Pentagon confirms 'pyramid-shaped' UFO video footage is authentic

[SeekTruth]

20 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

To me the phrase 'seeing is believing' is pretty close to the total opposite of 'skeptical thinker'.  To quote Richard Feynmann, who just had a birthday yesterday: "The first principle is you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool".

Fair enough. I'm not suggesting that our experiences should be uncritically accepted. Indeed, they must be vetted by asking questions, ascribing probabilities and considering alternative explanations. In my case, I have done exactly that and was left with the conviction that I actually saw what I remember seeing.

[+Liquid Gardens]

4 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

I'm not suggesting that our experiences should be uncritically accepted. Indeed, they must be vetted by asking questions, ascribing probabilities and considering alternative explanations.  In my case, I have done exactly that and was left with the conviction that I actually saw what I remember seeing.

Okay, well it's good you agree they shouldn't be uncritically accepted but the reasons for why they shouldn't be uncritically accepted I think is counter to the statement, "And it is very telling when someone tells me I didn't see what I remember seeing. Their worldview precludes them from even entertaining the thought, which is their problem, not mine.".   One of the main reasons that as you say testimonials/experiences shouldn't be uncritically accepted is that people misperceive and even more commonly misinterpret/misremember what they've experienced, which seems to happen commonly and is a phenomenon that science is well aware of and has studied.  So when someone tells ('suggests to' I'd agree is probably a better phrase) you that you didn't see what you remember they are doing exactly what you say you are not suggesting, they are pretty much by definition not uncritically accepting your story.  Asking questions, ascribing probabilities and considering alternative explanations can be done, but the 'results' of that analysis are not usually compelling when the only evidence that is provided is a testimonial.  

To me we currently have a very fundamental data point requiring an explanation due to the ubiquity of cameras today (and I don't claim to know that much about ufos).  There seem to be several videos of ufos in the sky that are a good distance away.  At that distance, for a lot of people, the person actually witnessing the ufo is not seeing that much more detail than what is captured on a camera.  (important note, what is captured on a camera is different than video files on the internet, which go through compression)  In these far-away video cases we're actually in better shape as far as critical analysis, we get to see pretty much what the person saw (which is almost always something ambiguous), but most importantly we have escaped our having to rely solely on the accuracy of the person's remembered 'experience'. 

Obviously people who say instead that they saw a craft or whatever far closer to them or overhead would be in a different category as far as our possible explanations; for these kind of witnesses it's not just a basic misperception because of the well-known phenomena of people misperceiving information about things they see in the sky at a distance, these events either really occurred or the person had a far more substantial misperception or false memory (or hoaxing, tripping, etc) which are less common.  But from what admittedly little I've seen, the ufo videos of close-up encounters seem to be far fewer for some reason.  So speaking of probabilities, with the vast number of cameras in society and the abundant evidence we have of everyday people being able to take clear videos of many other things, what is the probability that people are actually having more proximate encounters but are seemingly consistently unable to capture good video of it?  How much longer should we have to wait for 'the really good video' probability-wise?  Our evidence pool has more far away videos, which because they are far away are not clear enough to avoid more mundane possibilities, yet almost no close-up videos that obviously would be more difficult to refute but for which we should I think expect by now the existence of something of quality.  To me a far away video is worth more evidence-wise than nothing but a story of a closer encounter.

"Conviction" is also not usually a word used by skeptical thinkers btw.

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Okay, well it's good you agree they shouldn't be uncritically accepted but the reasons for why they shouldn't be uncritically accepted I think is counter to the statement, "And it is very telling when someone tells me I didn't see what I remember seeing. Their worldview precludes them from even entertaining the thought, which is their problem, not mine.".   One of the main reasons that as you say testimonials/experiences shouldn't be uncritically accepted is that people misperceive and even more commonly misinterpret/misremember what they've experienced, which seems to happen commonly and is a phenomenon that science is well aware of and has studied.  So when someone tells ('suggests to' I'd agree is probably a better phrase) you that you didn't see what you remember they are doing exactly what you say you are not suggesting, they are pretty much by definition not uncritically accepting your story.  Asking questions, ascribing probabilities and considering alternative explanations can be done, but the 'results' of that analysis are not usually compelling when the only evidence that is provided is a testimonial.  

