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

psyche101
4 minutes ago, Fila said:

Sorry mate.., but I don't have time for childish conversations anymore.

Its all you post in my opinion. Its not the rest of the forum against you. 

4 minutes ago, Fila said:

I am no longer responding to accusations about being wrong (even if I was wrong about something.., I don't care).

That's obvious and explains a great deal. 

4 minutes ago, Fila said:

If you believe I am wrong.., please provide an example and I will address the issue.

I have and you haven't. I'd still like to know how addressing the tall tales such as those at Phoenix or Rendlesham are at all further any sort of understanding, or how they offer any value with regards to an honest pursuit of understanding the phenomena. 

4 minutes ago, Fila said:

If you feel my posts are 'rude' and 'arrogant'.., then that's your issue that you have created in your head, as tone in written text can be ambiguous.., and my posts are very neutral.., and don't contain personal attacks. I suggest re-reading my posts with a different tone of voice in your head,

And yet others draw the same conclusion. It's the rest of the world Vs Fila is it? 

4 minutes ago, Fila said:

I have sufficiently explained each accusation when examples have been provided.

Then perhaps you can explain the conundrum outlined above. 

4 minutes ago, Fila said:

Making blanket statements without providing evidence is just an attempt at defamation. Please stop repeating your propaganda.

Even when I have quoted you three times you ask for explaintion, if that's not being deliberately obtuse I honestly don't know what is. 

4 minutes ago, Fila said:

I hope these attempts are obvious to all forum members. If not, please help to explain what is going on.., as I am making it a priority to have this finally sorted out once and for all. I will be contacting as many forum moderators as possible for advice.., and asking a variety of your peers on help deciphering the actual problems here.

I really don't think you are and your posting doesn't reflect that. It indicates that you are looking for ways to promote the ETH in some form or another. Perhaps you should reread your posts and the comments to them to understand where everyone but you is coming from. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
44 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Its all you post in my opinion. Its not the rest of the forum against you. 

That's obvious and explains a great deal. 

I have and you haven't. I'd still like to know how addressing the tall tales such as those at Phoenix or Rendlesham are at all further any sort of understanding, or how they offer any value with regards to an honest pursuit of understanding the phenomena. 

And yet others draw the same conclusion. It's the rest of the world Vs Fila is it? 

Then perhaps you can explain the conundrum outlined above. 

Even when I have quoted you three times you ask for explaintion, if that's not being deliberately obtuse I honestly don't know what is. 

I really don't think you are and your posting doesn't reflect that. It indicates that you are looking for ways to promote the ETH in some form or another. Perhaps you should reread your posts and the comments to them to understand where everyone but you is coming from. 

I have explained why I won't deal with you anymore.., and you just keep repeating the same style of posts.

If you wish to have a civilised discussion.., please make your points without any name calling, or personal attacks, or childish attempts at twisting my words. (I.e. taking "I don't care about being wrong" out of context in an attempt to make it seem like I don't care about being wrong.., because I am just an arrogant sore loser. My point was that I don't care because its not a problem being wrong. I am open to learning and showing my work)

Its just very tiresome having to explain every little thing. You have a capability of draaaaaaaaaging out each post longer and longer as your responses are highly emotional. 90% of each post content is "FIla is bad".., with no real substance.

Internet trolls are real. Its hard to tell when someone is trolling. But the sheer amount of times I have told you.., and the obvious disregard you display.., I have no option but to either consider you a troll.., or just someone with lower intelligence than myself (which isn't hard). But I can't spend anymore time on you. I will say things once.., and if you don't comprehend then I will have to move on. If you have any valid points.., perhaps your peers can re-word them for me.

Its up to you Psyche. You can be a man.., and have an adult conversation with me. Or.., you can keep posting your hate propaganda which will lead nowhere and only make you look silly.

photo-thumb-27240.gif NO MORE BS

Edited by Fila
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

In other words, knowledge without application is useless.

Exactly :)

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

― Albert Einstein

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
15 minutes ago, Fila said:

I have explained why I won't deal with you anymore.., and you just keep repeating the same style of posts.

And your still beating around the Bush without providing a straight answer. 

15 minutes ago, Fila said:

If you wish to have a civilised discussion.., please make your points without any name calling, or personal attacks,

I don't know you from a bar of soap and from what I'm getting from your posts I would not want to. I don't think your direct, and I don't think you consider the views of others. Your ego seems to control you content, not the content  so no doubt to will perceive some attacks as personal as to if wether they are or not. 

15 minutes ago, Fila said:

or childish attempts at twisting my words. (I.e. taking "I don't care about being wrong" out of context in an attempt to make it seem like I don't care about being wrong.., because I am just an arrogant sore loser. My point was that I don't care because its not a problem being wrong. I am open to learning and showing my work)

And yet I'm still in the dark as to how wild stories like we get from Phoenix or Rendlesham do anything more than promote personal agendas, which has been my bugbear from the outset. You claim no research is done, yet the hard yards of earth sciences don't appeal enough to you enough to discuss over charlatans like those individuals. I mean how are you supposed to be taken seriously with that approach? 

I'm just not seeing honesty in your input. And I don't think too many others are either. All you do is complain about people who question you as opposed to tackling this inconsistencies. That says all I need to know. Yes I find you arrogant  and yes I find you a sore loser, be it me, ChrLzs or Stereo whom you are chastising. 

