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

Fila
1 hour ago, stereologist said:

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.

Hmm, I think you may have things muddled up. Where did I say it was based on facts? I'm just asking you.

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

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. 

Hahaha, I love how NASA is "just looking".

Yeesh, yea okay. I'll have to do it over the weekend. I just assumed you woulda have know already. Its just a widely accepted theory now,

 

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

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.

Demands? What? lol

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

"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. 

I'm lost. What did you want me to answer?

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

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.

Sorry if it appears I went silent. I am starting to lose track of the Phoenix Lights conversations in various threads. I think I explained where I got my info from in the Phoenix Lights thread from memory. You told me to go look up your reference.., so I guess the same rules apply?

I know you are trying to dig up anything you can find to use in other threads in an attempt at defamation.., but its getting kinda obvious. Can we please keep the Phoenix Lights discussion.., in the Phoenix Lights thread? I have asked so many times. Zzzzzz

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
54 minutes ago, Fila said:

Hmm, I think you may have things muddled up. Where did I say it was based on facts? I'm just asking you.

Hahaha, I love how NASA is "just looking".

Yeesh, yea okay. I'll have to do it over the weekend. I just assumed you woulda have know already. Its just a widely accepted theory now,

 

Demands? What? lol

I'm lost. What did you want me to answer?

Sorry if it appears I went silent. I am starting to lose track of the Phoenix Lights conversations in various threads. I think I explained where I got my info from in the Phoenix Lights thread from memory. You told me to go look up your reference.., so I guess the same rules apply?

I know you are trying to dig up anything you can find to use in other threads in an attempt at defamation.., but its getting kinda obvious. Can we please keep the Phoenix Lights discussion.., in the Phoenix Lights thread? I have asked so many times. Zzzzzz

Are you reading your own posts? You wrote the following: "but its still based on facts about what we do know regarding the universe and life"

Are you reading your own posts? You wrote the following to me: "You haven't actually answered my question. I will just keep asking...."

The problem is that you continue to bluster along with glaring errors. Read the threads and learn. If you would learn then it wouldn't be necessary to repeatedly point  out these errors.

NASA is just looking.  That's what the SETI program does. It does a search. There is no trail of evidence to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim Hebert

Hello Fila!

I've been reading your thread for the past few days and I wanted to go back to your original purpose which was to conduct a poll. 

First, the questions are a simple "yes" or "no" for participant responses.  The answers will be highly subjective with no objectivity forthcoming.  What information are you trying to extract from the poll?  To prove that there is inherent bias?  Both sides of the question?

Second, depending of the intent of the poll, perhaps a Likert scale would be more appropriate and provide more diverse answers.

Lastly, we all have bias issues, whether we admit it or not.  That is one reason why experimental results should be able to be repeated by an independent group of investigators using the same methodology as the original investigator.  Clinical studies are done by using "blind" and "double blind" method to reduce or eliminate bias amongst other things.

Second to lastly, Drake's equation is simply that:  an equation based on conjecture and supposition...a modern plug and play equation.  Right now, the variables are all set to < 1 but not zero.  But one must remember even the idea of other planets existing in other galaxies, even or own, were hypothetical when Drake started out.  ow we know that a plethora of planets exist.

Best regards,

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 6/8/2018 at 4:37 PM, stereologist said:

"but its still based on facts about what we do know regarding the universe and life"

I am specifically talking about the variables here. They are based on facts about what we currently know about the universe and life. They have estimated the figures.., but not the facts. Its an estimate.

On 6/8/2018 at 4:37 PM, stereologist said:

Are you reading your own posts? You wrote the following to me: "You haven't actually answered my question. I will just keep asking...."

Yes, I do review my own posts. Nice attempt at avoiding my questions, and making out like I am "demanding".
I will just ask again. You can answer. Its very simple. Or you can keep playing your games. I really don't care. Its a good excuse to keep bumping up this thread.

What demands have I been making?

What did you demand I answer?

On 6/8/2018 at 4:37 PM, stereologist said:

NASA is just looking.  That's what the SETI program does. It does a search. There is no trail of evidence to follow.

Have you heard of the scientific method? Can you please go into detail why NASA and SETI are "just looking" compared to scientific observations.

Quote

The scientific method is a process for experimentation that is used to explore observations and answer questions. Does this mean all scientists follow exactly this process? No. Some areas of science can be more easily tested than others.