To me we currently have a very fundamental data point requiring an explanation due to the ubiquity of cameras today (and I don't claim to know that much about ufos).  There seem to be several videos of ufos in the sky that are a good distance away.  At that distance, for a lot of people, the person actually witnessing the ufo is not seeing that much more detail than what is captured on a camera.  (important note, what is captured on a camera is different than video files on the internet, which go through compression)  In these far-away video cases we're actually in better shape as far as critical analysis, we get to see pretty much what the person saw (which is almost always something ambiguous), but most importantly we have escaped our having to rely solely on the accuracy of the person's remembered 'experience'. 

Obviously people who say instead that they saw a craft or whatever far closer to them or overhead would be in a different category as far as our possible explanations; for these kind of witnesses it's not just a basic misperception because of the well-known phenomena of people misperceiving information about things they see in the sky at a distance, these events either really occurred or the person had a far more substantial misperception or false memory (or hoaxing, tripping, etc) which are less common.  But from what admittedly little I've seen, the ufo videos of close-up encounters seem to be far fewer for some reason.  So speaking of probabilities, with the vast number of cameras in society and the abundant evidence we have of everyday people being able to take clear videos of many other things, what is the probability that people are actually having more proximate encounters but are seemingly consistently unable to capture good video of it?  How much longer should we have to wait for 'the really good video' probability-wise?  Our evidence pool has more far away videos, which because they are far away are not clear enough to avoid more mundane possibilities, yet almost no close-up videos that obviously would be more difficult to refute but for which we should I think expect by now the existence of something of quality.  To me a far away video is worth more evidence-wise than nothing but a story of a closer encounter.

"Conviction" is also not usually a word used by skeptical thinkers btw.

This is a must read post, and it deserves pinning, I reckon!  So, repeated for posterity...

[SeekTruth]

17 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Okay, well it's good you agree they shouldn't be uncritically accepted but the reasons for why they shouldn't be uncritically accepted I think is counter to the statement, "And it is very telling when someone tells me I didn't see what I remember seeing. Their worldview precludes them from even entertaining the thought, which is their problem, not mine.".   One of the main reasons that as you say testimonials/experiences shouldn't be uncritically accepted is that people misperceive and even more commonly misinterpret/misremember what they've experienced, which seems to happen commonly and is a phenomenon that science is well aware of and has studied.

As I noted in post #227: "I would never expect anyone to take me at my word, and I would never submit my own experience as evidence."

Quote

So when someone tells ('suggests to' I'd agree is probably a better phrase) you that you didn't see what you remember they are doing exactly what you say you are not suggesting, they are pretty much by definition not uncritically accepting your story.  

 No, I'm referring to the dismissal out-of-hand of the possibility that I actually saw what I claim to have seen. Such an outright dismissal is quite different than a reasoned consideration of my claim. That said, I'm happy to have the discussion with you. You can read about my sighting here: 

Quote

To me we currently have a very fundamental data point requiring an explanation due to the ubiquity of cameras today (and I don't claim to know that much about ufos).  There seem to be several videos of ufos in the sky that are a good distance away.  At that distance, for a lot of people, the person actually witnessing the ufo is not seeing that much more detail than what is captured on a camera.  (important note, what is captured on a camera is different than video files on the internet, which go through compression)  In these far-away video cases we're actually in better shape as far as critical analysis, we get to see pretty much what the person saw (which is almost always something ambiguous), but most importantly we have escaped our having to rely solely on the accuracy of the person's remembered 'experience'. 

I did not have a camera on hand at the time. But even if I did, I would not have caught it with my cell phone camera. The lack of verifiable video evidence (there are many videos of course, but I put stock in none of them) does not sway me from my conclusion that I saw what I remember seeing.

17 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

"Conviction" is also not usually a word used by skeptical thinkers btw.

And why would the word "conviction" be absent from the skeptic's lexicon? We all have convictions, even the most skeptical of us. Are you not convinced that a skeptical approach to claims should be taken?

I'd like to discuss with you my own sighting. Perhaps we should do that in the thread I linked to above.

 

 

[Robotic Jew]

On 5/12/2021 at 10:58 AM, SeekTruth said:

Fair enough. I'm not suggesting that our experiences should be uncritically accepted. Indeed, they must be vetted by asking questions, ascribing probabilities and considering alternative explanations. In my case, I have done exactly that and was left with the conviction that I actually saw what I remember seeing.

Not saying you didn't see what you thought you saw....but are you really the best person to vet a personal experience? If your first thought was "oh that's an alien!" any questions or probabilities or explanations going forward might be heavily soured by that thought whether you realize it or not. 