15 minutes ago, Fila said:

Its just very tiresome having to explain every little thing. You have a capability of draaaaaaaaaging out each post longer and longer as your responses are highly emotional. 90% of

Detail means less crossed wires. If you put in such effort yourself you might seem less arrogant and rude. 

15 minutes ago, Fila said:

each post content is "FIla is bad".., with no real substance.

No, each post is why ignore exactly what you claim does not exist, which naturally leads to 'why are you really here' and 'are you being seroius'? 

Bad? That's childish Fila. Your not being made out to be a bad guy, it's not bad to be a closet ETHer, it's a choice  if you want to make that choice all well and good, just be upfront about it and don't ask for studies that do exist and then dismiss then because of personal laziness. 

15 minutes ago, Fila said:

Internet trolls are real. Its hard to tell when someone is trolling. But the sheer amount of times I have told you.., and the obvious disregard you display.., I have no option but to either consider you a troll.., or just someone with lower intelligence than myself (which isn't hard). But I can't spend anymore time on you. I will say things once.., and if you don't comprehend then I will have to move on. If you have any valid points.., perhaps your peers can re-word them for me.

How many time have you said you were going to ignore me but have not? Go right ahead, if you think it's a threat, think again. Make up your mind, ignore or face the questions, it's why we are here, to discuss subjects. If it's not going your way, and you have to resort to personal ad homs  take your bat and ball and head for the pavilion, not like you will be missed. Not like someone won't take over from you with unfounded claims either. 

In my opinion, that you still have not outlined the value of wild claims when considering UAP makes you the troll from the get go. It's a simple and valid question. 

15 minutes ago, Fila said:

Its up to you Psyche. You can be a man.., and have an adult conversation with me. Or.., you can keep posting your hate propaganda which will lead nowhere and only make you look silly.

photo-thumb-27240.gif NO MORE BS

Get over yourself Fila. 

Man up and explain why you feel the ETH deserves to be mentioned with UFOs when meteorology is just handwaved away. It's obviously a number of things to explain all UAP, but the common denominator is man. There's no good reason to think the human imagination holds esoteric answers here. 

And if prefer you don't take my avatar in vain. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon101
18 minutes ago, Fila said:

Exactly :)

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

― Albert Einstein

In this case Fila, you are persistently applying what little knowledge you have in a manner incondign to produce a rational outcome. 

Perhaps 'A little knowledge is a dangerous insufficiency', might be a more appropriate trope in regards to yourself. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
12 minutes ago, Jon101 said:

In this case Fila, you are persistently applying what little knowledge you have in a manner incondign to produce a rational outcome. 

Perhaps 'A little knowledge is a dangerous insufficiency', might be a more appropriate trope in regards to yourself. 

Jon101. You will have to explain what you mean a bit. You made the accusation (in bold) but haven't actually provided an explanation.

Unfortunately I can no longer respond to posts like these without more information. Sorry.

Judging by the last sentence.., you are merely attempting to create drama so I will give you 1 more chance.., and then I have no option but to label you an internet troll.., or someone incapable of having a rational discussion without emotions getting involved.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon101
6 minutes ago, Fila said:

Jon101. You will have to explain what you mean a bit. You made the accusation (in bold) but haven't actually provided an explanation.

Unfortunately I can no longer respond to posts like these without more information. Sorry.

Judging by the last sentence.., you are merely attempting to create drama so I will give you 1 more chance.., and then I have no option but to label you an internet troll.., or someone incapable of having a rational discussion without emotions getting involved.

You are mistaken. It was not an accusation, it was an assertion. 

Label me as you wish - I care not. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
53 minutes ago, Jon101 said:

You are mistaken. It was not an accusation, it was an assertion. 

Not without evidence it isn't. For an accusation to be factual.., you would need to provide a rationale and evidence. Not just the accusation.

53 minutes ago, Jon101 said:

Label me as you wish - I care not. 

Judging from your reply and your avatar I would assume you are merely a child, as opposed to an internet troll. I'm sorry.., but I don't have time to deal this. If you wish to discuss the thread topic, I'm all for it. But I don't plan on having kids till my late 30s or something.., for this very reason.

It prevents me from moving forward at the rate I require.

If I am going to waste time playing games.., I'll jump on PUBG Battle Royal or something. Mind games and all the whole school-yard humour is really boring.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


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

Yes, I deliberately mentioned I learned it at uni. I'm sorry this is offensive., but I don't see it.  How is this different from me saying "I learnt this in the Army"?

"I learnt about FLIR in the Airfroce." 

"I learnt something while at work today".

Can you please explain the difference?

Yes.., I did use '1' and then in a later sentence say 'one'. I actually changed my mind, and didn't edit the first time I said '1'. Hope this didn't cause too much drama for everyone.., but judging from the amount of 'likes' on that post, its a touchy subject.

I'll try and be more careful in the future

I just first please want to point out that I don’t enjoy or scoff at all when I reply like this, I just like accuracy. 

There is no difference saying where you learned it, until it is clarified and verified. Also, some universities are not great. 

So it would help if you stated where you studied and any qualifications.