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

 

 

Quote

Scientific method is an empirical method of knowledge acquisition, which has characterized the development of natural science since at least the 17th century, involving careful observation, which includes rigorous skepticism about what one observes, given that cognitive assumptions about how the world works influence how one interprets a percept; formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental testing and measurement of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as opposed to a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.

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

 

Edited by Still Waters
Added source links & trimmed for length. The rest can be viewed in the source links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
5 hours ago, Tim Hebert said:

Hello Fila!

I've been reading your thread for the past few days and I wanted to go back to your original purpose which was to conduct a poll. 

First, the questions are a simple "yes" or "no" for participant responses.  The answers will be highly subjective with no objectivity forthcoming.  What information are you trying to extract from the poll?  To prove that there is inherent bias?  Both sides of the question?

Hi Tim, thanks for the reply. I purposely chose to only have yes and no responses.., but this is for my own reasons that I can't really go into now until most people have contributed. Informing you about the poll's meaning would taint results.

5 hours ago, Tim Hebert said:

Second, depending of the intent of the poll, perhaps a Likert scale would be more appropriate and provide more diverse answers.

Yea, maybe's are great and all.., but kinda a lazy response. I want people to really think and look into their responses. If they are unsure.., then look into it more until they have formed an opinion. What do you think? Not.., what is generally accepted.

5 hours ago, Tim Hebert said:

Second to lastly, Drake's equation is simply that:  an equation based on conjecture and supposition...a modern plug and play equation.  Right now, the variables are all set to < 1 but not zero.  But one must remember even the idea of other planets existing in other galaxies, even or own, were hypothetical when Drake started out.  ow we know that a plethora of planets exist.

I am aware that the Drake equation is a prediction.., not fact. We do not know.., so this is a good attempt at an estimate.

I am just trying to make people aware that it is an attempt at bringing together all the variables needed in order to make a guess. Its an edicated guess.., but that doesn't mean its based on conjecture and supposition. I think it is based on "facts" about the known universe.., and what we know about life. Unless they made up a brand new universe.., with new laws of physics and variables.., its based on what we currently know.
 

It seems like we are trying to use the fact that it IS an estimate.., to discredit the estimate. When really.., its an estimate. And that's what they do.., estimate. Of course its conjecture.., but this is not a bad thing when taken into context.., what the Drake equation is.., and what it is attempting to do. An attempt. Based on what we currently know (facts). Although there is some guess work.., this is the estimating part. Guessing for an estimate is not wrong.., and cannot be used to dismiss an estimate. Its an estimate.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


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

I am specifically talking about the variables here. They are based on facts about what we currently know about the universe and life. They have estimated the figures.., but not the facts. Its an estimate.

Yes, I do review my own posts. Nice attempt at avoiding my questions, and making out like I am "demanding".
I will just ask again. You can answer. Its very simple. Or you can keep playing your games. I really don't care. Its a good excuse to keep bumping up this thread.

What demands have I been making?

What did you demand I answer?

Have you heard of the scientific method? Can you please go into detail why NASA and SETI are "just looking" compared to scientific observations.

** snipped possible copyright infringement material **

You continue to demand that other people answer every nitwit question you post. Most of those questions have already been answered yet you continue to pretend they have not been or much more likely are unable to understand even the most basic issues.

I already answered why the search for ET is just looking. Are you unable to understand a simple answer? The answer is a resounding yes.

You bring in the scientific method as if you follow any of that. Love this failure: ' In fact, there are probably as many versions of the scientific method as there are scientists! " Can you please post more chuckles?

That's right you committed possible copyright infringement and did not reveal where you copied that material.

Nothing you posted changes the fact that scientists at this time are just searching.

Share this post


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

I am just trying to make people aware that it is an attempt at bringing together all the variables needed in order to make a guess. Its an edicated guess.., but that doesn't mean its based on conjecture and supposition. I think it is based on "facts" about the known universe.., and what we know about life. Unless they made up a brand new universe.., with new laws of physics and variables.., its based on what we currently know.

It is based on conjecture Fila. It is based on supposition. The numbers are made up. The goal is to show that even if the probabilities are really tiny the existence of someone out there is possible.

None of the probabilities are known - not a one.

Share this post


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

You continue to demand that other people answer every nitwit question you post.

I am not demanding. Don't drag other people into this. You are a cherrypicker.
You take what you can answer.., and ignore the hard question hoping I will overlook them too.
I have been patient.., but you are just taking advantage this.