[SeekTruth]

6 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

Not saying you didn't see what you thought you saw....but are you really the best person to vet a personal experience? If your first thought was "oh that's an alien!" any questions or probabilities or explanations going forward might be heavily soured by that thought whether you realize it or not. 

When I saw it, aliens weren't even the last thing on my list. In fact, they weren't on my list at all. Whether or not you and I or anyone else is the best person to vet our experiences, it is something we should strive to do well, don't you think? 

Edited May 13, 2021 by SeekTruth

[+Liquid Gardens]

7 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

As I noted in post #227: "I would never expect anyone to take me at my word, and I would never submit my own experience as evidence."

Understood, but that is still counter to what I quoted from you.  I think to be consistent with the above your position should be, 'it is very telling when someone suggests I didn't see what I remember seeing, it tells me that they are being rational because they are being asked to accept an exceptional claim on no evidence, since I agree my mere experience does not provide that.'  

7 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

No, I'm referring to the dismissal out-of-hand of the possibility that I actually saw what I claim to have seen. Such an outright dismissal is quite different than a reasoned consideration of my claim.

Okay, so I've scanned your sighting thread, and from what I've seen your claim was not outright dismissed and was very reasonably considered.  The thing is I really don't see you making a claim in that thread that is that controversial, you don't claim you saw a craft just lights behaving oddly.  I did find something of possible note, I will add it to that thread.

[SeekTruth]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Understood, but that is still counter to what I quoted from you.  I think to be consistent with the above your position should be, 'it is very telling when someone suggests I didn't see what I remember seeing, it tells me that they are being rational because they are being asked to accept an exceptional claim on no evidence, since I agree my mere experience does not provide that.'  

 

I still don't see an inconsistency on my part. There is a difference between suggesting the possibility that I didn't actually see what I think I saw and saying that I could not have seen what I think I saw. It is the latter I was talking about. Hope that clears it up. I have no problem considering the possibility that I did not actually see what I think I saw. The thing is, I've considered the possible ways in which I might be mistaken and I'm left with the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that I was  hallucinating, misperceiving, misremembering, under the power of suggestion, etc., and that is is very likely that I actually saw what I think I saw.

Quote

Okay, so I've scanned your sighting thread, and from what I've seen your claim was not outright dismissed and was very reasonably considered.  

I did not say that there was such an outright dismissal in that thread. Thanks for reading it, BTW. I'll see you there.

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

I still don't see an inconsistency on my part.

Oh, really.  Permit me to reject that completely.  Read on..

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

There is a difference between suggesting the possibility that I didn't actually see what I think I saw and saying that I could not have seen what I think I saw. It is the latter I was talking about.

Yes.

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

Hope that clears it up.

Yes.  You should really have stopped there...

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

I have no problem considering the possibility that I did not actually see what I think I saw.

Good.  END of discussion.

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

The thing is....

Seriously?  Forgive me if I think "here come the lame excuses and contradictions to what was just said.."  I get a bit fed up with this repeated rubbish.

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

I've considered the possible ways in which I might be mistaken

Allow me to rudely answer for all the skeptics here.  So have we.  Only we considered ALL of them....

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

and I'm left with the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that I was  hallucinating, misperceiving, misremembering, under the power of suggestion, etc., and that is is very likely that I actually saw what I think I saw.

So, you think your assurances are somehow enough, even after we have gone through in signfifcant detail on WHY your assurances are NOT enough, and you also completely ignore a whole pile of stuff, most notably the very simple fact that NOT ONE single person making these claims has ever offered a shred of evidence or independent corroboration, AND that not a single astronomer (and there are MILLIONS of them) has ever recorded such an event.

NOT ONE.  Despite all the increases, especially over the last 20 years, in sky surveillance.  Despite the fact that others MUST be closer to these events and have a clear view.

NOT A SINGLE ONE.

And you claim to have perfect perception and memories...  Congratulations on being the only person on the planet with that. 

1 hour ago, SeekTruth said:

I did not say that there was such an outright dismissal in that thread.

Well, I'm outright dismissing it in this one...

[SeekTruth]

34 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Oh, really.  Permit me to reject that completely.  Read on..

Yes.

Yes.  You should really have stopped there...

Good.  END of discussion.

Seriously?  Forgive me if I think "here come the lame excuses and contradictions to what was just said.."  I get a bit fed up with this repeated rubbish.

