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

Emma_Acid
On 08/06/2018 at 11:31 PM, Fila said:

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.

You're creating false dichotomies and pushing the answers towards something you want. This is an entirely biased, unbalanced questionnaire, that will only result in utterly meaningless answers.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

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

Assuming by UFO you mean "unidentified flying object", not "alien craft". Something can't be misidentified if it is never identified in the first place, and certainly if there is never an official identification claiming its an alien craft - anyone can ID anything as anything they want, so unless something is officially ID'd as an alien craft (which has obviously never happened) then the question is meaningless.

Is it possible that advanced ET life exists?

Yes of course it is. But so what?

Can an advanced ET race visit Earth secretly?

We don't know. And any one that says either way is lying.

So all we can gather from the questionnaire is that you are hoping for the following answers: No + Yes + Yes = aliens are visiting earth.

Edited by Emma_Acid
spelling
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 12/06/2018 at 10:36 AM, psyche101 said:

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. 

I am still having difficulty linking this back to me not wanting answers, because I cite the witness claiming alien spaceships. Can you please provide examples? Why isn't ChrLzs pulling you up for not having the "ammunition" before you attack someone?

Can you please explain how? Where have you "shown" this.., as opposed to simply stating its not compatible. How? Why? I disagree and explained why.

On 12/06/2018 at 10:36 AM, psyche101 said:

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?

I don't understand what you mean by "not offering that side claim credence" but I can answer the 1st part. Why bother with ET claims? Because its interesting.., and I don't dismiss claims or theories. I don't take them as gospel either. Step 1 of my long mission is hearing all sides.

I seek sources from all locations. As mentioned I haven't found anything on UFO reports in online databases, or my local library and uni library. This is actually the first problem I am noticing, which makes it quite difficult to study professionally.

On 12/06/2018 at 10:36 AM, psyche101 said:

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. 

Historical explanations. Cool. Like what? Can you show me one?

On 12/06/2018 at 10:36 AM, psyche101 said:

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

Sure, I am not claiming the opposite. Now I could go Hulk style and start accusing you of "handwaving".., but I just assume you made an honest mistake, or perhaps I did. Isn't this a nicer way to communicate?

Its was more about you telling me to look elsewhere for answers. Its all fantasy etc etc. Thanks anyway.., but I will be fine.

On 12/06/2018 at 10:36 AM, psyche101 said:

How are those items not UFOs??

Well 1st of all I never said that. Again.., some Hulk monsters would be claiming "handwaving" here also. But perhaps its unintentional. I was just saying that I don't want to look into them.

I'll take a shot at it though. Even though we may not fully understand "earthlights".., they have been identified as Earthlights. Etc etc. I'm not into "researching black ops projects" because it seems highly illegal, and most likely fruitless. Trying to spy on the most secretive organisations in the world? I'll pass thanks. I believe they are entitled to keep their technology secret anyway for defence purposes.

On 12/06/2018 at 10:36 AM, psyche101 said:

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

Yea.., but before I continue. I would like to know what you think it means. I think it means BS.., or 'fantastical' but I am not sure. Perhaps it could mean something else. I would like to know if I'm wrong first. Sorry, I have been bitten by the semantics demon.., and remain wary now.

On 12/06/2018 at 10:36 AM, psyche101 said:

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

That is a lenticular cloud. "Yet a UFO"? I'm not following. How does this refute or relate to my post?

On 12/06/2018 at 10:36 AM, psyche101 said:

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. 

A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability if one can conceive an empirical observation or experiment which could refute it, that is, show it to be false.

For example, the claim "all swans are white" is falsifiable since it could be refuted by observing a single swan that is not white. "All swans are white" can be proven false and is hence a falsifiable statement, since evidence of black swans proves it to be false, and such evidence can be provided.

Were the statement true, however, it would be difficult to prove true.

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

What is "most logical" or "most likely" is relative to human comprehension at that time. What we all accept to be true at the time. At one point it was "most logical" that the Earth was the centre of the universe. It was flat, meteors don't fall from the sky, and much more you are probably aware of already. Its based on what we are comfortable accepting without requiring conclusive proof. Actually.., sorry if you don't get it but I might leave it there because this will make a good thread topic.

On 12/06/2018 at 10:36 AM, psyche101 said:

Because fringe subjects undermine genuine research. 

This is very interesting. Can you go into more details on how I am undermining your "genuine research"?
If UFOs are considered Fringe science in the first place.., how come you are not in the same category as me? What "genuine research" are you doing, that I am not?

I'm not going around claiming any case is alien. I am looking at what is could be.., and listening to others opinions also. Unlike others.., I don't speak with 100% certainty. I don't claim "its obviously" anything. To say "most likely" is the conclusion shows bias. To say your "conclusion" is correct and based on science and "genuine research".., yet mine isn't.., is incorrect.

On 12/06/2018 at 10:36 AM, psyche101 said:

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

Yes. Why?

On 12/06/2018 at 10:36 AM, psyche101 said:

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. 

You missed my point. Its still a UFO unless identified. Both theories are plausible. Both are entitled to that opinion. But, its still a UFO.

I never knew that the ETH was "based on pop culture". At uni, we are shown that life imitates art.., but art imitates life. I.e the Simpsons critiques real life situations. Most TV shows do tbh. Can you show me how you found out that extraterrestrials were very popular within mainstream culture back when the first UFO reports were being made officially?

Even if scientists get an idea from pop culture that later turns out to be real or not.., its never a bad thing. People's lives are not ruined. It's all G.

On 12/06/2018 at 10:36 AM, psyche101 said:

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

Well yea, they were. Not sure how meteorology comes into it.., but okay.

Again, this is relative to your time and location on Earth. People believed many things. I don't think you seem to get it. We are going to look back in 50 years and laugh or be shocked at some of the things we did or thought. Just as we do today at people in the past.

This actually seems to be a very big issue with UFOs in general. The automatic disbelief. I am deff going to start a new thread about this sometime soon.

On 12/06/2018 at 10:36 AM, psyche101 said:

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. 

I get a CREDIT average with my assignments, in all classes, from different university lecturers.

Yea.., I get that the equation is a thought experiment. I was discussing the claim that it "uses a series of probabilities all of which are made up and not based on facts". Its an estimate based on what we do know. Facts. Its not an estimate based on what we don't know (I.e. lets assume the Earth is square, and life is only capable of living in vacuums or whatever you and Stereo are trying to make out). Perhaps you can take over from Stereo for me.

Edited by Fila
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I am still having difficulty linking this back to me not wanting answers, because I cite the witness claiming alien spaceships. Can you please provide examples? Why isn't ChrLzs pulling you up for not having the "ammunition" before you attack someone?

ChrLzs has probably not commented because I've quoted you several times now where you state that you listen to both sides objectivly. And you've illustrated that you will accept the alien spaceship claimants in your phoenix thread. 

Quote

Can you please explain how? Where have you "shown" this.., as opposed to simply stating its not compatible. How? Why? I disagree and explained why.

Where did you explain the value of input from people who tell tall tales is at all valuable to genuine UFO research? How is the study of earth sciences at all compatible with pop culture stories? 