The ‘1’ , ‘one’ is not major, but it does add negative confidence in your arguments. 

Please send me a PM if you want to discuss further. I’m happy to chat because it would be a lot easier than exchanging apparent barbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
On 6/18/2018 at 9:44 AM, Fila said:

Its not automatic. I think some people are just convinced that ETs are here.., as much as the other side is convinced its impossible. Herein lies the problem. No one is in the middle doing anything to find out. We've all made up our minds and there is no need for further inquiry.

I don't know anyone who is "convinced that it's impossible". Think your being a bit rough on sceptics here. It also seems to be placing an equal burden on them unfairly where they aren't really the ones claiming anything. At any rate there has been some great research by sceptics. Such as one encounter in particular where what seemed like good reasonably clear ufo pics were taken. This particular researcher checked the times and coordinates of each pic from exif and visited the same place with the claimant at same time of day and so forth. It eventually became clear that it didn't unfold the way this person thought (which doesn't imply dishonesty and is not an unusual thing at all) and he eventually demonstrated quite conclusively that the "ufo's" were in reality an insect squished on the windscreen and a streetlight lol. The person didn't believe him of course, yet it did seem quite conclusive.

The Phoenix lights seem something similar. Lots of claims that don't really match the evidence, but seems to lend itself to a more mundane explanation. Remember one person claiming the massive structure between the lights was surely alien, as "they could see straight through it". Couldn't help wondering what would be the difference between structure that is "see through" to one that wasn't even there lol.

Humans are crappy observers with an awful lot of foibles. Which is not to say that all claims are explainable, but how many claims simply become accepted uncritically and promoted by believers? For this reason I think it is not unrealistic to be sceptical but is also very difficult to say how many ufo sightings are genuinely indicative of something exotic to begin with. There is great difficulty in studying something that is overwhelmingly anecdotal in nature.

Quote

I agree that we can't jump to ETs being the culprits. To me.., neither side makes much sense. I don't think the government is capable of covering up this phenomena. It just seems like a silly movie plot starring Will Smith. But then it also doesn't make sense that

1 UFOs being reported circa 1940 with various governments around the world investigating them, and actually getting data.

2. The descriptions of advanced flying machines that still outmatch anything known by today's standards.

So I ask myself.., if they were owned by the Russian's or another country.., why didn't they use it to go to the moon? Why not use it to win the war on terrorism? Why aren't we seeing these things today?

From my understanding UFOs have not been officially explained.., just deemed 'not a threat'. So were all these UFO reports from highly trained observers and other reputable witnesses just lies? Hallucinations? Some type of energy source we could harness?

The main problem (and the real point of this thread) is that we make assumptions on what happened. We say "Oh look.., its most likely this". "Its most likely that.., and I think this.... etc" Which is not conclusive. This only fuels the conspiracy theories. You can't convince a "believer" because you technically can't disprove it. Just as they technically cannot prove UFOs are ET.

But.., neither side can see this. :(

I don't place much faith in "highly trained/ reputable observers" being more reliable, as they to are subject to all of the same cognitive foibles as anyone else. In fact I think a bit of grounding in cognitive science this way is a good thing. There is a reason magicians are able to make a good living lol.

Though I agree there is something strange going on and you do make some good points above. It is worthy of study, whether aliens are visiting earth or otherwise. In some ways if it doesn't involve aliens, it is even more fascinating.

Edited by Horta
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

I can't vote in this topic because of question 3.

  1. No
  2. Yes
  3. This is too complicated to answer definitively, there are too many factors involved.

Number one is no because because the U in UFO stands for Unidentified.  The original poster, like many zealots or uninformed believers, seems to think UFO means space craft from another planet.

Number two is yes because anything is possible and it's a big universe.

Number three is unanswerable because there is absolutely no way to know, however IMO no civilization would invest the time and resources to travel across the void, find a planet with intelligent life and then hide.  That would serve no purpose.  As a matter of fact using the only intelligent species that we know of as a yard stick I'd say they absolutely would make contact.  The reason is that whichever entity (assume corporate or government) was the contact point of both species would automatically become the wealthiest most powerful entities in their respective civilizations.  The contact point would become the focus of trade between worlds which has got to be lucrative in the extreme, whether the trade is advanced science or military equipment or exotic otherworldly art, or medicine or knowledge, or whatever else you can think of.

I know the argument from the believer side is that I'm assigning human values to aliens which may not care about our art, our science, etc... but we have no other example to compare with but ourselves so it's the only reasonable assumption to make.  If they didn't care about those things then they likely would never have even developed space travel because what would the purpose be to doing so?  Can you imagine explorers 100 years ago not wanting to trade medicine for a ritual mask? 

 

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
11 hours ago, Timonthy said:

I just first please want to point out that I don’t enjoy or scoff at all when I reply like this, I just like accuracy. 

There is no difference saying where you learned it, until it is clarified and verified.

I agree. I think we should discuss the facts and claims being made.

11 hours ago, Timonthy said:

Also, some universities are not great. 

Some universities are not great. I have wondered about this. How do we go about finding this information?
What is the difference between Griffith and the Uni of Western Sydney?

11 hours ago, Timonthy said:

So it would help if you stated where you studied and any qualifications.

Hell no. I refuse to give out personal information, and I would highly recommend others to do the same.