Allow me to rudely answer for all the skeptics here.  So have we.  Only we considered ALL of them....

So, you think your assurances are somehow enough, even after we have gone through in signfifcant detail on WHY your assurances are NOT enough, and you also completely ignore a whole pile of stuff, most notably the very simple fact that NOT ONE single person making these claims has ever offered a shred of evidence or independent corroboration, AND that not a single astronomer (and there are MILLIONS of them) has ever recorded such an event.

NOT ONE.  Despite all the increases, especially over the last 20 years, in sky surveillance.  Despite the fact that others MUST be closer to these events and have a clear view.

NOT A SINGLE ONE.

And you claim to have perfect perception and memories...  Congratulations on being the only person on the planet with that. 

Well, I'm outright dismissing it in this one...

I thought you had me on ignore, Chuck? Just can't resist, can you? I've offered no lame excuses (or any excuses) for anything, so I don't know what you're babbling about. Neither have I ignored any points raised as to why I might be mistaken. You would do well to pay better attention and read what I have actually written rather than infer (incorrectly) that I've said something that I did not (like you did earlier in my other thread when you stormed out of the discussion). Rather than repeat your same tired mantras about the apparent lack of astronomical observations and photo/video evidence, why don't you tell us why  my brain likely fooled itself in the case of my sighting. Merely noting the fact that the brain can fool itself is not tantamount to making the case that the brain did in fact fool itself (or likely fooled itself) in any given circumstance. So enough of the tired hand-waving. Try to engage in discussion for a change.

Edited May 14, 2021 by SeekTruth

[Trelane]

Well, enough of this thread hijacking. "I've seen this, I believe that...". I don't care, it doesn't reasonably further the conversation to the original topic because a personal alleged experience is now causing a bias towards the topic. Start your own thread if you wish to discuss your alleged experiences.

[SeekTruth]

24 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Well, enough of this thread hijacking. "I've seen this, I believe that...". I don't care, it doesn't reasonably further the conversation to the original topic because a personal alleged experience is now causing a bias towards the topic. Start your own thread if you wish to discuss your alleged experiences.

I'm fine with moving any talk of my sighting to the thread I linked to previously. In fact, I suggested that we do exactly that in post #256.

BTW, if you are suggesting that my own personal experience is causing a bias towards the subject of this thread, then you are sorely mistaken. I put no stock into the video in question (or any video for that matter) and found Mick West's points to be sound. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by SeekTruth

[SeekTruth]

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

And you claim to have perfect perception and memories...  Congratulations on being the only person on the planet with that. 

And here you show us all that you are either not reading my posts or are not engaging honestly. Not only did I never suggest that my memory is infallible, but I, in no unclear terms, admitted that memory is fallible and that we must vet our memories (and all experience) in order to ascribe the likelihood that such are accurate. So which is it? Are you being careless or are you being disingenuous?

Quote

Well, I'm outright dismissing it in this one...

@Liquid Gardens There you have it. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by SeekTruth

[SeekTruth]

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

So, you think your assurances are somehow enough, even after we have gone through in signfifcant detail on WHY your assurances are NOT enough,

So you think you've gone through in significant detail why I either:

a. Misremembered

b. Misperceived

c. Hallucinated

d. succumbed to the power of suggestion

 

Really? You think so? That's pretty funny, because you've done no such thing. Like I said, merely pointing out the fact that the brain is capable of doing these things is not tantamount to formulating an argument as to why you think my brain in fact did any of these things in the case of my sighting. Don't be so intellectually lazy.

Quote

and you also completely ignore a whole pile of stuff, most notably the very simple fact that NOT ONE single person making these claims has ever offered a shred of evidence or independent corroboration

I'm not ignoring anything, but I do wonder what you mean by independent corroboration. My wife saw these lights right alongside of me. That doesn't count in your book?

Quote

AND that not a single astronomer (and there are MILLIONS of them) has ever recorded such an event.

Are you prepared to prove that? Besides, would you expect a telescope, aimed at a very particular portion of the vast night sky, to catch these lights that may very well have been low in Earth's atmosphere?

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by SeekTruth

[+Liquid Gardens]

9 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

@Liquid Gardens There you have it. 

Let me ask a follow-up question:

 

12 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Well, I'm outright dismissing it in this one...

