Kelly Cahill UFO case continues to intrigue

[stereologist]

14 hours ago, ufoguy said:

if you study the phenomenon as a whole and i mean starting from ancient times to the present u would come to the same conclusion...unless your someone thats just in denial.

You are so funny. I love it when people stoop to the ancient aliens failure. 

[astrobeing]

32 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Just post the very best one, in your opinion.  Just ONE, with those proofs... There must, obviously, with all these reports of ufo's, be one in particular where the evidence - be it photographic or physical or actual data from a radar or similar system - is unexplainable by terrestrial craft, or that left evidence, right?  Just ONE.  The best.

Yes! Ufoguy doesn't understand that a preponderance of weak evidence doesn't turn it into strong evidence.

[stereologist]

10 hours ago, ufoguy said:

ok so answer me this..do u believe in evolution or intelligent design?

Only a moron would believe in ID

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, astrobeing said:

And because most flying things (birds, planes, drones, blimps, large baloons) look flat from a distance. That's aerodynamics.

It's all about physics, i.e. science isn't it?

[DingoLingo]

11 hours ago, ufoguy said:

ok so answer me this..do u believe in evolution or intelligent design?

evolution

[Guyver]

1 hour ago, astrobeing said:

Yes! Ufoguy doesn't understand that a preponderance of weak evidence doesn't turn it into strong evidence.

What does strong evidence look like to you?

[astrobeing]

4 minutes ago, Guyver said:

What does strong evidence look like to you?

Strong evidence is generally physical evidence that can be tested.

[Guyver]

3 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

Strong evidence is generally physical evidence that can be tested.

So, would you consider film footage and photos to be physical evidence that could be tested?  And, would film footage and/or photos having been examined and found to be authentic qualify as strong evidence for you?

[astrobeing]

6 minutes ago, Guyver said:

So, would you consider film footage and photos to be physical evidence that could be tested?  And, would film footage and/or photos having been examined and found to be authentic qualify as strong evidence for you?

You mean like film footage of Star Wars or Close Encounters of the Third Kind?

[Guyver]

5 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

You mean like film footage of Star Wars or Close Encounters of the Third Kind?

Really?  Nevermind.

[astrobeing]

1 minute ago, Guyver said:

Really?  Nevermind.

Now you understand my point about "authentic quality" film footage.

[ChrLzs]

27 minutes ago, Guyver said:

So, would you consider film footage and photos to be physical evidence that could be tested?  And, would film footage and/or photos having been examined and found to be authentic qualify as strong evidence for you?

Yes and No.  Life isn't that simple, and if there is a chance of fame or a dollar-buck (®™ - Bluey) to be made, things get complicated...

In most cases where footage is 'out there', the people who created it go to ground, hoping that they can make money by getting an exclusive deal or otherwise going viral.  (Or they may simply be experienced hoaxers who use programs like After Effects..)  So they refuse to provide details for verification and we can't check the original media copy (which is a simple but quite robust way to check for image manipulation).

Then, if we have still images from a half decent camera. there will some useful and verifiable information in the attached EXIF data.  There are also various image analysis and 'photogrammetric' tools and techniques that can be applied to imagery, so it may be possible to verify speeds and distances and the like.  Some of those tools require that access to the original file, which very rarely happens...

But ....

To date, despite the bazillions of cameras out there, ready to film.... there has not been a single case showing non-explainable characteristics, that has even merited the effort.  Let alone where the owners fo the footage were accessible and answering questions.... That's because (perhaps?  ), that everything gets sufficiently identified.

 

Does anyone have a case where they think the above does NOT fairly apply, and that has not been sufficiently looked at?  I'm all ears.. er.. eyes.

 

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

What does strong evidence look like to you?

Me , me....i just dont accept stories of someone saying they saw something fly overhead and it was a ufo and ufo = aliens to them.

[ufoguy]

12 hours ago, the13bats said:

Me , me....i just dont accept stories of someone saying they saw something fly overhead and it was a ufo and ufo = aliens to them.

so your saying air force pilots are not credible witnesses?