12 hours ago, stereologist said:

I already answered why the search for ET is just looking. Are you unable to understand a simple answer? The answer is a resounding yes.

How? Why? What is the difference?
I'm sorry.., but I am not gullible. Your anger may work on other people.., but not me. If you cannot explain why.., don't get upset with me. The onus is on yourself. You made the claim.., back it up.

12 hours ago, stereologist said:

You bring in the scientific method as if you follow any of that.

 Another accusation.

Please back this up with examples.., otherwise I this is just another lie.

If I accused you of saying something wrong.., you would like to know details right?

12 hours ago, stereologist said:

Love this failure: ' In fact, there are probably as many versions of the scientific method as there are scientists! " Can you please post more chuckles?

Oh man, stop being so demanding. Grrr. lol. Do you see the double standards?

I reply to every single question you pose. I address every accusation. You get angry when I ask the same. Well.., I have no choice but to stop answering your questions, and playing the game your way. I refuse to answer questions.., as long as you refuse to answer mine.

Your hidden agenda is becoming more apparent with each post. Try to discredit Fila in anyway possible. Do not focus on the case.., or details. Spend as much time as possible attacking and making accusations.

12 hours ago, stereologist said:

That's right you committed possible copyright infringement and did not reveal where you copied that material.

Possibly? I think you may wish to speak to the forum moderators before making accusations. From my understanding it was shortened for length. I would argue that I am allowed to post copyrighted images under the fair use law.

12 hours ago, stereologist said:

It is based on conjecture Fila. It is based on supposition. The numbers are made up. The goal is to show that even if the probabilities are really tiny the existence of someone out there is possible.

Haha, yea nice one. You are just repeating yourself. I guess we are done here.

See ya round Stereo. Nice job avoiding details as usual. As mentioned, and further questions you have will be met with a "copy and paste" of all my prior questions you have avoided from this thread, and others.

Goodbye

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Let's try to tone down the hostilities folks - there's far too much bickering going on here.

6 hours ago, Fila said:

From my understanding it was shortened for length. I would argue that I am allowed to post copyrighted images under the fair use law.

That's fine if you are posting them on your own website, but when you post them on someone else's you make that site liable for the material you post. As such, we ask that members do not post copyrighted images and always provide a source link when quoting offsite material.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
33 minutes ago, Saru said:

Let's try to tone down the hostilities folks - there's far too much bickering going on here.

That's fine if you are posting them on your own website, but when you post them on someone else's you make that site liable for the material you post. As such, we ask that members do not post copyrighted images and always provide a source link when quoting offsite material.

Okay. I was going off this.... which kinda implies it was trimmed for length.

Edited 16 hours ago by Still Waters 
Added source links & trimmed for length. The rest can be viewed in the source links

Perhaps our "fair-use" laws might be different from yours. We are kinda chill hey. We have five situations where use of copyrighted material without permission may be allowed: research or study, criticism or review, parody or satire, reporting the news, provision of legal advice.

http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-fair-dealing-and-when-can-you-copy-without-permission-80745

Just for everyone reading.,. it was nothing evil or bad. It was a diagram showing the scientific process that was taken down. I will draw up my own copy in MS paint and post it. The information is not under copyright law.., but that individual's drawing of it was.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alien Origins

I could be wrong but I recall reading some witness statements about the Phoenix Lights where they reported seeing stars between the objects...If thats so then the object was not a solid unit but a combination of single craft or whatever. Like I said I could be wrong because my memory is not what it once was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru
24 minutes ago, Fila said:

Okay. I was going off this.... which kinda implies it was trimmed for length.

Edited 16 hours ago by Still Waters 
Added source links & trimmed for length. The rest can be viewed in the source links

Perhaps our "fair-use" laws might be different from yours. We are kinda chill hey. We have five situations where use of copyrighted material without permission may be allowed: research or study, criticism or review, parody or satire, reporting the news, provision of legal advice.

http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-fair-dealing-and-when-can-you-copy-without-permission-80745

Just for everyone reading.,. it was nothing evil or bad. It was a diagram showing the scientific process that was taken down. I will draw up my own copy in MS paint and post it. The information is not under copyright law.., but that individual's drawing of it was.

If you don't include a source link then that constitutes plagiarism - you are stealing content without attributing the source.