Let me ask a more extreme question, @ChrLzs, is it possible that ST saw lights behave as he claim, and I'll even go further, is it possible that this was actually a craft from outer space?  For my eventual point to ST, I just need yes or no, and I'm not asking this to point out any inconsistency with you, I don't see any.

Edited May 14, 2021 by Liquid Gardens

[SeekTruth]

9 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Let me ask a follow-up question:

 

Let me ask a more extreme question, @ChrLzs, is it possible that ST saw lights behave as he claim, and I'll even go further, is it possible that this was actually a craft from outer space?  For my eventual point to ST, I just need yes or no, and I'm not asking this to point out any inconsistency with you, I don't see any.

He is dismissing the prospect that I saw what I say I saw. He was quite clear about that.  Now, are you suggesting an inconsistency on my part?

Edited May 14, 2021 by SeekTruth

[Dejarma]

2 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

He is dismissing the prospect that I saw what I say I saw. He was quite clear about that.  Now, are you suggesting an inconsistency on my part?

After reading everything you've posted in this forum I feel you're provoking a confrontation by saying this- because you know dam well the responses you'll get== you're telling a story-

anyone can say what you've said here= what part of that do you not understand? Now go away & think about it

Edited May 15, 2021 by Dejarma

[ChrLzs]

Offtopic, but hopefully worth a read seeing the thread seems to have died..  

14 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Let me ask a more extreme question

Fire away!!

14 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

@ChrLzs, is it possible that ST saw lights behave as he claim

Yes, it is.  But .. the possibility is vanishingly small and shrinking by the day as our sky surveillance coverage and the number of people equipped with half decent cameras at all times, all increase every day. No-one has ever recorded such behaviour, and most mobile phones would be capable of doing so.  Not one report is evidenced and the claim is easily explainable by 'micro-saccades' or similar, along with a little convenient 'memory variation' where the story changes a bit as necessary to deal with issues raised by the evil skeptics.  Notice how they never initially say the movements were relative to the background stars ... *until* that topic is raised by someone?

That's all part of why I dismiss it, but there's more to it than that...

First up, as Dejarma has alluded, the claimant has a certain .. er .. history......  But it's not just ST - there are several folks who have posted on similar threads making similar claims and some say they see them all the time.  And yet, when I give them very simple instructions on how they could film the phenomena on even a crappy mobile phone camera... they have, all as one, vanished.  Pooff!  Every time, without fail.

Then there's the simple fact that amateur astronomers are legion - there are literally millions of them, and many, many thousands use all-night sky cameras in the hope of capturing a large meteor event, or supernova, or whatever.  Do any of them report this behavior?  Do any of those making these claims, take the time and go and visit their local amateur astronomers, or their local club, to ask about the night/s they allegedly saw what they claim?  Again, not one has ever done that.  Nor have any of them shown they know their sky - I often ask what stars were nearby, or ask them to give me a rough location and a direction, from which I can tell them what stars should have been in view.  But again, I get no response.  Are you seeing a pattern?  It's not one of moving stars.... 

Oh well, at least from all of this, I can judge the type of person who is making the claim...

So.. it's also possible that those who claim politicians are alien reptiles are right, or that invisible unicorns exist and pop into existence at 'special' moments (and only appear to those who are 'special' and that don't have cameras...).  But I also dismiss those.  Hopefully you can see the 'similarity'.

 

14 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

.. and I'll even go further, is it possible that this was actually a craft from outer space?

By definition, any unidentified light in the sky could be our first visit from aliens.  But without evidence of such lights showing at least some sort of beyond terrestrial attributes then we have nothing to debate, let alone analyze...  And in the cases where the claimant is 'special' as outlined above, I may tend to be a little harsh in my dismissal, but it's all because they soil and derail threads like these with offtopic drivel, and avoid discussing potential explanations simply by dismissing them out of hand.  They whine about us asking for evidence - how dare we - and stick to the utterly FALSE refrain that they are unquestionable and perfect observers who do not suffer from the perception and memory issues that the rest of us do.

The same old, same old routine is repeated all too frequently.  I'm getting old and intolerant of such time wasting especially when it's the usual suspects...

 

And as for me, I carry a big and very capable DSLR at almost all times (tripod in the boot of my car).  It's capable of good low light performance, with fast AF, image stabilisation and a big zoom lens that covers about 110 - 450mm (35mm equiv).

I may not be a manic amateur astronomer of the dedicated kind, but I do spend a lot of time skygazing, day and night and I take pride in identifying everything I see.

 

Thus, I feel quite entitled to ride my high horse.

