. Plenty of personal attacks.., but I would really like to see less of that in each post.., and more information. It just draaags out so much.

Thanks for the link. I will have a read after this post. If I still don't get your point.., I will PM various people and ask for advice. I think perhaps I just need a different perspective / method of teaching. Being yelled at and told I don't know doesn't seem to be working for me.

I am not wrong. I simply meant he used maths to come up with his theory. Based on maths.., (and yes of course facts as opposed to ?).

I think you are starting to argue semantics.

I will attempt to end this conversation by reviewing from the beginning.., noting each point from both sides as they unfold.., and attempt to bring it back to the main point. We have deviated too far.

I'll be back with a brief overview and a response.

That's really cool. Thank you for that link. I love learning new things :)
I actually still have an old set of Encyclopedia Britannica's on my bookshelf. They look cool, but kinda outdated info nowadays. Its good to see they are still going online.

I'm glad we can finally wrap up these side issues and start getting back to the OC

Haha, does anyone remember this?

 

And Exhibit B.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
7 hours ago, stereologist said:

In the PL discussion you continued to claim quite falsely that witness statements were consistent. You never stated what the consistent statement was.

The repetition gets old especially when you disregard the corrections and continue to bluster along incoherently such as in attempting to tell you that the image was not 1x.

In the PL discussion you continued to claim quite falsely that witness statements were consistent. You never stated what the consistent statement was.

Sorry to be a pain.., but can you give me a link to that FLIR thread, and I will get onto that 1x image zoom thing. Thanks.

The Phoenix Lights thread is a good one.., and I have sufficiently explained my POV. You just don't accept it that's all. Please bring it up again in that thread.

7 hours ago, stereologist said:

*snip* hate, anger *snip*

I'm not arguing semantics about Einstein. His work was based on facts. Scientific theories are based on facts. Here I am repeating myself because you REFUSE to try and learn. Jut because he used math does not mean his theories are based on math. His theory was not based onn math. It used math.

Haha, I can't deny that. You are right about him and maths. I think you missed my original point though. Can we get back to that?

How can we use "maths and logic" to prove someone saw ball lightning? We demand proof from UFO witnesses.., yet images are not proof and barely considered evidence. Reports are "stories".., not observations. So.., what "evidence" can they gather.., and how?
 

How can a hypothesis fail.., simply because "proof" is hard to attain? Especially considering the UFO Witness Evidence Paradox.

Einstein's theory of relativity was not dismissed due to a lack of physical evidence. It made mathematical sense, but so did others including quantum mechanics. He even had to modify it. 

Experiments were set up to verify. It was not verified when he conceived it. Although it was based on "facts", and he used "maths and logic".., it was still a theory.

We design experiments to confirm his predictions. Not the other way around.

Scientists seem to be agreeing now that "mathematically" alien life is most likely abundant given the size and age of the universe. So one could develop a "theory" that some "UFOs" could be "ET". And mathematically I don't see that as being a problem. Nor is it illogical or impossible.

 

 

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
4 hours ago, Fila said:

Sorry to be a pain.., but can you give me a link to that FLIR thread, and I will get onto that 1x image zoom thing. Thanks.

The Phoenix Lights thread is a good one.., and I have sufficiently explained my POV. You just don't accept it that's all. Please bring it up again in that thread.

Haha, I can't deny that. You are right about him and maths. I think you missed my original point though. Can we get back to that?

How can we use "maths and logic" to prove someone saw ball lightning? We demand proof from UFO witnesses.., yet images are not proof and barely considered evidence. Reports are "stories".., not observations. So.., what "evidence" can they gather.., and how?
 

How can a hypothesis fail.., simply because "proof" is hard to attain? Especially considering the UFO Witness Evidence Paradox.

Einstein's theory of relativity was not dismissed due to a lack of physical evidence. It made mathematical sense, but so did others including quantum mechanics. He even had to modify it. 

Experiments were set up to verify. It was not verified when he conceived it. Although it was based on "facts", and he used "maths and logic".., it was still a theory.

We design experiments to confirm his predictions. Not the other way around.

Scientists seem to be agreeing now that "mathematically" alien life is most likely abundant given the size and age of the universe. So one could develop a "theory" that some "UFOs" could be "ET". And mathematically I don't see that as being a problem. Nor is it illogical or impossible.

 

Provide the consistent statement that witnesses made about the Phoenix Lights. You have not. You once tried to claim it was the low flying slow black vee, but almost no witnesses reported that. In fact, only 1 did. That is hardly consistent is it. The Phoenix Lights were planes and there is no reason to think otherwise - well unless you avoid examining the evidence.

You are free to go find your mistake about the 1x image and the large object. I already posted the correction in that thread and have no interest in correcting yet again.