Quote

I don't understand what you mean by "not offering that side claim credence" but I can answer the 1st part. Why bother with ET claims? Because its interesting.., and I don't dismiss claims or theories. I don't take them as gospel either. Step 1 of my long mission is hearing all sides.

Excepting academic sources it seems. 

I just don't see how anyone who claims witnesses such as those at the phoenix-lights are genuine at a about the phenomena. It's like a zoologist chasing Nessy stories. 

Quote

I seek sources from all locations. As mentioned I haven't found anything on UFO reports in online databases, or my local library and uni library. This is actually the first problem I am noticing, which makes it quite difficult to study professionally.

As I've said, people who study UAP are not called UFOlogists. They are called meterologists and astrophysicists. That your focusing on incidents like the phoenix lights as opposed to Hessdalen I do believe exposes your true nature regarding the phenomena. 

Quote

Historical explanations. Cool. Like what? Can you show me one?

Like the debate on the so called apollo 11 UFO which turned out to be debris from the module itself, like the Echo/Oscar middle base claims, or like this :

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/area-51-vets-break-silence-sorry-but-no-space-aliens-or-ufos/

Quote

Sure, I am not claiming the opposite. Now I could go Hulk style and start accusing you of "handwaving".., but I just assume you made an honest mistake, or perhaps I did. Isn't this a nicer way to communicate?

Its was more about you telling me to look elsewhere for answers. Its all fantasy etc etc. Thanks anyway.., but I will be fine.

No I'm saying your pleading online that the subject is not taken seriously or is avoided are empty claims and you don't appear at all genuine with regards to those proclamations. 

Quote

Well 1st of all I never said that. Again.., some Hulk monsters would be claiming "handwaving" here also. But perhaps its unintentional. I was just saying that I don't want to look into them.

I'll take a shot at it though. Even though we may not fully understand "earthlights".., they have been identified as Earthlights. Etc etc.

That's the sort of dismissal your complaining about with regards to the the subject though isn't it? People not doing research? And those who do are to be dismissed for what, witnesses like at phoenix? 

Quote

I'm not into "researching black ops projects" because it seems highly illegal, and most likely fruitless. Trying to spy on the most secretive organisations in the world? I'll pass thanks. I believe they are entitled to keep their technology secret anyway for defence purposes.

That's where the historical side comes in. The SR71 and the B2 generated reports, in the link I provided above, Noce clearly ties in Blackbird tests with UFO reports. That is significant when regarding UFO reports in general as a genuine historical examination for some UFOs and illustrates that's likely to remain the case in some instances. That's one answer out of many right there. 

Quote

Yea.., but before I continue. I would like to know what you think it means. I think it means BS.., or 'fantastical' but I am not sure. Perhaps it could mean something else. I would like to know if I'm wrong first. Sorry, I have been bitten by the semantics demon.., and remain wary now.

Credulous will suffice. 

Quote

That is a lenticular cloud. "Yet a UFO"? I'm not following. How does this refute or relate to my post?

Is it now? 

How many lenticular clouds exhibit a glow when viewed from above like that one did? 

Quote

A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability if one can conceive an empirical observation or experiment which could refute it, that is, show it to be false.

For example, the claim "all swans are white" is falsifiable since it could be refuted by observing a single swan that is not white. "All swans are white" can be proven false and is hence a falsifiable statement, since evidence of black swans proves it to be false, and such evidence can be provided.

Were the statement true, however, it would be difficult to prove true.

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

I'm up to speed on popper thanks anyway. 

Quote

What is "most logical" or "most likely" is relative to human comprehension at that time. What we all accept to be true at the time. At one point it was "most logical" that the Earth was the centre of the universe. It was flat, meteors don't fall from the sky, and much more you are probably aware of already. Its based on what we are comfortable accepting without requiring conclusive proof. Actually.., sorry if you don't get it but I might leave it there because this will make a good thread topic.

None of those thing were illogical, they simply were rare events treated with skepticism until proven. Then they were just information. It is illogical to consider an alien traversing the difficulties of space to crash here, it is illogical that an advances species would single out credulous people to make first contact with and its highly illogical that the small spaceships reported could cross space with room fuel and resources for the journey and its also highly illogical that a large spaceship would enter the solar system unbeknownst to every sensitive instrument and astronomer on earth only to be seen by an individual or small groups of people with.... Let's just say 'alternative views' 

It is logical that UFOs have nothing to do with space as we have recorded and tracked them on earth with instruments like RADAR and they all have an earthly trajectory, it is logical the the Hessdalen phenomena is very much and earth process and it is significant that people who have witnessed the phenomena just happen to match alien spaceship descriptions, it is logical that due to the distances in space that we would not be getting regular visits from aliens who are here to get people ridiculed, mutilate cows or stop cars. 

Quote

This is very interesting. Can you go into more details on how I am undermining your "genuine research"?

I never said you or I. I said fringe sciences undermine real research. 

And that deserves no support. 

Quote

If UFOs are considered Fringe science in the first place.., how come you are not in the same category as me? What "genuine research" are you doing, that I am not?

Your phoenix thread illustrates that perfectly. 

Quote

I'm not going around claiming any case is alien. I am looking at what is could be.., and listening to others opinions also. Unlike others.., I don't speak with 100% certainty. I don't claim "its obviously" anything. To say "most likely" is the conclusion shows bias. To say your "conclusion" is correct and based on science and "genuine research".., yet mine isn't.., is incorrect.

I don't believe it is incorrect at all. 8d like to see how you justify 'alien' as a possibility at all. 

Quote

Yes. Why?

Because you kept banging on about the inconsistent reports and ignoring the consistent ones. 

Quote

You missed my point. Its still a UFO unless identified. Both theories are plausible. Both are entitled to that opinion. But, its still a UFO.

Explain how any of the alien claims are plausible. 

Quote

I never knew that the ETH was "based on pop culture". At uni, we are shown that life imitates art.., but art imitates life. I.e the Simpsons critiques real life situations. Most TV shows do tbh. Can you show me how you found out that extraterrestrials were very popular within mainstream culture back when the first UFO reports were being made officially?

How can you claim to have done any real research and complain there is none out there, yet remain oblivious to the obvious? 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a4043/4304883/

Quote

Even if scientists get an idea from pop culture that later turns out to be real or not.., its never a bad thing. People's lives are not ruined. It's all G.

And how does that apply here? What has the ETH got to offer science? 

Quote

Well yea, they were. Not sure how meteorology comes into it.., but okay.

Because it's a know real thing, which makes it a viable answer over any ETH deviation. 

Quote

Again, this is relative to your time and location on Earth. People believed many things. I don't think you seem to get it. We are going to look back in 50 years and laugh or be shocked at some of the things we did or thought. Just as we do today at people in the past.

This actually seems to be a very big issue with UFOs in general. The automatic disbelief. I am deff going to start a new thread about this sometime soon.

ETH brings automatic disbelief in the same way Nessie Bigfoot and Unicorns do. It's not a big issue its common sense, and there is no disbelief about the existance of UAP. If there was I doubt the Hessdalen project would exist. 