Explain why it makes a difference? Assuming I go to the University of Western Sydney. What difference would this make? How does this change the notion of 'critical thinking'?

I really don't see why we should discuss my personal life.., as opposed to critiquing my post regarding critical thinking.

What if I didn't mention where I discussed this? What is the difference? And why?

11 hours ago, Timonthy said:

Please send me a PM if you want to discuss further. I’m happy to chat because it would be a lot easier than exchanging apparent barbs.

If I fail to reply in this thread.., I will be accused of ignoring your point. Unfortunately I am under constant public attack.., and judging from the amount of 'likes' your post received.., this is something that affects many people here. I have no choice but to keep this discussion in the public domain for future reference.

Share this post


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

The original poster, like many zealots or uninformed believers, seems to think UFO means space craft from another planet.

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

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

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

Anyway.., yea I have an agenda. That is to look into UFO objectively and scientifically. I think its time people stopped getting angry and all worked up over my honest attempts.., and take a look in the mirror and ask yourselves.., what is your agenda? And to think about the steps you take. Plan ahead. Make a prediction. What will this style on 'research' What are you hoping to find? How? Is this feasible? Will it produce an outcome? Is there a different approach?

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

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

9 hours ago, OverSword said:

I can't vote in this topic because of question 3.

Its just an opinion. Similar to your opinion about UFOs. An opinion is not a formal conclusion. Its just what you 'believe' about a topic that has little information.

Edited by Fila
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Anyway.., yea I have an agenda. That is to look into UFO objectively and scientifically. I think its time people stopped getting angry and all worked up over my honest attempts.., and take a look in the mirror and ask yourselves.., what is your agenda? And to think about the steps you take. Plan ahead. Make a prediction. What will this style on 'research' What are you hoping to find? How? Is this feasible? Will it produce an outcome? Is there a different approach?

So why don't you do that? I'm having trouble thinking about any thread in which that has been the case.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I don't know anyone who is "convinced that it's impossible". Think your being a bit rough on sceptics here.

I can provide text examples.., but you can easily see for yourself by reviewing the poll answers. Would you like me to provide more examples from users here?

12 hours ago, Horta said:

It also seems to be placing an equal burden on them unfairly where they aren't really the ones claiming anything.

I don't think so. I would say the burden is on true sceptics like myself. You guys can argue back and forth all day.., for 80 years and get nowhere.

The burden is on me to argue against both sides.., and remain objective and professional. You guys just kick back with your "conclusions" and keep up the personal insults / anger..,  and leave the real work burden to me.

The only burden being placed on you (by yourself) is bias.

12 hours ago, Horta said:

At any rate there has been some great research by sceptics. Such as one encounter in particular where what seemed like good reasonably clear ufo pics were taken. This particular researcher checked the times and coordinates of each pic from exif and visited the same place with the claimant at same time of day and so forth. It eventually became clear that it didn't unfold the way this person thought (which doesn't imply dishonesty and is not an unusual thing at all) and he eventually demonstrated quite conclusively that the "ufo's" were in reality an insect squished on the windscreen and a streetlight lol. The person didn't believe him of course, yet it did seem quite conclusive.

Yea cool, that's great. Very lazy "conclusion" though.., and I wouldn't "believe" it either unless it can be proven.

I am not a "believer" in one persons guess. To take someones word as gospel is the definition of "believer" imo. I'm not a "believer" period. I am unbiased and sceptical of information.

So it appears scoffers can be "believers".., depending on the data's agenda. (If data is against UFOs.., then you believe without fact checking). Stereologist is very good at this imo.

My main point is that there are teams.., and you are only looking at your side and trying to find examples that suit your agenda. Not looking objectively.

I have dismissed many UFO reports in my day.., and I'm an not a scoffer. The difference is I haven't chosen a side.., and I argue both sides. Most importantly.., I don't dismiss a theory based on a lack of proof. Its a theory. Not a conclusion.

12 hours ago, Horta said:

Humans are crappy observers with an awful lot of foibles. Which is not to say that all claims are explainable, but how many claims simply become accepted uncritically and promoted by believers? For this reason I think it is not unrealistic to be sceptical but is also very difficult to say how many ufo sightings are genuinely indicative of something exotic to begin with. There is great difficulty in studying something that is overwhelmingly anecdotal in nature.

You may wish to participate in this thread. I think most people are unaware of the evidence paradox. 

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318431-how-to-document-ufo-sightings/

12 hours ago, Horta said:

I don't place much faith in "highly trained/ reputable observers" being more reliable, as they to are subject to all of the same cognitive foibles as anyone else. In fact I think a bit of grounding in cognitive science this way is a good thing. There is a reason magicians are able to make a good living lol.

Though I agree there is something strange going on and you do make some good points above. It is worthy of study, whether aliens are visiting earth or otherwise. In some ways if it doesn't involve aliens, it is even more fascinating.

Faith? I am starting to think 'scoffers' are just 'believers' in their own data.

Biased "scoffers" think UFOs are not worth investigating properly.., but would rather spend days, weeks, years, decades, almost a century now..,relying on a flawed research approach to form weak conclusions.., then spam their opinions daily.

Cognitive foibles? Like what? I feel like this is a blanket statement with no research behind it. I don't have 'faith' in your conclusions loosely explaining mis-identification so I ask for examples from your 'cognitive science' source.