Copying and pasting large amounts of text is also copyright infringement, fair use only applies if a reasonable amount is reproduced.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
6 minutes ago, Saru said:

If you don't include a source link then that constitutes plagiarism - you are stealing content without attributing the source.

I coulda sworn I provided a source for that site dammit.., but I will just accept I mustn't have. Sorry about that.

I usually do provide sources.., and remember pulling up many people upon arrival. But I have also overlooked sometimes. I always applaud people for letting me know if I forget. I am always open to providing a reference.

I think if we are going to make a statement, it needs to be backed up

16 minutes ago, Saru said:

Copying and pasting large amounts of text is also copyright infringement, fair use only applies if a reasonable amount is reproduced.

I do apologise for the lengthy post. It won't happen again.

Share this post


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

I am not demanding. Don't drag other people into this. You are a cherrypicker.
You take what you can answer.., and ignore the hard question hoping I will overlook them too.
I have been patient.., but you are just taking advantage this.

How? Why? What is the difference?
I'm sorry.., but I am not gullible. Your anger may work on other people.., but not me. If you cannot explain why.., don't get upset with me. The onus is on yourself. You made the claim.., back it up.

 Another accusation.

Please back this up with examples.., otherwise I this is just another lie.

If I accused you of saying something wrong.., you would like to know details right?

Oh man, stop being so demanding. Grrr. lol. Do you see the double standards?

I reply to every single question you pose. I address every accusation. You get angry when I ask the same. Well.., I have no choice but to stop answering your questions, and playing the game your way. I refuse to answer questions.., as long as you refuse to answer mine.

Your hidden agenda is becoming more apparent with each post. Try to discredit Fila in anyway possible. Do not focus on the case.., or details. Spend as much time as possible attacking and making accusations.

Possibly? I think you may wish to speak to the forum moderators before making accusations. From my understanding it was shortened for length. I would argue that I am allowed to post copyrighted images under the fair use law.

Haha, yea nice one. You are just repeating yourself. I guess we are done here.

See ya round Stereo. Nice job avoiding details as usual. As mentioned, and further questions you have will be met with a "copy and paste" of all my prior questions you have avoided from this thread, and others.

Goodbye

Please stop being the angry whiner. No one needs to discredit Fila, Fila does a fine job of that themselves.

The simple fact of the matter is that the search for ET is just a search at this time. There is no suggestion of where to look or a trail to follow. There are some things they can check out such as older stars and stars away from the galactic center. Other than that there is little to go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The simple fact of the matter is that the search for ET is just a search at this time. There is no suggestion of where to look or a trail to follow. There are some things they can check out such as older stars and stars away from the galactic center. Other than that there is little to go on.

Well it must be kinda pathetic for someone to come here everyday getting angry about it. lol I'm fine looking into it.., and spend a tiny fraction of the time you spend here, lol. Isn't that weird?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru
2 hours ago, Saru said:

Let's try to tone down the hostilities folks - there's far too much bickering going on here.

Last time I ask before shutting the thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alien Origins
25 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Please stop being the angry whiner. No one needs to discredit Fila, Fila does a fine job of that themselves.

The simple fact of the matter is that the search for ET is just a search at this time. There is no suggestion of where to look or a trail to follow. There are some things they can check out such as older stars and stars away from the galactic center. Other than that there is little to go on.

Quote

The simple fact of the matter is that the search for ET is just a search at this time.

I do agree with this...And that search could go on for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
2 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

I could be wrong but I recall reading some witness statements about the Phoenix Lights where they reported seeing stars between the objects...If thats so then the object was not a solid unit but a combination of single craft or whatever. Like I said I could be wrong because my memory is not what it once was.

Yea, I think I heard that too actually.

28 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

I do agree with this...And that search could go on for a long time.

lol, Of course its a search. But there are plenty of suggestions on where to look.., and there is a trail to follow.

There are some things "they" can check out such as older stars and stars away from the galactic centre, sure. But this ignores the fact that UFOs are more localised. Take the Hessdallen observatory for example. Scientists still don't know what they are. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/198044-hessdalen/ 

We have nothing to go off.., because there is an evidence paradox. That is witnesses cannot gather sufficient evidence, and science apparently can't do anything about it either.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 hour ago, Alien Origins said:

I could be wrong but I recall reading some witness statements about the Phoenix Lights where they reported seeing stars between the objects...If thats so then the object was not a solid unit but a combination of single craft or whatever. Like I said I could be wrong because my memory is not what it once was.