Quote

I get a CREDIT average with my assignments, in all classes, from different university lecturers.

If you approach assignments how you approached the phoenix claims your mum must be your teacher. 

Quote

Yea.., I get that the equation is a thought experiment. I was discussing the claim that it "uses a series of probabilities all of which are made up and not based on facts". Its an estimate based on what we do know. Facts. Its not an estimate based on what we don't know (I.e. lets assume the Earth is square, and life is only capable of living in vacuums or whatever you and Stereo are trying to make out). Perhaps you can take over from Stereo for me.

Its based on life as we know it which seems a pretty sensible place to start. But it can't tell us anything until we already know the factors to plug into the equation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

ChrLzs has probably not commented because I've quoted you several times now where you state that you listen to both sides objectivly. And you've illustrated that you will accept the alien spaceship claimants in your phoenix thread. Where did you explain the value of input from people who tell tall tales is at all valuable to genuine UFO research? How is the study of earth sciences at all compatible with pop culture stories? 

I am still having difficulty linking this back to me not wanting answers, because I cite the witness claiming alien spaceships. Can you please provide an example. I really do not understand what you are talking about. Sorry.

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

I just don't see how anyone who claims witnesses such as those at the phoenix-lights are genuine at a about the phenomena. It's like a zoologist chasing Nessy stories. 

I am not going to ignore UFO reports because of the sheer amount of evidence, worldwide (from governments even) over such a large time frame. There's a lot of evidence for UFOs compared to something like nessy.., so I don't see this as a fair comparison.

Also.., what else am I meant to do about the Phoenix Lights witness reports? What other data should I be looking at?

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

As I've said, people who study UAP are not called UFOlogists. They are called meterologists and astrophysicists. That your focusing on incidents like the phoenix lights as opposed to Hessdalen I do believe exposes your true nature regarding the phenomena. 

Ok cool. Can you show me examples of meteorologists studying UFOs? Or are we calling it UAP now to help work in some weather anomalies? What instruments do they use?

Can you show me examples of astrophysicists studying UFOs also? What tools do they use? I always thought 'astro' was relating to the stars or celestial objects and outer space.., while UFOs appear to be more localised.

I am focusing on the Phoenix Lights more than Hessdallen? Well for starters.., what's good for the goose is good for the gander. How about reprimanding Stereologist for focusing on the PL.., as he brings it up all the time. I have been on the defensive since coming back this month.

What does that expose about his true nature regarding the phenomena?

Secondly.., you should see my bookmark tabs. I have a whole folder with nothing but Hessdallen technical data. I am actually designing my own idea based on what they are doing. I'm seeing what data they have already, and what it has achieved, and what is needed next. I'm into electronics, computer coding, hardware, networking, also getting into cameras and radios. I have worked in construction for 3 years, so I can build the structure. Doing a basic chemistry course online just to get an overview and basic understanding. I could build the entire setup by myself. I am slowly trying to understand how all their sensors work, and how to read the data, and what it will produce.

If it were up to me.., we'd be discussing all the time.

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Like the debate on the so called apollo 11 UFO which turned out to be debris from the module itself, like the Echo/Oscar middle base claims, or like this :

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/area-51-vets-break-silence-sorry-but-no-space-aliens-or-ufos/

Okay, that's cool. You like reading about IFOs. Is this because you get bored, and need a laugh? Cause alienz are funneh I must admit.

I am going to leave it there for now.., and reply to the rest in segments over time. The posts are getting too long, and points are being lost.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists

Actually the use of the term "UAP" is becoming quite common even in UFO circles...The evolution was inevitable...Just as the term "Flying Saucer" eventually gave way to the term "UFO"......UFO and UAP basically mean the same thing its just that the term "UAP" better defines what people are seeing or think they see. Times are a changing and those of us who research or read about "UFOs" had better get use to seeing the term "UAP" because I think eventually "UFO" will become a thing of the past just like the term "Flying Saucer".... 

Nick Redfern discusses in an article over on Mysterious Universe about the term "Ufology" and ask the question should it be changed to something else? In the last paragraph of that article he states:

Quote

I don’t think it’s absolutely vital for the word “Ufology” to be replaced with another one. But, I do think something else might rid us of some of the pomposity in the field, which would not be a bad thing at all. And that something just might allow the scene to expand further into alternative realms of research and not be so tied to just the word “UFO.”

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/05/ufology-or-something-else/

Quote

But, I do think something else might rid us of some of the pomposity in the field, which would not be a bad thing at all.

The above statement is what caught my attention...I think the same can be said for the term "UFO".

Edited by Alien Origins
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Actually the use of the term "UAP" is becoming quite common even in UFO circles...The evolution was inevitable...Just as the term "Flying Saucer" eventually gave way to the term "UFO"......UFO and UAP basically mean the same thing its just that the term "UAP" better defines what people are seeing or think they see. Times are a changing and those of us who research or read about "UFOs" had better get use to seeing the term "UAP" because I think eventually "UFO" will become a thing of the past just like the term "Flying Saucer".... 

Sorry, I am aware of the term. And do prefer anything but UFO tbh. I just noticed the switch and had to comment. To me personally.., UAP is much broader than an unidentified flying object.., because UFO it implies its "flying" while aerial phenomenon can mean anything.

Unidentified aerial phenomenon does "seem" much broader.., to even celestial events. Like someone witnessing a supernova or something perhaps. Whereas a "flying" object would need to be much closer? Damn.., this is one for this thread.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314101-redefining-the-term-ufo/ 

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
17 hours ago, Fila said:

I am still having difficulty linking this back to me not wanting answers, because I cite the witness claiming alien spaceships. Can you please provide an example. I really do not understand what you are talking about. Sorry.

The ETH is not about finding out what UFOs are. It's entertainment. Including the ETH in your evaluations, or rather considering such claims as part of a real attempt to understand the phenomena is not a genuine approach. 

I really can't put it more simple than that, if that still bewilders you I can only assume your method has obstructed a clear view of what I have deducted from your approach to the subject. 

Quote

I am not going to ignore UFO reports because of the sheer amount of evidence, worldwide (from governments even) over such a large time frame.

Nobody has said UAP are imaginary. 

And government is responsible for at least a significant percentage of claims so its just logical that some information will come from that source. 

Quote

There's a lot of evidence for UFOs compared to something like nessy.., so I don't see this as a fair comparison.

It depends on whether your referring to the ETH or UAP. There is as much evidence to connect UFOs with the ETH as there is for the existance of Nessie. 

Quote

Also.., what else am I meant to do about the Phoenix Lights witness reports? What other data should I be looking at?

Corroborating reports from industry professionals who can offer why they came to the conclusions that they did and ignoring the wild claims from people who obviously want to say 'aliens' who have no reasoning behind their wild claims. 

Quote

Ok cool. Can you show me examples of meteorologists studying UFOs? Or are we calling it UAP now to help work in some weather anomalies? What instruments do they use?

I've already pointed that out to you when discussing Rendlesham

Here it is again, the British Astronomical Society explaining the 3am fireball that had a huge influence on sparking the tall tale associated with the Rendlesham claim. 