Let me repeat my useful comment:

When you repeatedly refuse to correct your mistakes it seems of little use to help you out. It is simpler to continue to point out your failures. If you bothered to stop your blustering you might learn something.

You have Einstein confused. His theory explained known facts. The predictions turned out to be correct. No scientific theory is verified when conceived. it has to be tested. And tests are run on many theories even well established theories. That is why scientific theories are not proved. They can't be. Continued verification simply reinforces the correctness of the theory. Of course it is still a theory. It will always be a theory, but not in the sense of the vernacular where a theory is wild eyed guess of little value. A scientific theory is based on facts. It explains facts.

Not sure why you wrote "We design experiments to confirm his predictions. Not the other way around." Guess you are just making sure that you understand the process.

The probabilistic argument that life exists elsewhere in the universe does not suggest that alien life is here visiting our solar system. It is a non sequitur to connect the existence of life elsewhere with visitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Here is where you made a mistake about the image size.

It had already been established in the thread that the object was small. This time I decided to see what would happen if I did not post the relevant information, already mentioned, that the image was magnified.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
19 hours ago, tmcom said:

Yes, Fila l give you exhibit A.

Pick, attack and discredit anyone who presents information that they cannot handle, regardless of if some honest mistakes were made, so the mods close down the thread.

Hi Tmcom. I have noticed that a lot actually, and can understand how embarrassing it must be for the moderators and site owner to have all this bickering on their website. It just looks pathetic compared to others, and most likely pushes a lot of people away, so I can understand why shutting them down is the easiest option sometimes. Some of the language and attacks here are pretty full on. Calling each other dumb all the time etc is kinda full on really.

19 hours ago, tmcom said:

As for the rest, run through all of my posts past what l gave, and the images are credited, (video) and what Buzz saw and what he claimed to see does not stack up in any way, shape or form, (the panel being 11k away, while supposedly moving alongside being the slam dunk).

In other words it proves that UFO's are real.

 

And the reactions here clearly show the open minded from the closed.

I can see where they are coming from though. I think a UFO report can only gather evidence. 

1) Witness statements 

2) Images and audio

3) Corroborating reports

 

These are considered forms of evidence.., but even together doesn't officially make proof. As in 100% conclusive proof the event happened. I know it sounds silly, but that's how rigorous science needs to be. (Cameras can glitch, data can be corrupted, witnesses may be tired etc).

Although I personally have had enough of reading UFO reports. I think I have seen enough evidence to warrant some kind of inquiry and study. Or at least.., I have read enough UFO reports to realise that's all the information I am going to acquire from them.., and its useless to continue in hopes of forming a conclusion.

WCS., all these people are hallucinating or whatever. Well then they need help.., and ignoring their claims is cruel. Best case scenario its a new energy source, or ET etc. Either way its possibly the most interesting topic we could look into, so why not hey?

I am going to start a new thread about the UFO witness evidence paradox to highlight the limit of what forms of evidence we can actually gather. Then collate how much of this we have collected over 80 years.., and show how we have hit some kind of "terminal velocity" with evidence gathering, and ask how much more of this is required? Or.., how can we get new data?

Edited by Fila
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
7 hours ago, stereologist said:

Provide the consistent statement that witnesses made about the Phoenix Lights. You have not. You once tried to claim it was the low flying slow black vee, but almost no witnesses reported that. In fact, only 1 did. That is hardly consistent is it. The Phoenix Lights were planes and there is no reason to think otherwise - well unless you avoid examining the evidence.

Sure.., let's have this conversation about the Phoenix Lights in the Phoenix Lights thread. I will attempt to explain myself better.

7 hours ago, stereologist said:

Let me repeat my useful comment:

When you repeatedly refuse to correct your mistakes it seems of little use to help you out. It is simpler to continue to point out your failures. If you bothered to stop your blustering you might learn something.

I prefer you wouldn't just repeat yourself. If someone is having difficulty understanding you.., perhaps consider the possibility its the way you present your ideas.., and not their fault. Try re-wording your ideas, and provide more detail.

7 hours ago, stereologist said:

His theory explained known facts. The predictions turned out to be correct. No scientific theory is verified when conceived. it has to be tested. And tests are run on many theories even well established theories. That is why scientific theories are not proved. They can't be. Continued verification simply reinforces the correctness of the theory. Of course it is still a theory. It will always be a theory, but not in the sense of the vernacular where a theory is wild eyed guess of little value.

Thank you. I'm glad we are on the same page.

7 hours ago, stereologist said:

The probabilistic argument that life exists elsewhere in the universe does not suggest that alien life is here visiting our solar system. It is a non sequitur to connect the existence of life elsewhere with visitation.

Of course it doesn't.

I'm glad we have everything sorted. What do you think about the rest of my post? #35

Can I have a turn at getting my questions answered now? I have been very patient.