Edited by Fila
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I can provide text examples.., but you can easily see for yourself by reviewing the poll answers. Would you like me to provide more examples from users here?

Yes please.

Quote

I don't think so. I would say the burden is on true sceptics like myself. You guys can argue back and forth all day.., for 80 years and get nowhere.

The burden is on me to argue against both sides.., and remain objective and professional. You guys just kick back with your "conclusions" and keep up the personal insults / anger..,  and leave the real work burden to me.

If you wish to take on that burden, that's your personal choice and doesn't require that anyone else should feel the same way. Most sceptics will simply withhold assent until something is provided to convince them otherwise. No amount of anecdotes will do that of course, otherwise we would all accept the reality of bigfoot. This isn't an unreasonable stance and doesn't disqualify them from having an opinion.

There simply isn't anywhere to begin a more scientific study of this phenomena, which is probably why few sceptics bother. It seems mostly to amount to anecdote collecting.

I have no idea who "you guys" refers to, nor what "insults" you are talking about. I'm guessing it is relevant. Can you point out where I have offered "insults" because if so, I really would like to edit this and and apologise.

Quote

The only burden being placed on you (by yourself) is bias.

Not at all. I take the same position with creationism, homeopathy and bigfoot (which I have spent some time researching incidentally). I have no burden of proof in not accepting these things, nor do I with aliens. That is rather illogical. The hypotheses "the universe was created by an intelligent being"..."an undocumented massive ape like creature exists in NA"..."homeopathy cures disease"..."interstellar aliens are piloting craft around our planet" need supporting with more than claims and anecdotes, so far none have to anywhere near the level of gaining general (scientific) acceptance. Not accepting such unverified claims at this stage is not biased, it's actually based on sound logic. 

Quote

Yea cool, that's great. Very lazy "conclusion" though.., and I wouldn't "believe" it either unless it can be proven.

?

How would you know that? I can only conclude that you are familiar with this particular ufo incident and the specific research. Can you point out with links (if possible) what you base this opinion on? Otherwise, it would amount to the very thing you are unhappy with in others, and would be rather hypocritical of you.

This person started out optimistically (I doubt he would be considered a sceptic by your definition) and did go to great lengths with lots of experimentation, including in situ with original equipment and eventually was able to replicate the "ufo's"... before reaching a conclusion. A conclusion that was quite compelling.  The word "proof" really has no place here, it's a colloquialism that means different things to different people and is meaningless term in a scientific sense. Aliens holding conference on the White House lawn would be considered colloquial "proof" for most people, until then there are only claims with "less" or "more" compelling things to support those claims.

Quote

I am unbiased and sceptical of information.

I wonder if your rebuttal above would have been so eagerly done, if it supported claims you yourself seem a bit more partial to? You realise the person that has no biases probably hasn't existed yet. The best we can really do in situations like this is try to see them and to limit the way such things influence us.

Quote

So it appears scoffers can be "believers".., depending on the data's agenda. (If data is against UFOs.., then you believe without fact checking)

Some perhaps, after all it would be difficult to consciously exist without having beliefs so what we do is try only to hold those beliefs which are well justified, but this claim itself seems quite a vague generalisation. You yourself might have given the best example in this thread of such bias a little earlier in your post. I didn't notice much "fact checking" before your own offhand dismissal.

Quote

Cognitive foibles? Like what? I feel like this is a blanket statement with no research behind it. I don't have 'faith' in your conclusions loosely explaining mis-identification so I ask for examples from your 'cognitive science' source.

You seem to be implying that any relevance cognitive science could have in offering plausible explanations for this phenomena (in whole or part, obviously) has no validity, while at the same time offering that real interstellar aliens are a plausible explanation?......and you claim you're not biased lol? Surely an unbiased opinion would be open to either, with the caveat that (unlike the existence of aliens) we know how unreliable human perception and recall is.

"Perception" itself doesn't work the way people usually think it does and is prone to all sorts of mistakes and illusions. That's why people rarely seem to agree on how an accident happened. If you don't think misperception and illusions are a common thing, there is a whole industry devoted to it. Go watch a magician and you will be able to experience it directly for a couple of hours lol.

Humans have a predisposition to pattern seeking and resulting illusions to begin with. There is some evidence via the Asch experiments with fMRI that it only takes a bit of peer pressure for many people to alter the way the brain perceives reality. Much of what we see at any given time doesn't necessarily even exist (especially peripherally), the brain places it there to save resources which it spends mostly on interpreting the data it considers important, which itself is prone to all sorts of mistakes and happens below the conscious level. If the right neurons fire you will believe whatever they show. There is also great work on the "malleability" of memory thanks largely to Elizabeth Loftus, and effects such as confabulation which affects everyone.

There are studies indicating that paranormal beliefs (such as aliens) correlate with predisposition to certain common psychological conditions (even at non clinical levels), and also that dissociative paranormal experience further correlates. Such as adhd, depression and so forth. In fact tiredness, too much coffee and a host of other mundane things can trigger such dissociative events.