3amfireball.jpg

Quote

Can you show me examples of astrophysicists studying UFOs also? What tools do they use? I always thought 'astro' was relating to the stars or celestial objects and outer space.., while UFOs appear to be more localised.

Again, I've already told you of such a case, the alleged Apollo 11 UFO. 

Edwin Aldrin recently came out in a special on the Science Channel and stated that the astronauts abroad Apollo 11 all saw unidentified objects which seemed to have been following them.  He also mentions that they were briefed not to talk about what they had seen.  What does NASA have to say in response to this?  What were those objects they all saw?

I just talked to Buzz Aldrin on the phone, and he notes that the quotations were taken out of context and did not convey the intended meaning.  After the Apollo 11 crew verified that the objects they were seeing was not the SIVB upper stage,  which was about 6000 miles away at that time, they concluded that they were probably seeing one of the panels from the separation of the spacecraft from the upper stage.  These panels were not tracked from Earth and were likely much closer to the Apollo spacecraft.  They chose no to discuss this on the open communications channel since they were concerned that their comments might be misinterpreted (as they are being now).  Apparently all of this discussion about the panels was cut from the broadcast interview, thus giving the impression that they had seen a UFO.

David Morrison

https://sservi.nasa.gov/?question=buzz-aldrins-ufo-sighting

And if you are unaware of who David Morrison is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Morrison_(astrophysicist)

Quote

I am focusing on the Phoenix Lights more than Hessdallen? Well for starters.., what's good for the goose is good for the gander. How about reprimanding Stereologist for focusing on the PL.., as he brings it up all the time. I have been on the defensive since coming back this month.

He uses it as an example to illustrate what I have, that you contaminate genuine research with pop culture crazes. It's the standard that most so called UFOlogists like Stanton Friedman lower themselves to. 

Quote

What does that expose about his true nature regarding the phenomena?

To me I see he is genuine in discussing the real phenomenon not the pop culture creation. 

Quote

Secondly.., you should see my bookmark tabs. I have a whole folder with nothing but Hessdallen technical data. I am actually designing my own idea based on what they are doing. I'm seeing what data they have already, and what it has achieved, and what is needed next. I'm into electronics, computer coding, hardware, networking, also getting into cameras and radios. I have worked in construction for 3 years, so I can build the structure. Doing a basic chemistry course online just to get an overview and basic understanding. I could build the entire setup by myself. I am slowly trying to understand how all their sensors work, and how to read the data, and what it will produce.

I had a look at your profile but it didn't tell me where you are from, your an Aussie aren't you? I'm not sure our Min Mins are caused by the same process. It might pay to investigate what your trying to record before trying to record something. Hessdalen is localised and is quite possibly a result of the geological makeup of the region. Min Mins might be something completely different, I suspect that they may be more electrical in nature. 

I work in construction, have my whole career. What are you studying at Uni? 

Quote

If it were up to me.., we'd be discussing all the time.

We don't seem to be though, the ETH keeps creeping in and I honestly fail to see how you can consider it a viable option. 

Quote

Okay, that's cool. You like reading about IFOs. Is this because you get bored, and need a laugh? Cause alienz are funneh I must admit.

Its a historical record that definitely explains some UFOs and as such is relevant to UFO discussion and research. Personally I had no idea that the USAF produced so many studies and investigations regarding the phenomena. And it gives insight into the mindsets that creates the believers and sceptics you loosely refer to in your OP. 

And its extremely interesting. Have you read Tim's blog? 

The aim is to turn all UFOs into IFOs so any such examples I feel are important to consider when evaluating claims. 

Quote

I am going to leave it there for now.., and reply to the rest in segments over time. The posts are getting too long, and points are being lost.

Whatever works best for you. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The ETH is not about finding out what UFOs are. It's entertainment. Including the ETH in your evaluations, or rather considering such claims as part of a real attempt to understand the phenomena is not a genuine approach. 

I really can't put it more simple than that, if that still bewilders you I can only assume your method has obstructed a clear view of what I have deducted from your approach to the subject.

I don't want answers.., because the ETH is entertainment? For me to consider it.., is not a genuine approach to UFOs. You can't explain it more than that.

I have provided a detailed rebuttal.., and this is all you can produce in response? You are not explaining your points.., merely stating them. Explain how I am not wanting answers because I look into all possibilities? How am I not seeking answers by being objective? Where is the example? Why isn't ChrLzs pulling you up for not providing an example? Why do you continually avoid these questions? Please respond.

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Nobody has said UAP are imaginary. And government is responsible for at least a significant percentage of claims so its just logical that some information will come from that source. 

Nobody.., including me.

What is going on? I don't follow how some of your replies relate to the conversation. Can you please explain why you said this? Do you think I implied UAP is imaginary? Please respond.

I really don't understand the how the government is responsible for a significant percentage of claims. Where did you get this information from? Do you mean the government UFO reports? Or.., people reporting classified government vehicles?

I am worried your are not understanding my rebuttals.., as your responses seem to be off-topic or avgue. I worry that you will just keep spamming the same things like ChrLzs and Stereo without ever understanding my posts. Anyway.., time will tell.

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

It depends on whether your referring to the ETH or UAP. There is as much evidence to connect UFOs with the ETH as there is for the existance of Nessie. 

UFOs. When I type the acronym U.., F.., and O in that order.., I am referring to unidentified flying objects. When I type the acronym E.., T.., H.., which are completely different letters altogether.., I am referring to the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Hope this clears things up for you.

Do you understand my point now? Please confirm.

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Corroborating reports from industry professionals who can offer why they came to the conclusions that they did and ignoring the wild claims from people who obviously want to say 'aliens' who have no reasoning behind their wild claims. 

From the witness reports I have read.., I don't recall 1 saying they saw an alien. They simply describe what was witnessed. It seems like you are the one trying to claim aliens.

Industry professionals? Like who? I am really interested. I look at all angles.., which is the correct way. Ignoring claims to make my "conclusion" fit is incorrect. Ignoring data is bias. Taking "opinion" as an official conclusion is bias.

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

I've already pointed that out to you when discussing Rendlesham

Here it is again, the British Astronomical Society explaining the 3am fireball that had a huge influence on sparking the tall tale associated with the Rendlesham claim. 

Excuse me for thinking you had something more. I remember that. It doesn't explain the Rendlesham lights at all. It ignores the witness testimony regarding colours, motion, behaviour and duration of the lights. Come on.., bring me some examples of meteorologists and astronomers studying the UFO phenomenon. Not an example of an astronomer seeing a meteor. Or is this it? If so.., then you have simply proven the threads main point.
 

I think you are really highlighting the thread topic quite well. You are arguing that your approach is not biased.., yet you ignore witness reports, and have already concluded the ETH is not a possibility. You tell me not to give witnesses "credence".., basically ignore what they say and find something else that might be similar in any way. You tell me to look into weather anomalies and celestial events instead.., and try to make them work into the explanation (bias).

Do you see this is just as bad as an ET believer approaching the subject that UFO must be ET? And to tell everyone that the way it is.,. and to wake up?

I am going to have to cut my response short again.., as the same issues are occurring. Until we sort out these few problems.., I think we will not get anywhere with the rest of our discussion. Posts are getting too long.., and nothing is actually getting sorted.