7 hours ago, stereologist said:

Here is where you made a mistake about the image size.

It had already been established in the thread that the object was small. This time I decided to see what would happen if I did not post the relevant information, already mentioned, that the image was magnified.

Thank you so much for the link. I'll jump on it today, would love to get it sorted once and for all so we can move on and discuss other topics.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
Quote

How can we use "maths and logic" to prove someone saw ball lightning? We demand proof from UFO witnesses.., yet images are not proof and barely considered evidence. Reports are "stories".., not observations. So.., what "evidence" can they gather.., and how?

Are these the questions you are referring to?

There is the problem with anecdotal evidence. There is nothing there but a story, We have no idea what someone saw. What people use as a label such as "ball lightning" is  not helpful when many different things are tossed under this same label.

Look at these links.

https://weather.com/news/news/ball-lightning-seen-first-time-20140120

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning

When you read these it is clear that the term is being applied to many different phenomena. Did they see ball lightning? What did they see? There is no way no know. Maybe it wasn't ball lightning at all but they attached that name to it.

The images we see are poor. What is it? Is it a distant aircraft? Is it a bird? Is it a balloon?

These things are not proof. They are evidence.

Are there tangible items that can be studied? We have Bob White's grinder material that paraded from UFO show to UFO show. There is supposed to be some UFO metal according to the hooligans over at TTSA. Really? I don't believe that for a second. But if there were something tangible such as an artifact then it could be studied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrBene

I belong to the group called "I want to believe" and we are not suckers. I mean, a chinese lantern is a chinese lantern, a drone is a drone and so on. People who I know that believe in aliens wont believe that a chinese lantern is just that. They can't believe that those lights in the sky is probably something quite mundane. It will ruin the cool fantasy of "I saw something cool in the sky". Nevertheless, people in my group know a bunch about Roswell, blue book, chupacabras, abductions, name any ufo topic and we might enjoy sometimes the "folklore" surrounding some stuff and we might watch ufo videos on youtube but we believe that 99% of it are human made/nature stuff and the 1% which we can't figure out have an answer in science or something beyond our knowledge but we never play the "that's aliens" card. We want to believe but greedy humans making profit and faking stuff make it hard to. We are just waiting for that piece of evidence that will change our minds but meanwhile, a chinese lantern is a chinese lantern.   

Edited by MrBene
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alien Origins
4 hours ago, MrBene said:

I belong to the group called "I want to believe" and we are not suckers. I mean, a chinese lantern is a chinese lantern, a drone is a drone and so on. People who I know that believe in aliens wont believe that a chinese lantern is just that. They can't believe that those lights in the sky is probably something quite mundane. It will ruin the cool fantasy of "I saw something cool in the sky". Nevertheless, people in my group know a bunch about Roswell, blue book, chupacabras, abductions, name any ufo topic and we might enjoy sometimes the "folklore" surrounding some stuff and we might watch ufo videos on youtube but we believe that 99% of it are human made/nature stuff and the 1% which we can't figure out have an answer in science or something beyond our knowledge but we never play the "that's aliens" card. We want to believe but greedy humans making profit and faking stuff make it hard to. We are just waiting for that piece of evidence that will change our minds but meanwhile, a chinese lantern is a chinese lantern.   

Quote

We want to believe but greedy humans making profit and faking stuff make it hard to.

This is the crux of the whole UFO matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

I would like to point out that there are mysterious events out there. The problem is that hoaxers confuse the issue by adding their hoaxes to the mix. People misidentify or simply wish to make claims of being special and seeing these sorts of events. The real events, the mysterious events, the fascinating events get drowned out by the clutter of these rather boring events.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
On 31/05/2018 at 2:36 AM, Fila said:

IF you only argue one side.., you are biased.

That is not what skepticism means. If you argue one side ignoring the evidence to the contrary then you are biased.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 05/06/2018 at 12:53 AM, stereologist said:

Provide the consistent statement that witnesses made about the Phoenix Lights. You have not. You once tried to claim it was the low flying slow black vee, but almost no witnesses reported that. In fact, only 1 did. That is hardly consistent is it. The Phoenix Lights were planes and there is no reason to think otherwise - well unless you avoid examining the evidence.

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.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 05/06/2018 at 3:22 PM, MrBene said:

I belong to the group called "I want to believe" and we are not suckers.

Hi MrBene. I understand what you mean, but I don't really like using this terminology. I want to believe lots of things also.

I want to believe religion is real, and bad things happen to bad people.., and there is perhaps some kind of afterlife where you can see your loved ones, and all that jazz. But I am not religious.., and don't really "believe" its a likely possibility. I "believe" the universe is a cold and unforgiving place, and when we die that's it.