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

14 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I may not be a manic amateur astronomer of the dedicated kind, but I do spend a lot of time skygazing, day and night and I take pride in identifying everything I see.

Thus, I feel quite entitled to ride my high horse.

In my view it goes further than that, you have also developed some expertise in psychological/perception effects of viewing things in the sky, as well as seemingly quite a bit about the details, far more than me, of the many distortions that occur from the path of a sighting through a camera to a video file.  You've taken the trouble to learn about why specifically we should be skeptical about inferring things from, well, the usual 'unexplained mystery' evidence. 

Thanks for the response on the main question concerning possibility, your answer was what I anticipated and mirrors mine.  So circling back:

 

On 5/14/2021 at 12:05 AM, SeekTruth said:

There you have it. 

Not quite, your complaint was:

On 5/13/2021 at 5:45 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm referring to the dismissal out-of-hand of the possibility that I actually saw what I claim to have seen. Such an outright dismissal is quite different than a reasoned consideration of my claim.

I went to your thread and see I think a couple pages of discussion, no animosity to start, there's discussion of fireflies, perceptual illusions, you I think even contribute accurately that this is not a case of the auto-kinetic effect since that involves usually one point of light and not a star field.  In other words there are multiple pages of 'reasoned consideration'.  The word 'than' above puts that in contrast with the alternative of dismissal out of hand.  I guess I didn't get who specifically you were accusing of this but it's not @ChrLzs, he asked questions and discussed several points and explained the reasons why he dismisses it; that is not 'out-of-hand' as in 'not considered'. There's nothing wrong with that, that's what you should do, I'm sure you dismiss many things also after reasoned consideration, and he's clarified it is nonetheless ultimately possible just extremely unlikely, fwiw.

And so it seems the only possible complaint comes simply down to a very narrow one that is really besides the point, an argument about how certain someone should be about their position.  You've made it clear you're not expecting anybody to accept your story as evidence; that's great and 100% logical, but I don't know if you're then thinking through the repercussions of that.  Your claim isn't really even that excessive, I think all you are committing too is that you remember you saw lights move in the night sky in a way that is inconsistent with the behavior of the things you believe it could be. I see this a lot with paranormal topics too, the strawman that skeptics get accused of just being extremely close-minded and thus biased, and require 'proof' and won't accept anything at all without a scientific study, etc.  All this side discussion that is only happening because there isn't any good evidence to discuss, and it's basic that you should be skeptical about something that doesn't have that.  Sometimes it seems like the complaint comes down to the silly, "you're saying you're 99.999% sure I didn't see anything moving abnormally when any rational person would only be 98% sure I didn't; how ridiculous!".

But keep in mind that despite all that, it doesn't have to remove anything from the experience especially since you had it with someone else.  I hope you reminisce about that crazy time you saw those weird lights in the sky forever, it's a cool experience to share with someone no matter what the reality. 

[godnodog]

On 4/14/2021 at 7:54 PM, Hankenhunter said:

If they are alien craft, and they've been visiting us on the sly, I have to question the logic of the Doom Sayers online. Why would Aliens want to harm us? What could we have that they could possibly want that they couldn't get, or create somewhere else without the hassle?

If they wanted our planet, and all it contains we'd be dead by now without having a clue we'd been murdered. All it would take is a few well placed asteroids redirected.

Then theres the genetically modified super virus with 100% effacy. Much easier than using asteroids, without all the mess. Just need a sample of earth blood types. Again, murder without knowing we've been murdered.

Finally, the slavery theory. This ones hilarious. An advanced race, that has obviously advanced technology, needs slaves? For what? To be slaves when robotics are much safer, and last much longer than these disease prone meat sacks called humans? Highly illogical.

 Finally, why run away from almost every encounter if they were up to something nefarious? There seems to be nothing the military can do to stop it, nevermind identify them. 

Logically, the best thing we can do is send up an invite, and invite them for tea to discuss a mutual relationship between species. Have we even tried that? No, because then the military would have to admit they're helpless, and that wouldn't be good for business. They'd be scared that the unlimited cash cow they've enjoyed for so long would dry up. Can't protect us? What good are you then? Let's put all that cash towards interspecies relationships, and peace.

If they are out there, having humanity united under one cause is not some thing the elites would want to happen. Their control over us would be highly eroded. If there are aliens visiting us, logic dictates they're here to help us, not hinder us, when destroying us would be much simpler, and cleaner.