This is not an attempt at avoiding questions. Quite the opposite actually.., as I will be reviewing our discussion from the beginning in detail, writing down all points that need to be resolved.., with a confirmation post from either side that the point has finally been understood.

Edited by Fila
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 12/06/2018 at 11:54 PM, Emma_Acid said:

You're creating false dichotomies and pushing the answers towards something you want. This is an entirely biased, unbalanced questionnaire, that will only result in utterly meaningless answers.

Its all G. As mentioned I have my own personal reasons for the questions. I don't expect others to understand.., and I can see why you may be frustrated. Please accept my apologies for upsetting you.

On 12/06/2018 at 11:58 PM, Emma_Acid said:

So all we can gather from the questionnaire is that you are hoping for the following answers: No + Yes + Yes = aliens are visiting earth.

Is this a false dichotomy? lol, jk. But seriously, no. As mentioned I don't want to reveal my reasons as it would taint the answers I do receive. I wanted to add more questions.., but 3 is the maximum.

Officially we don't know the answer.., so a "maybe" option would technically be the correct answer.

But a poll with 100 "maybe" results is kinda useless. I want to hear your opinion. If you are unsure.., look into it more and then come back with your opinion. Kinda like a UFO case. We don't officially have an answer to each case.., but ya'll do a great job at forming conclusions.

If you are unable to post your opinions on these questions.., I would appreciate an explanation as to why you treat this differently.., compared to UFO reports.

I agree 100% that there should be a maybe option. Especially regarding UFOs. But.., do you see the hypocrisy?

There should be a 'maybe' option in the poll.., because officially we don't know the answer. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. But then with UFOs there shouldn't be.., because ___________ <insert text here>________.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


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

I don't want answers.., because the ETH is entertainment? For me to consider it.., is not a genuine approach to UFOs. You can't explain it more than that.

Says it all really, and I honestly can't tell if your being deliberately obtuse here or if your just thick. 

Quote

I have provided a detailed rebuttal..,

Where? 

Quote

and this is all you can produce in response? You are not explaining your points.., merely stating them.

Seems sufficient to get the point across to me. 

Quote

Explain how I am not wanting answers because I look into all possibilities?

The ETH is not a realistic possibility even if you close your eyes and wish real hard, nothing supports the idea. 

Quote

How am I not seeking answers by being objective?

By stating things like Phoenix zealots as opposed to papers from Google Scholar. 

Quote

Where is the example? Why isn't ChrLzs pulling you up for not providing an example?

Because I've provided a quote from your own posts three times now. 

Quote

Why do you continually avoid these questions?

I'm not, you don't like the answers your getting. 

Quote

Please respond.

I have each time. 

Quote

Nobody.., including me.

What is going on? I don't follow how some of your replies relate to the conversation. Can you please explain why you said this? Do you think I implied UAP is imaginary? Please respond.

Here I'll quote you again. 

I am not going to ignore UFO reports

Implying others do, but I don't see alien stories as UFO reports. And that's the only aspect about the phenomena that is not taken seriously anymore and with good reason. 

Quote

I really don't understand the how the government is responsible for a significant percentage of claims. Where did you get this information from? Do you mean the government UFO reports? Or.., people reporting classified government vehicles?

People reporting government vehicles as ET spacecraft just as in the link I provided with Noce explaining how that applied to the SR71. Not a wild guess but genuine encounters, in fact the government covering up a black project seems the most likely conclusion when considering the Cash Landrum  case. 

Quote

I am worried your are not understanding my rebuttals.., as your responses seem to be off-topic or avgue. I worry that you will just keep spamming the same things like ChrLzs and Stereo without ever understanding my posts. Anyway.., time will tell.

Yes because its not you, its the rest of the world hey. 

We all seem to be able to decipher each others posting, have you noticed even you have singled yourself out here as the common denominator? 

:rolleyes:

Quote

UFOs. When I type the acronym U.., F.., and O in that order.., I am referring to unidentified flying objects. When I type the acronym E.., T.., H.., which are completely different letters altogether.., I am referring to the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Hope this clears things up for you.

Do you understand my point now? Please confirm.

Of course not, is the a line where the two won't cross for you? You consider such bunk as 'objective evidence' so perhaps you could be clear as to when the ETH is completely off the table with regards to cases being discussed. 

Quote

From the witness reports I have read.., I don't recall 1 saying they saw an alien. They simply describe what was witnessed. It seems like you are the one trying to claim aliens.

You have got to be kidding me. The only witnesses you seemed to be interested in supporting over the Phoenix Lights were those claiming a giant alien spaceship paid them a visit. 

Quote

Industry professionals? Like who?

For one, Rich Contry, an air force pilot who identified planes at Phoenix. I brought him up and you went on how pilots are not better witnesses than anyone. Thing is I agree with that, when it comes to real alien spaceships, we are on a level playing field, nobody has seen one, but when it comes to planes that changes, they do know aircraft. 

Quote

I am really interested. I look at all angles.., which is the correct way.

Do lead physicists at the hadron collider should consult Deepak Chopra for another angle to their findings? 

I don't think so. 

Such is the ETH to UAP research. 

Quote

Ignoring claims to make my "conclusion" fit is incorrect.

And garbage in equals garbage out. 

Quote

Ignoring data is bias.

The Plural of Anecdote is not data. 

Data is what is produced at Hessdalen. 

Quote

Taking "opinion" as an official conclusion is bias.

'Best fit to data' is often the best possible result due to scrappy detail and vague descriptions. Especially when considering the older cases.

Quote

Excuse me for thinking you had something more. 

You expect too much. 

Quote

I remember that. It doesn't explain the Rendlesham lights at all. It ignores the witness testimony regarding colours, motion, behaviour and duration of the lights.

And there you go giving Tall Tales of the ETH over real world genuine recorded data. This us when you show your not seriously investigating the phenomena at all. 

Other witnesses in the team on the ground offered a very mundane report of a light in the sky that sent them on a wild goose chase to a lighthouse, which got some reason you find less reliable than the two idiots fighting over if they were visited by aluens or future humans. 

Your here for entertainment and to champion the underdog, I don't know how you can deny that when you make credulous statements like the above. 

Quote

Come on.., bring me some examples of meteorologists and astronomers studying the UFO phenomenon. Not an example of an astronomer seeing a meteor.

If the group labelled themselves UFO hunters or alien busters instead of the British Astronomical Society you would be good with it? 

I've told you many times, the people who do find answers to the UFO question don't call themselves UFOlogists. This is a genuine case where some people have decided to call a meteor a UFO and has been rationalised by people who do look properly with experience at what some label UFOs. 

This provides exactly what you asked for, but you still cite the kooks as if noteworthy, and that exposes your true nature with regards to your BS research claims. 

Quote

Or is this it? If so.., then you have simply proven the threads main point.

Yes, the threads point is BS and that shows it.

I refuse to take the poll. Its rubbish. 

The bias is toward the obvious tall tales undermining real research. If you find the people who want lights in the sky to be alien spaceships as worthy information then I doubt you will come to any conclusions in your lifetime. 