[the13bats]

6 minutes ago, ufoguy said:

so your saying air force pilots are not credible witnesses?

They are flawed like all humans, mantell for example died chasing a sky hook weather balloon.

Martin Caidin, an American author, screenwriter, and an authority on aeronautics and aviation who investigated mantells crash for the military came to that conclusion which i agree with.

[ufoguy]

12 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Yes and No.  Life isn't that simple, and if there is a chance of fame or a dollar-buck (®™ - Bluey) to be made, things get complicated...

In most cases where footage is 'out there', the people who created it go to ground, hoping that they can make money by getting an exclusive deal or otherwise going viral.  (Or they may simply be experienced hoaxers who use programs like After Effects..)  So they refuse to provide details for verification and we can't check the original media copy (which is a simple but quite robust way to check for image manipulation).

Then, if we have still images from a half decent camera. there will some useful and verifiable information in the attached EXIF data.  There are also various image analysis and 'photogrammetric' tools and techniques that can be applied to imagery, so it may be possible to verify speeds and distances and the like.  Some of those tools require that access to the original file, which very rarely happens...

But ....

To date, despite the bazillions of cameras out there, ready to film.... there has not been a single case showing non-explainable characteristics, that has even merited the effort.  Let alone where the owners fo the footage were accessible and answering questions.... That's because (perhaps?  ), that everything gets sufficiently identified.

 

Does anyone have a case where they think the above does NOT fairly apply, and that has not been sufficiently looked at?  I'm all ears.. er.. eyes.

 

so what if u recorded real footage of a ufo or flying disk that defied the physics that we know 2day and u post it up....and other skeptics say that u used after effects or u just want a buck....what would u say to that?

[ufoguy]

3 hours ago, the13bats said:

They are flawed like all humans, mantell for example died chasing a sky hook weather balloon.

Martin Caidin, an American author, screenwriter, and an authority on aeronautics and aviation who investigated mantells crash for the military came to that conclusion which i agree with.

..you are just hopeless

[the13bats]

8 minutes ago, ufoguy said:

..you are just hopeless

Yes, i have been told that countless times must be true.

[ufoguy]

13 hours ago, astrobeing said:

Now you understand my point about "authentic quality" film footage.

so what do u call the pentagon tic tac ufo footage?

[Dejarma]

6 hours ago, ufoguy said:

..you are just hopeless

compared to who? 

[astrobeing]

8 hours ago, ufoguy said:

so what do u call the pentagon tic tac ufo footage?

Great infrared footage of birds. It's already been explained by those who understand how the gimbled cameras work.

[astrobeing]

9 hours ago, ufoguy said:

so your saying air force pilots are not credible witnesses?

At what point did the Air Force pilots say, "That is a spacecraft from another planet"?

[Guyver]

20 hours ago, the13bats said:

Me , me....i just dont accept stories of someone saying they saw something fly overhead and it was a ufo and ufo = aliens to them.

See, that’s the thing.  The “U” part stands for unidentified, not alien.  I’m not a proponent of aliens as an explanation for the phenomenon, personally.  So, in that sense I agree with you.

[Guyver]

11 hours ago, ufoguy said:

so your saying air force pilots are not credible witnesses?

My Father in Law is a retired Air Force Pilot who fought in Vietnam and served an entire career in the Air Force.  Yes, I would consider him a credible witness.   He is a fine man, honorable, and would not lie to benefit financially from it.  

[Guyver]

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Yes and No.  Life isn't that simple, and if there is a chance of fame or a dollar-buck (®™ - Bluey) to be made, things get complicated...

In most cases where footage is 'out there', the people who created it go to ground, hoping that they can make money by getting an exclusive deal or otherwise going viral.  (Or they may simply be experienced hoaxers who use programs like After Effects..)  So they refuse to provide details for verification and we can't check the original media copy (which is a simple but quite robust way to check for image manipulation).

 

I often think that skeptics like you consider a phenomenon of type as follows.  Since it can be shown that some people lie or hoax, they all must.  That’s unrealistic.  Point one.  Second point, these things have been observed and reported for a long time, much longer than the term “going viral” as we use it ever existed.