Out of curiosity, the 40,000 or so people (conservative estimate) at Fatima that watched the sun do an Irish jig across the sky, changing into all sorts of lovely colours along the way...we would ignore cognitive science (after all it has no research lol) here and go with...no reason to think they didn't see it? After all, it was far more attested than any ufo event. Heliophysics? nah probably wrong. Cosmology? nah probably wrong. After all people made a claim and we know people always give a faithful account of reality... 

The parallels with this event and the Phoenix lights are fascinating, and in both instances mundane phenomena seem to have given rise to all sorts of cognitive and psychological weirdness.

A small portion of relevant cognitive science below (it's obviously a huge field), there are links to relevant papers in articles, where applicable.

http://www.ccnl.emory.edu/greg/Berns Conformity final printed.pdf

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/18/health/lifeswork-loftus-memory-malleability/index.html

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/dissociation_and_paranormal_beliefs_toward_a_taxonomy_of_belief_in_the_unre

https://www.simplypsychology.org/loftus-palmer.html

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797616672270

https://slideheaven.com/paranormal-encounters-as-eyewitness-phenomena-psychological-determinants-of-atyp.html

Edited by Horta
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
3 hours ago, Horta said:

Yes please.

Okay I will respond to this post first.. Until then.., can you see from the poll?

3 hours ago, Horta said:

Most sceptics will simply withhold assent until something is provided to convince them otherwise. No amount of anecdotes will do that of course, otherwise we would all accept the reality of bigfoot. This isn't an unreasonable stance and doesn't disqualify them from having an opinion.

I am doing the exact same thing.., except I haven't chosen a side.

I covered the bigfoot thing with my nessie posts earlier.
Also "you guys" refers to scoffers and believers as a whole.

3 hours ago, Horta said:

How would you know that? I can only conclude that you are familiar with this particular ufo incident and the specific research. Can you point out with links (if possible) what you base this opinion on? Otherwise, it would amount to the very thing you are unhappy with in others, and would be rather hypocritical of you.

This person started out optimistically (I doubt he would be considered a sceptic by your definition) and did go to great lengths with lots of experimentation, including in situ with original equipment and eventually was able to replicate the "ufo's"... before reaching a conclusion. 

From the little you told me.., I would not be able to narrow down one case. I can think of a few UFOimages that are most likely bugs. Anything like that? I don't waste more time on. I mean.., even if you can't determine it was a bug.., or bird.., then at best. The best option you will ever achieve.., is an anomaly. Not proof of anything. Its a complete waste of time.

I said I would not believe unless it was proven. If it cannot be shown to be what you claim.., then its just a theory. I wouldn't believe it. It could be a camera glitch, lens issue, trick of light.., same with any UFO image. There are so many UFO reports.., that I don't need to focus on bad data. Some could argue its P-Hacking.., but I just know that there are mis-IDs and frauds.., so I simply filter them out automatically.

3 hours ago, Horta said:

You seem to be implying that any relevance cognitive science could have in offering plausible explanations for this phenomena (in whole or part, obviously) has no validity, while at the same time offering that real interstellar aliens are a plausible explanation?......and you claim you're not biased lol? Surely an unbiased opinion would be open to either, with the caveat that (unlike the existence of aliens) we know how unreliable human perception and recall is.

No. I have dealt with this before. I prefer to look at each individual report.., and when someone says "it was just a trick of the mind".., I ask how? I am keen to see actual studies.., as they seem to be so common. So yes.., still not biased. Very sceptical.

I'll skip the rest of your post for now, and read some of the links you provided. Then read the rest of your post and ask where they match.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
29 minutes ago, Fila said:

So yes.., still not biased. Very sceptical.

I think Horta's point is that you're being skeptical of the wrong things. Your comments seem to come down in the camp of "they're aliens unless proven otherwise", which is not the skeptical viewpoint to take. The amount of new assumptions involved in "it was aliens" vs "it was a trick of the mind/camera" means the default assumption should come down on the latter as we know this stuff happens. We don't have any data on alien visitation, so cannot fall back on that as the default assumption.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alien Origins
21 hours ago, Timonthy said:

I just first please want to point out that I don’t enjoy or scoff at all when I reply like this, I just like accuracy. 

There is no difference saying where you learned it, until it is clarified and verified. Also, some universities are not great. 

So it would help if you stated where you studied and any qualifications.

The ‘1’ , ‘one’ is not major, but it does add negative confidence in your arguments. 

Please send me a PM if you want to discuss further. I’m happy to chat because it would be a lot easier than exchanging apparent barbs.

I should point out that there are no college degrees offered in Ufology so weather a person has a degree or not is a little irrelevant at this point....This becomes obvious when you look at all the jack legs and scam artists in the field....Sure a background in the sciences help not debating that. And who says that a person with a degree knows anymore than a person without one? Basing some one's knowledge on the fact of weather or not they have a degree is a little biased in my opinion, but thats just my opinion.

Edited by Alien Origins

Share this post


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

Anyway.., yea I have an agenda. That is to look into UFO objectively and scientifically. I think its time people stopped getting angry and all worked up over my honest attempts.., and take a look in the mirror and ask yourselves.., what is your agenda? And to think about the steps you take. Plan ahead. Make a prediction. What will this style on 'research' What are you hoping to find? How? Is this feasible? Will it produce an outcome? Is there a different approach?