Quote

I think you are really highlighting the thread topic quite well. You are arguing that your approach is not biased.., yet you ignore witness reports,

I'm not understanding, as with Phoenix I've read the witness reports and saw what corroborated and who had real world experience to decipher their sighting, yet you seemed more impressed with the unsupported claims of thousands of reports, and yet I don't know if you read a single one of them. You never even substantiated any of the thousands claims as true or even realistic. It strikes me that there's a perfect example right there of you enacting exactly what you have accused me of. 

Quote

and have already concluded the ETH is not a possibility.

You want to explain how it is? 

Quote

You tell me not to give witnesses "credence".., basically ignore what they say and find something else that might be similar in any way. 

Nobody has said that. Do what you want. I just don't see how entertaining tall tales has ever offered the field of study anything more than increased confusion. The only answers we have are from sources you refuse to consider and seem to find boring. 

Quote

You tell me to look into weather anomalies and celestial events instead.., and try to make them work into the explanation (bias).

They are real, and without doubt explain a significant portion of claims. That's you bias showing and your prefrence for entertainment over actual research. Look at how you blew of the Flyingdales UFO as a lenticular cloud, even though pilots and meteorologists have not. 

Quote

Do you see this is just as bad as an ET believer approaching the subject that UFO must be ET? And to tell everyone that the way it is.,. and to wake up?

No because its not bias, its experience with research into the phenomena. You show me how the ETH is a valuable avenue worthy of pursuit and I'll be happy to reevaluate my position on it. 

Quote

I am going to have to cut my response short again.., as the same issues are occurring. Until we sort out these few problems.., I think we will not get anywhere with the rest of our discussion. Posts are getting too long.., and nothing is actually getting sorted.

This is not an attempt at avoiding questions. Quite the opposite actually.., as I will be reviewing our discussion from the beginning in detail, writing down all points that need to be resolved.., with a confirmation post from either side that the point has finally been understood.

We shall see I guess. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Don't quite know why I'm being dragged in here.. and this is all I'll address of Fila's lengthy and largely pointless posts..

On 6/13/2018 at 12:29 PM, Fila said:

I am still having difficulty linking this back to me not wanting answers, because I cite the witness claiming alien spaceships. Can you please provide examples? Why isn't ChrLzs pulling you up for not having the "ammunition" before you attack someone?

Because psyche does have the ammunition (and he's attacking what you say, not you).  To repeat (again....) citing witnesses 'claiming alien spaceships' is absolutely meaningless.  Completely and utterly worthless.  Such anecdotes are not worth the paper they aren't written on.  And that is NOT for the silly, divisive and simplistic black and white "they're either liars or it happened" reasoning that you keep pushing.

There are a HUGE number of reasons that might apply to explain incorrect/exaggerated witness anecdotes.  In many cases these witnesses believe their own stories.  Genuinely.  But that obviously doesn't mean the stories are true or accurate.  I've got a few stories of my own, so did my dad, my grampa, in fact just about everyone I know has told me a story or stories that I would judge to be bullsh!t.  Personally I've been pulled up several times for false memories of family events, and I've had lucid dreams that were so real that I'm still not entirely convinced I am now awake.  I've even had utterly realistic hallucinations simply from exhaustion.  And let's not talk about lucid dreams, drugs, need to be special or part of the crowd.. and a hundred other things.  Once you have a popular culture theme like aliens, anecdotes and stories on that topic are WORTHLESS.

In the case of UFO's or UAP's (using the proper English definitions - like psyche I do wish you would stop swapping the meaning of that term every five minutes when it suits you) of course there will be lots of reports of lights/things in the sky.  In a single evening of stargazing, I'll see tumbling satellites, perhaps a trio flying in formation, maybe the ISS, a few meteors, with luck a bolide /fireball, overflying aircraft, traffic choppers with searchlights, even drones from the local RC Aircraft club.. on some nights I've seen some amazing illusions and effects from Venus, and one from the Moon I'll never forget, where it shone thru thru a tiny break in upper level clouds, down onto a thin lower cloudlayer, giving an amazing-ufo-with-death-ray-effect (sorry, didn't have my camera close enough), and so on ad infinitum. To a non-star-gazing Jill/Joe Average, many of those things will look extraordinary as they simply don't normally look up... and there's another flamin UFO report?  More evidence?  Well, It's evidence Jill or Joe should get out more... 

Every UFO I've ever seen, I've eventually identified to my satisfaction.  And how many thousands, nay millions of others like me are on this planet, looking up, some with serious observing equipment, allnight webcams etc....   And the best evidence you have for anything non-terrestrial/unexplainable is Phoenix????????

Fila, this site is about seriously looking at mysteries, so as to find the genuinely unexplainable ones.  It's not to handwave about how much 'evidence' there might be in terms of stories - we look for REAL, tangible, verifiable evidence.  If a sighting showed genuinely non-explainable maneuvers or appearance AND it was decently corroborated, we might get interested.  But events like Phoenix show just how awful we are at observing - you find us two corroborating reports and we'll find you twenty that completely contradict those..  as you well know IF you have properly studied the case (I get the feeling you tell us you have, but you really haven't).

 

Yes, you are still clearly 'having difficulty'.  Yet establishing the existence of something is a quite straight forward task.  If I claim pink unicorns, there are some things I would need to do to be taken seriously. And me saying that with all those planets out in the Cosmos, some of them *must* surely be populated with intelligent space-faring pink unicorns, thus the Pink Unicorn Hypothesis is completely valid.. well, it's a little silly, don't you think?  Until your evidence is better than mine for pink unicorns, I know which explanation I'll stick with.

See if you can work out the purpose of that analogy, because I am very tired of what appears to be a circular and useless discourse.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Its all G. As mentioned I have my own personal reasons for the questions. I don't expect others to understand.., and I can see why you may be frustrated. Please accept my apologies for upsetting you.

Is this a false dichotomy? lol, jk. But seriously, no. As mentioned I don't want to reveal my reasons as it would taint the answers I do receive. I wanted to add more questions.., but 3 is the maximum.

Officially we don't know the answer.., so a "maybe" option would technically be the correct answer.

But a poll with 100 "maybe" results is kinda useless. I want to hear your opinion. If you are unsure.., look into it more and then come back with your opinion. Kinda like a UFO case. We don't officially have an answer to each case.., but ya'll do a great job at forming conclusions.

If you are unable to post your opinions on these questions.., I would appreciate an explanation as to why you treat this differently.., compared to UFO reports.

I agree 100% that there should be a maybe option. Especially regarding UFOs. But.., do you see the hypocrisy?

There should be a 'maybe' option in the poll.., because officially we don't know the answer. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. But then with UFOs there shouldn't be.., because ___________ <insert text here>________.

Its nothing to do with "opinions". There is no such thing as a "UFO expert". Herein lies the problem with your questions. Having a "maybe" won't do anything, it will still be meaningless.

The first question is meaningless as it assumes that there are official "alien spacecraft" designations, the second is obviously "yes" and the third is unanswerable.

So. What's the point?