That is correct. Some witnesses reported that. Some witnesses reported that the passing lights blocked out the stars. It is well know in vision research that our vision system will do just that - disregard the lights if it assumes that the object is opaque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
12 minutes ago, Saru said:

Last time I ask before shutting the thread.

Sorry. I am usually calm with my responses. That was a bit low. I won't sink to that level again.

Its a long weekend in Australia, so I had a few drinks tonight. Hope you have a great weekend. Sorry again.

Share this post


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

That is correct. Some witnesses reported that. Some witnesses reported that the passing lights blocked out the stars. It is well know in vision research that our vision system will do just that - disregard the lights if it assumes that the object is opaque.

That's really cool. I like learning about my vision system. I never got a manual.

I am not familiar with what is well known in vision research. Can you add that to the Phoenix Lights thread? That'd be really cool.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/305172-the-phoenix-lights/?page=11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

The lack of consistency in witness statements for the Phoenix Lights is actually amazing. The fact that witnesses did report stars passing through the area covered by the lights, the person that saw the lights pass in front of the Moon, and other observers confirms that there was no large object out there.

There is an inherent bias by some to plead that the object was also solid at the same time. This bias to create a UFO story where there is none is less common, but it does happen. The independence of the lights was reported by observers in many places. One of the planes falling behind and catching up was reported. The video shows the lights moving relative to each other. Binocular and telescope users reported planes and individual lights. Still the inherent bias of some promotes a mystery in one of the less mysterious events of our time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Harry

The problem with investigating the UFO phenomenon is that the term UFO has become a blanket phrase for alien spacecraft. A UFO is simply an unidentified flying object, whether that object be a satellite, military aircraft, bird, or some sort of natural atmospheric condition.

A UFO report can also be relative. Lets suppose someone spots a bird flying overheard, a species they are unable to identify. They may be able to identify it as some sort of bird, but the precise species is to them unidentified. Whereas a professional ornithologist would likely be able to easily identify the species. To him, the sighting would not be of a UFO, whereas to the layman unlearned in these matters, it would be.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
On 6/7/2018 at 4:22 PM, ChrLzs said:

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.

I don't go around REPORTING UM Members to Mod's all the time like some of you do. In fact I pride myself in NOT doing so because if a UM Member can't discuss Unexplained Mysteries rationally without acting personally offended that people on this site want to discuss Unexplained Mysteries what are they doing here? That is what sites like BAUT are for where "offended" skeptics have their own little "safe space" to "berate" people who don't believe the exact same things they do. 

Also I have no "petty dislike" of you ChrLzs. In fact I've tried to befriend you several times over the years and you simply have never reciprocated because I have a "close encounter" experience and you just can not accept that in your own little personal Weltanschauung! 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 6/8/2018 at 8:33 PM, Fila said:

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.

I've shown three times now where you have stated you look at the ET stories objectivity in conjunction with science based observations. The two are simply not compatible. 

Quote

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.

So why bother with ET claims at all then if your not offering that side of the claim credence? Why seek out sources where the pop culture ideal is promoted over research? 

Quote

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

For the posters that offer in depth historical explanations. I learn a lot about all sorts of subjects from posters like Tim, Bade, Lost Shaman and Perycinthion. 

Quote

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.

I didn't say what they all are, I said what they are not. 

Quote

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

How are those items not UFOs??

Quote

Before I go on.., what is woo?

As you've referenced the term layer in the post you obviously know. 

Quote

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.

No that's not the case at all. If it what's this then? Obviously natural phenomena yet a UFO. 

Close_up_of_light_in_sky,_Sri_Lanka.jpg

Quote

 

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. 

How is it valid? We can't prove a negative. There is no reason to believe the ETH is a valid option as it is not at all supported. And it makes no sense. 

Quote

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

Because fringe subjects undermine genuine research. 

Quote

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.

Not how you approached the Phoenix tale at all though is it? 

Quote

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.

We do know for a fact that happens though. It's  not based on pop culture but real world events that are a regular occurrence. 

Quote

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.

No it's not the same. Meteorological answers are not based on pop culture. 

Quote

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.

Then IMHO you fail on realistic evaluation. 

 

And with the Drake equation, have you not yet picked up that if we had the variables to plug into it, we wouldn't need it? It's more a thought experiment. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 3

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.