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

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

 

Still waiting for you to provide any evidence that you are objective or scientific. You have stated this before but what we do know is that you do anything but that.

Good examples are:

  1. The Nimitz videos where you blustered ahead with the idea that the image was 1x when it had been well established that the image was a highly magnified image.
  2. Your apparent rejection or purposeful indifference of the simple mathematics put forward in those threads
  3. Your current false claim of a consensus " because UFOs are not real, hence no evidence "
  4. Your current false claim that people are " ignore the real scientific evidence "
  5. Your older false claim of consensus in the Phoenix Lights (2 different ones I might add)

Will continue to ask you to show that you are doing what you claim to be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
3 hours ago, Horta said:

1st link:  CLAIM: "When individual judgment conflicts with a group, the individual will often conform his judgment to that of the group."

REBUTTAL: The opposite seems to occur with UFO reports (I.e. Phoenix Lights).

 

2nd link: CLAIM: Memories distort over time.

Rebuttal: An incident needs to occur for there to be a memory to distort. Its usually small details (as shown in the 1974 study). Its known memory fades., especially the more you access it.This is why its best to rely on initial reports that happen as the UFO event occurs. 

 

3rd link: CLAIM: Dissociation and Paranormal Beliefs, Toward a Taxonomy of Belief in the Unreal

REBUTTAL: UFOs are unknown.., but not paranormal (like ghosts etc). Hessdallen observatory is a good example which dismisses the notion that this is beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding.

 

4th link: CLAIM: Same as 2nd link.

REBUTTAL This is a study from 1974 that involved two tests. Test one contained 45 students.., asking them to predict car speed from film footage. There was a 10 mile difference. It shows some students cannot predict car speed.., and relied on langue as a gauge. A minor detail. Not proof there never was a car.

Test two 150 students. The '74 footage was shown to students.., then were asked about broken glass one week later. Hardly substantial findings.

 

5th link: CLAIM: Peripheral visual experience is partially based on a reconstruction of reality. 

REBUTTAL: Although true.., this assumes witnesses are refusing to look directly at the object. If a witness report states they "saw something in their peripheral".., then the encounter must have been so brief.., that they could not turn to look.., or move their eyes in time to see clearly. Not worth time looking into.

Also this experiment was conducted under strict conditions.., UFOs don't rely on people staring. Participants fixated on the center of a visual display in which central stimuli differed from peripheral stimuli. Over time, participants perceived that the peripheral stimuli changed to match the central stimuli.

 

6th link: CLAIM: ADHD is responsible for paranormal sightings.

REBUTTAL: I don't classify UFOs as paranormal. I am designing a UFO observation station similar to Hessdallen, but fully automated.., or controlled remotely via SSH or VNC.

I am actually very interested in reading the original report they mention where their demonstrations showed some link ADHD to paranormal beliefs and stuff. I know a kid with ADHD, would be interesting to ask him if he's seen any ghosts and monsters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 minute ago, Fila said:

1st link:  CLAIM: "When individual judgment conflicts with a group, the individual will often conform his judgment to that of the group."

REBUTTAL: The opposite seems to occur with UFO reports (I.e. Phoenix Lights).

 

2nd link: CLAIM: Memories distort over time.

Rebuttal: An incident needs to occur for there to be a memory to distort. Its usually small details (as shown in the 1974 study). Its known memory fades., especially the more you access it.This is why its best to rely on initial reports that happen as the UFO event occurs. 

 

3rd link: CLAIM: Dissociation and Paranormal Beliefs, Toward a Taxonomy of Belief in the Unreal

REBUTTAL: UFOs are unknown.., but not paranormal (like ghosts etc). Hessdallen observatory is a good example which dismisses the notion that this is beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding.

 

4th link: CLAIM: Same as 2nd link.

REBUTTAL This is a study from 1974 that involved two tests. Test one contained 45 students.., asking them to predict car speed from film footage. There was a 10 mile difference. It shows some students cannot predict car speed.., and relied on langue as a gauge. A minor detail. Not proof there never was a car.

Test two 150 students. The '74 footage was shown to students.., then were asked about broken glass one week later. Hardly substantial findings.

 

5th link: CLAIM: Peripheral visual experience is partially based on a reconstruction of reality. 

REBUTTAL: Although true.., this assumes witnesses are refusing to look directly at the object. If a witness report states they "saw something in their peripheral".., then the encounter must have been so brief.., that they could not turn to look.., or move their eyes in time to see clearly. Not worth time looking into.

Also this experiment was conducted under strict conditions.., UFOs don't rely on people staring. Participants fixated on the center of a visual display in which central stimuli differed from peripheral stimuli. Over time, participants perceived that the peripheral stimuli changed to match the central stimuli.

 

6th link: CLAIM: ADHD is responsible for paranormal sightings.

REBUTTAL: I don't classify UFOs as paranormal. I am designing a UFO observation station similar to Hessdallen, but fully automated.., or controlled remotely via SSH or VNC.

I am actually very interested in reading the original report they mention where their demonstrations showed some link ADHD to paranormal beliefs and stuff. I know a kid with ADHD, would be interesting to ask him if he's seen any ghosts and monsters.

Clueless, simply clueless and making things up as you go.

Provide evidence that "The opposite seems to occur with UFO reports (I.e. Phoenix Lights)." I simply don't believe you. In fact, you just made that up didn't you?