Edited by Emma_Acid
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim Hebert
7 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

Its nothing to do with "opinions". There is no such thing as a "UFO expert". Herein lies the problem with your questions. Having a "maybe" won't do anything, it will still be meaningless.

The first question is meaningless as it assumes that there are official "alien spacecraft" designations, the second is obviously "yes" and the third is unanswerable.

So. What's the point?

Indeed, what is the point.  As I had earlier commented, most researchers conducting a poll would have a statement that describes the rationale for the poll.  If "bias" is the target, then a statement of such would be forthcoming.

Fila's poll forces the respondents in to declaring "absolutes" especially regarding question #1.  If we look at the poll currently, we see that 34 have responded and with regards to question #1 we see that 21 respondents have stated that NO UFO reports are "lies, hoaxes or misidentifications."  This despite the fact that quiet a few of UFO reports are indeed lies, hoaxes or misidentifications.  This in itself renders the poll skewed and any data would be considered absurd on its face.

The above is contingent that Fila is serious and believes that credible data can be extrapolated.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


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

Its nothing to do with "opinions". There is no such thing as a "UFO expert". Herein lies the problem with your questions. Having a "maybe" won't do anything, it will still be meaningless.

The first question is meaningless as it assumes that there are official "alien spacecraft" designations, the second is obviously "yes" and the third is unanswerable.

So. What's the point?

Hello Emma, I suggest you review this post. It answers all your questions.., and asks you a few. Can you please respond to my questions?
I have to make a new rule that I will no longer respond to people's questions.., if they refuse to answer mine.

5 hours ago, Tim Hebert said:

Indeed, what is the point.  As I had earlier commented, most researchers conducting a poll would have a statement that describes the rationale for the poll.  If "bias" is the target, then a statement of such would be forthcoming.

Fila's poll forces the respondents in to declaring "absolutes" especially regarding question #1.  If we look at the poll currently, we see that 34 have responded and with regards to question #1 we see that 21 respondents have stated that NO UFO reports are "lies, hoaxes or misidentifications."  This despite the fact that quiet a few of UFO reports are indeed lies, hoaxes or misidentifications.  This in itself renders the poll skewed and any data would be considered absurd on its face.

The above is contingent that Fila is serious and believes that credible data can be extrapolated.

Sorry for not providing any details about the poll. It was more of a side thing for my own use. Please accept my apologies for upsetting you. This is just an internet forum.., where average people can post things. This is not an official poll. 

Question 1 asks if all UFO reports are etc etc... This is my question to you. I am asking you opinion. I'm really glad people are seeing the need for a "maybe" option with these questions. Maintain this logical form of thinking when reviewing conclusions.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim Hebert
37 minutes ago, Fila said:

Sorry for not providing any details about the poll. It was more of a side thing for my own use. Please accept my apologies for upsetting you. This is just an internet forum.., where average people can post things. This is not an official poll. 

Hardly upset, just curious and amused.  This should not be a subject where people lose sleep over. Looking forward to your final analysis .

42 minutes ago, Fila said:

Question 1 asks if all UFO reports are etc etc... This is my question to you. I am asking you opinion

But that is the point of my last comment.  You force an absolute without knowing the context of the answer that is given.  So if I answer yes, what does that truly mean?  Does that mean that I think all UFO reports are lies?...or, maybe all are hoaxes?...or all is mis-identifications?  Maybe its only one, both, or all?  Your missing context, IMHO.

What about those respondents that believe that some UFO reports are real, but they know that most have been proven to be lies, hoaxes, misidentifications?  Context is missing on this group as they are forced by an absolute answer.

So, as I see it unfold with your poll, you'll be able to "prove" that both sides of the question shows "bias" but you'll never know the real reason why that is so.  But I do understand that you are conducting a simple "fun" poll and I truly have no heartburn with that.

Share this post


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

Don't quite know why I'm being dragged in here..

You set the precedent. I am going to start doing this a lot from now on, simply because I am getting a "tag team" type of vibe.., where people with similar ideologies are consistently looking for problems with my posts.., yet ignore errors if made by their peers.

On 11/06/2018 at 11:09 AM, ChrLzs said:

Do that.  Or apologise.  And next time, have your ammunition BEFORE you handwave.

Do you remember that? You demand a quote / example. Otherwise its just a claim. Where is the example of me citing witnesses claiming alien spaceships?

18 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

 citing witnesses 'claiming alien spaceships' is absolutely meaningless.  Completely and utterly worthless. 

Hmm, sorta close. Bold the first part and you will see where I'm coming from. Where is the example?

18 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Because psyche does have the ammunition (and he's attacking what you say, not you). 

That's just the accusation.., not the ammo. Where is the example?

18 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

There are a HUGE number of reasons that might apply to explain incorrect/exaggerated witness anecdotes.  In many cases these witnesses believe their own stories.  Genuinely.  But that obviously doesn't mean the stories are true or accurate.  I've got a few stories of my own, so did my dad, my grampa, in fact just about everyone I know has told me a story or stories that I would judge to be bullsh!t.  Personally I've been pulled up several times for false memories of family events, and I've had lucid dreams that were so real that I'm still not entirely convinced I am now awake.  I've even had utterly realistic hallucinations simply from exhaustion.  And let's not talk about lucid dreams, drugs, need to be special or part of the crowd.. and a hundred other things.  Once you have a popular culture theme like aliens, anecdotes and stories on that topic are WORTHLESS.

I agree that this could explain some events. But.., rather than dismissing reports as WORTHLESS and calling people names for reporting what they experienced.., I would promote a new approach.

I think people don't recognise how negative and mean attitudes are towards people who report experiencing something strange. It has actually created an environment where people don't want to report anything due to fear of ridicule and ostracism. I remember reading an article about a 747 full of passengers having to "swerve to avoid a UFO". Those pilots are still flying.., and I am catching a flight next month. I don't feel comfortable knowing pilots are susceptible to infrequent alien hallucinations.., and everyone is okay with that.

Now rather than laughing at those pilots.., and brushing it off as some weird thing (as you posted above).., I think we should be researching what causes these problems as opposed to blanket statements about what it could be.

Perhaps flight MH-370 was a similar incident. The pilot started evasive manoeuvres trying to avoid an alien mother ship, and ended up killing everyone on board. I guess I am just on a different level than most people here. I need loose ends tied up. I like to come up with new ideas to solve complex problems. I don't mind doing the crap jobs others won't.

Besides, if I dismiss UFO reports.., there is nothing to go off. I have to read the observation.., to get the information. But you are saying disregard them.

18 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

In the case of UFO's or UAP's (using the proper English definitions - like psyche I do wish you would stop swapping the meaning of that term every five minutes when it suits you)

I think you are confused. I am not swapping the meaning of any term. Can you please provide an example of this?
I have made a thread attempting to box in the term as a combined effort.., and I do refer people to that thread when they confuse UFOs with IFOs.., but I don't think that's what you mean hey.