I "want to believe" in a religion.., but I "believe" its not likely.., based on my own understanding of known facts (and lack of) which forms my version of what is logical. What can.., and cannot be. When we think about an idea that extraterrestrials could exist.., mathematically and based on what we now know (facts) and what we will potentially know in the future.., then its quite plausible.

I assume most humans want to "believe" aliens exist. I would find it boring if humans turned out being the only life in the entire universe. Cool in its own way, we'd be special.., but yea. Still woulda been nice to have some different life to see.

I think we would all like UFO reports to be true, and aliens to be real (unless one was religious?). I mean hey, that's why we are on this forum to begin with right? So really, I guess we all want to believe. Unfortunately some humans are gullible.., so we can't really lump people into one category. Some people "want to believe" too, but are also gullible.., and unfortunately these people may be easily convinced.

Perhaps instead of using terminology such a "believe".., you may wish to say "hypothesis". I am open to the idea of ETs being able to visit Earth.., and open to the notion that some UFO reports could potentially be ET owned. I think this is called the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH).

On 05/06/2018 at 3:22 PM, MrBene said:

Nevertheless, people in my group... ...believe that 99% of it are human made/nature stuff and the 1% which we can't figure out have an answer in science or something beyond our knowledge but we never play the "that's aliens" card.

Your group would still deny an ETH.., even for the 1%? Is this based on the fact that stars are so distant? And it would be impossible to traverse? Or is it more that we'd expect them to land on the Whitehouse lawn and demand to speak to our glorious world leader? lol, jk. But I am interested to know. I guess its as far-fetched as there being parallel universes, regardless of the maths being tangible.

I have looked at credible UFO cases.., not a ufo YouTube fan hey. But anyway.., from what I read in declassified documents the Australian Airforce released a few years ago.., it was pretty obvious that they were looking into UFOs. They were getting reports from credible witnesses. No witnesses were making money from this.., nor were they seeking the "glory of being a UFO witness" and all its fame and riches that follow (which in reality seems to be ridicule). 

The objects described surpassed any man-made technology then, and even by today's standards. I cannot find any rational explanation or conclusion from the Airforce, which suggests they simply gave up. They just say UFOs are no threat etc etc. Okay.., but still, what were they? And I'm not referring to IFOs as a throw-off tactic. (UFOs later found to be identifications). What are the real UFOs?

Still unknown apparently..

On 05/06/2018 at 3:22 PM, MrBene said:

We are just waiting for that piece of evidence that will change our minds but meanwhile, a chinese lantern is a chinese lantern.   

What do you think about the idea of an Evidence paradox?

The idea that UFO witnesses cannot gather sufficient evidence to "prove" anything.
The notion that even with multiple witnesses, radar confirmation, signed affidavits by military personnel, etc.., would still not actually prove a UFO event occurred.

On 05/06/2018 at 3:22 PM, MrBene said:

We want to believe but greedy humans making profit and faking stuff make it hard to.

I think this could easily be overcome these days. I might start a thread attempting to list all known groups / individuals making money from UFOs.., then create a plan to investigate them. We could pass our findings on to someone like VICE to investigate perhaps. I don't know.., there must be a way round this issue. I just ignore them personally.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Haven't read the whole thread but I will say this...

With the billions of galaxies out there and the trillions of likely solar systems out there, chances are we are not alone in this incredibly vast Universe.

To think otherwise seems incredibly self-centered.

Edited by pallidin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
9 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

That is not what skepticism means. If you argue one side ignoring the evidence to the contrary then you are biased.

Hello Emma Acid. I actually wrote "What's needed are more sceptics. Not sceptical of one theory (ETH).., but sceptical of information. That is what sceptic means." as my brief overview.

I then followed with "IF you only argue one side.., you are biased." but I was referring to being biased in this sentence.

Hope this helps clear things up.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

@Fila

With all due respect I get the strong impression that you don't want answers, you want someone to say that the idea that UFOs are alien spaceships is a valid idea and provide proof for that. I have pointed out that meteorologists and  astrophysicists do study anomalies and Arial plasmas, and then we have project hessdalen. There are many peer reviewed papers on these subjects at Google scholar. I don't see why natural phenomena, both known and unknown isn't the most likely option here. 

I know you say your not a believer, but that's not the message these threads give. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

@Fila

With all due respect I get the strong impression that you don't want answers, you want someone to say that the idea that UFOs are alien spaceships is a valid idea and provide proof for that. I have pointed out that meteorologists and  astrophysicists do study anomalies and Arial plasmas, and then we have project hessdalen. There are many peer reviewed papers on these subjects at Google scholar. I don't see why natural phenomena, both known and unknown isn't the most likely option here. 

I know you say your not a believer, but that's not the message these threads give. 

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

Thank you.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.