Here is another nonsensical statement. "An incident needs to occur for there to be a memory to distort." Why point out that something cannot be distorted till it exists? You seem to be without a rebuttal.

Your next rebuttal is rather meaningless. It certainly suggests you never read the material.

Your next rebuttal is as nonsensical as anything you have ever stated "Not proof there never was a car." You didn't understand the issues at hand. Typical.

The next rebuttal is more nonsense. You didn't understand the issue.

:lol: "I am designing a UFO observation station similar to ..."

That last statement is a funny joke.

Upshot is that you once again show us that you have no interest in scientific issues.

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Still waiting for you to provide any evidence that you are objective or scientific. You have stated this before but what we do know is that you do anything but that.

Good examples are:

  1. The Nimitz videos where you blustered ahead with the idea that the image was 1x when it had been well established that the image was a highly magnified image.
  2. Your apparent rejection or purposeful indifference of the simple mathematics put forward in those threads
  3. Your current false claim of a consensus " because UFOs are not real, hence no evidence "
  4. Your current false claim that people are " ignore the real scientific evidence "
  5. Your older false claim of consensus in the Phoenix Lights (2 different ones I might add)
  6. Your recent laughable faux rebuttal

Will continue to ask you to show that you are doing what you claim to be doing.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

I think Horta's point is that you're being skeptical of the wrong things. Your comments seem to come down in the camp of "they're aliens unless proven otherwise", which is not the skeptical viewpoint to take. The amount of new assumptions involved in "it was aliens" vs "it was a trick of the mind/camera" means the default assumption should come down on the latter as we know this stuff happens. We don't have any data on alien visitation, so cannot fall back on that as the default assumption.

Most certainly not. I totally agree alienz is not a default option. Here's how I went about it.

1. Ask a question.

What are UFOs?

 

2. Do background research.

Mostly eye-witness testimony worldwide over a large time period. Very high frequency of false positives which are mostly mis-identifications of known objects, and a small number of hoaxes by comparison.

Gathered positive data from the most credible witnesses with radar returns and images.., but even the best cases simply describe something unknown in the sky which doesn't resemble anything man - made circa 1940's and by today's standards. These are initial findings  / reports from outside the scientific community, the information that can be obtained is very limited and ends here.

One attempt at scientific analysis is an observation station located at Hessdallen using a range of instruments including cameras with gratings, Seismograph, Radar, Spectrum analyser, Magnetometer,  Laser, Geigercounter and others to help test and disprove a range of plausible theories presented by the scientific community. Although Hessdallen provides many clues to the nature of UFOs, further research is required before a full understanding will be attained.

 

3. Construct a hypothesis

I hypothesise that UFOs are real physical objects that can be measured and studied.

Similar to the Hessdallen lights.., but not strictly limited to that area according to credible reports these objects are spotted in the United States, Russia, and even Australia. They are a global phenomenon not limited to mountain ranges.

 

4. Test with an experiment

This is where I am up to...

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
Quote

Okay I will respond to this post first.. Until then.., can you see from the poll?

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

Quote

I am doing the exact same thing.., except I haven't chosen a side.

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

Quote

I covered the bigfoot thing with my nessie posts earlier.

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

Quote

From the little you told me.., I would not be able to narrow down one case. I can think of a few UFOimages that are most likely bugs. Anything like that? I don't waste more time on. I mean.., even if you can't determine it was a bug.., or bird.., then at best. The best option you will ever achieve.., is an anomaly. Not proof of anything. Its a complete waste of time.

Yet you simply "scoffed", jumped to a conclusion and dismissed its validity... 

Despite being 100% ignorant of the specific event or the research. 

This is being an open minded skeptic in the same way that Liberace was straight lol.

Quote

If it cannot be shown to be what you claim.., then its just a theory.

The whole point is that it was shown to be as claimed. You have concluded it doesn't and dismissed it without any knowledge of it at all.....Again, the term "proof" only points to a personal acceptance/ non acceptance. People can find "proof" that jesus loves and cares for them in a cloud formation. It's not really useful if you are going to approach it from a scientific view.

Similar logic as yours would hold that as there have been ufo hoaxes...therefore we can dismiss all ufo claims as hoaxes.

This would be a "Scoffer".

Quote

I'll skip the rest of your post for now, and read some of the links you provided. Then read the rest of your post and ask where they match.

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

I would like to see what you offer, while I'm not saying it is necessarily so (it isn't possible to demonstrate that aliens aren't responsible), but you seem to "scoff" at the very idea.

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

By the way, bigfoot proponents can, and most definitely have provided the above. Can you?

Quote

I know a kid with ADHD, would be interesting to ask him if he's seen any ghosts and monsters.

Would be interesting. The studies are not only highly predictive of specific types of paranormal belief, but of specific paranormal experiences.

ps. I think you might have missed the point somewhat though. The whole point was that humans are crappy observers and prone to all sorts of cognitive mishaps. All the way from simple mistake to full on hallucination and everything in between.

pps.  I also doubt that all ufo sightings are "paranormal". That people see ufo's is uncontroversial IMO. Experiences with aliens themselves though, that's a different thing.

 

Edited by Horta
  • Like 2

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.