18 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

of course there will be lots of reports of lights/things in the sky.  In a single evening of stargazing, I'll see tumbling satellites, perhaps a trio flying in formation, maybe the ISS, a few meteors, with luck a bolide /fireball, overflying aircraft, traffic choppers with searchlights, even drones from the local RC Aircraft club.. on some nights I've seen some amazing illusions and effects from Venus, and one from the Moon I'll never forget, where it shone thru thru a tiny break in upper level clouds, down onto a thin lower cloudlayer, giving an amazing-ufo-with-death-ray-effect (sorry, didn't have my camera close enough), and so on ad infinitum.

Yea, I am see those things too. I don't really like UFO cases of people seeing a light or object that matches the description of anything like these. What caught my interest were other things. Lower flying objects..., much lower.

18 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Every UFO I've ever seen, I've eventually identified to my satisfaction.  And how many thousands, nay millions of others like me are on this planet, looking up, some with serious observing equipment, allnight webcams etc....   And the best evidence you have for anything non-terrestrial/unexplainable is Phoenix????????

Millions looking up. Where do you get this figure from?
What serious observing equipment are you referring to? I am very interested in seeing other people's setups.., but can't find many other examples.

The "best" evidence would most likely be Hessdallen imo. Your obsession with the Phoenix Lights incident is getting kinda weird. If you have any issues with what I have posted there.., please feel free to bring it up in that thread.

18 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Yes, you are still clearly 'having difficulty'.  Yet establishing the existence of something is a quite straight forward task.  If I claim pink unicorns, there are some things I would need to do to be taken seriously. And me saying that with all those planets out in the Cosmos, some of them *must* surely be populated with intelligent space-faring pink unicorns, thus the Pink Unicorn Hypothesis is completely valid.. well, it's a little silly, don't you think?  Until your evidence is better than mine for pink unicorns, I know which explanation I'll stick with.

UFOs have been reported worldwide for a very long time. There is a lot of evidence for UFOs.., including reports from multiple credible observers, corroborated by other witnesses, backed by radar returns and images. Not to mention Hessdallen observation station results.

If you can provide the same amount of data for your pink unicorns.., then I would listen.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


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

But that is the point of my last comment.  You force an absolute without knowing the context of the answer that is given.  So if I answer yes, what does that truly mean? 

I'm just asking your opinion. Are all UFO reports lies, hoaxes and mis-IDs? If you answer yes.., it means you think they are all hoxes and mis-IDs. A lot of people have said yes already.

2 hours ago, Tim Hebert said:

Does that mean that I think all UFO reports are lies?...or, maybe all are hoaxes?...or all is mis-identifications?  Maybe its only one, both, or all?  Your missing context, IMHO.

It would mean all. To choose one.., and not accept the others would be wrong.

I don't think anyone would want to answer just hoaxes.., as people do mis-ID things and cannot be denied. I am fairly sure that we can find a case of someone lying. We can also find examples of hoaxes. These cannot be denied, so I lumped them together.
 

2 hours ago, Tim Hebert said:

What about those respondents that believe that some UFO reports are real, but they know that most have been proven to be lies, hoaxes, misidentifications?  Context is missing on this group as they are forced by an absolute answer.

They should answer 'No'.

2 hours ago, Tim Hebert said:

So, as I see it unfold with your poll, you'll be able to "prove" that both sides of the question shows "bias" but you'll never know the real reason why that is so.  But I do understand that you are conducting a simple "fun" poll and I truly have no heartburn with that.

Thank you. Its nothing to overthink if you do wish to participate, and I promise you won't be held accountable for your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

The inherent bias against ET-UFO's appears to be two-fold:

1) Desire that humans are the only truly intelligent species in our incredibly vast universe... narcissism.

2) That the distances of travel are too vast given the speed-of-light constraints. Physicists have proven that FTL is possible under special circumstances. It is reasonable to assume that VERY advanced life has successfully tackled that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
6 minutes ago, pallidin said:

The inherent bias against ET-UFO's appears to be two-fold:

1) Desire that humans are the only truly intelligent species in our incredibly vast universe... narcissism.

That's more a religious view. I doubt you could cite any scientist saying that, or even posters agreeing with you  I've only ever seen one poster say that's a likely option. 

Simply put, that's what the evidence we have now amounts to, but it's not what the odds portray. 

6 minutes ago, pallidin said:

2) That the distances of travel are too vast given the speed-of-light constraints. Physicists have proven that FTL is possible under special circumstances. It is reasonable to assume that VERY advanced life has successfully tackled that issue.

Is that still enough? How much faster? What makes you certain that even FTL would be a game changer? Would to drop a trip to Alpha Centauri from 4 years to 3? 2? 1? That would still leave the everything out there out of realistic reach. Forget another galaxy, Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away, you might want more than FTL to make space travel viable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

I'll let you wrestle with advanced physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 minutes ago, pallidin said:

I'll let you wrestle with advanced physics.

FTL is just a descriptor right now  if it becomes a possibility there's no guarantee that it would be a game changer. 

Most put their eggs in the FTL basket, but it might not be enough. Space is bigger than most can comprehend. 

Time dilation changes things for the crew of the ship, but the rest of us would still be none the wiser and waiting as we would anyway, there is no simple solution to crossing space, its nothing at all like crossing an ocean. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Hello Emma, I suggest you review this post. It answers all your questions.., and asks you a few. Can you please respond to my questions?
I have to make a new rule that I will no longer respond to people's questions.., if they refuse to answer mine.

The questions are unanswerable. They fundamentally make no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

FTL is just a descriptor right now  if it becomes a possibility there's no guarantee that it would be a game changer. 

Most put their eggs in the FTL basket, but it might not be enough. Space is bigger than most can comprehend. 

Time dilation changes things for the crew of the ship, but the rest of us would still be none the wiser and waiting as we would anyway, there is no simple solution to crossing space, its nothing at all like crossing an ocean. 

Yeah and anything or anyone crossing the galaxy from another star system beyond ours it would take hundreds if not thousands of years for them to reach us unless of course they have the Star Wars Light Speed Switch on board....

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 14/06/2018 at 12:04 PM, psyche101 said:

Says it all really, and I honestly can't tell if your being deliberately obtuse here or if your just thick. 

Where? 

Seems sufficient to get the point across to me. 

I'm sorry.., but I think I will no longer be able to communicate with you. This type of attitude is for children. Actually.., no. For teens. My 9yo cousin is more polite and civilised than this.

I need each response to move the conversation forward. All you do is draaaag things out so much, I am forced to limit my responses. I attempt to make things concise. I have cut back my replies.., and your posts have dragged it out even longer. I cut back my responses.., and you manage to draaaaag it out again to a similar size. Your posts are way too long due to your responses being emotional reactions, rather than concise answers in an attempt to move forwards. 

Its getting a bit much mate, sorry. I don't have the time for you anymore.

I need to avoid anyone who attacks me personally from now on. If you wish to speak to me in the future.., keep it civil. If you wish to respond.., please pick you best questions. I won't bother reviewing our old conversation for now. I just don't have the time.

I'm going to send you a PM in the hopes of establishing some kind of 'cease fire' with personal attacks. I just want to discuss data.., not who was wrong. That just creates a negative environment to talk.

Even if I am wrong about something.., I don't care about being wrong. I just care about learning, and getting it right in the end. Lets just help each other. If you know something.., just tell me.

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.