All of the above are ifs. Please remember that before you try to shoot me down. Just logical conclusions made with the available data.

Do not underestimate humans:

-we can do movies where human beats ETs;

-we can beat them senseless with our keyboard warriors;

-we have a bunch of sceptics who will deny anything;

-we also have God on our side;

-we have cats;

-we have TikTok;

-we have Alex Jones which will: - convince them to buy awesome food supplements;

                                                   - will convince them democrats are eating their enemies babies;

- we´ll have Trump as a General, greatest mind EVER, and big fingers to small buttons;

- ETs were not elected;

- some weird Nostradamus prediction;

- some Mayan calendar will tell the aliens they are too late;

- Facebook will have another breach in data security allowing humans to know of their plans;

- Putin

and I have to get back to my paper.

 

[SeekTruth]

On 5/15/2021 at 3:27 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

In my view it goes further than that, you have also developed some expertise in psychological/perception effects of viewing things in the sky, as well as seemingly quite a bit about the details, far more than me, of the many distortions that occur from the path of a sighting through a camera to a video file.  You've taken the trouble to learn about why specifically we should be skeptical about inferring things from, well, the usual 'unexplained mystery' evidence. 

Thanks for the response on the main question concerning possibility, your answer was what I anticipated and mirrors mine.  So circling back:

 

Not quite, your complaint was:

I went to your thread and see I think a couple pages of discussion, no animosity to start, there's discussion of fireflies, perceptual illusions, you I think even contribute accurately that this is not a case of the auto-kinetic effect since that involves usually one point of light and not a star field.  In other words there are multiple pages of 'reasoned consideration'.  The word 'than' above puts that in contrast with the alternative of dismissal out of hand.  I guess I didn't get who specifically you were accusing of this but it's not @ChrLzs, he asked questions and discussed several points and explained the reasons why he dismisses it; that is not 'out-of-hand' as in 'not considered'. There's nothing wrong with that, that's what you should do, I'm sure you dismiss many things also after reasoned consideration, and he's clarified it is nonetheless ultimately possible just extremely unlikely, fwiw.

And so it seems the only possible complaint comes simply down to a very narrow one that is really besides the point, an argument about how certain someone should be about their position.  You've made it clear you're not expecting anybody to accept your story as evidence; that's great and 100% logical, but I don't know if you're then thinking through the repercussions of that.  Your claim isn't really even that excessive, I think all you are committing too is that you remember you saw lights move in the night sky in a way that is inconsistent with the behavior of the things you believe it could be. I see this a lot with paranormal topics too, the strawman that skeptics get accused of just being extremely close-minded and thus biased, and require 'proof' and won't accept anything at all without a scientific study, etc.  All this side discussion that is only happening because there isn't any good evidence to discuss, and it's basic that you should be skeptical about something that doesn't have that.  Sometimes it seems like the complaint comes down to the silly, "you're saying you're 99.999% sure I didn't see anything moving abnormally when any rational person would only be 98% sure I didn't; how ridiculous!".

But keep in mind that despite all that, it doesn't have to remove anything from the experience especially since you had it with someone else.  I hope you reminisce about that crazy time you saw those weird lights in the sky forever, it's a cool experience to share with someone no matter what the reality. 

Thanks LG. You deserve a response, and I'll be back soon to do so. 

[SeekTruth]

On 5/15/2021 at 3:27 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

I went to your thread and see I think a couple pages of discussion, no animosity to start, there's discussion of fireflies, perceptual illusions, you I think even contribute accurately that this is not a case of the auto-kinetic effect since that involves usually one point of light and not a star field.

I appreciate that. You might have noted that I was accused of making things up as I go along with regard to my comments about the autokinetic effect. I much rather appreciate your approach here.

Quote

In other words there are multiple pages of 'reasoned consideration'.  The word 'than' above puts that in contrast with the alternative of dismissal out of hand.  I guess I didn't get who specifically you were accusing of this but it's not @ChrLzs, he asked questions and discussed several points and explained the reasons why he dismisses it; that is not 'out-of-hand' as in 'not considered'.

Can you be more specific? Fireflies were brought up, and I explained why they do not fit the bill. Faulty memory was proposed and I offered the following reasons why I think that prospect is highly unlikely (while noting that memory is subject to error and and change):

1. I had another witness (my wife, who wrote about the event the next day)

2. We were both of clear mind and we intently observed for a matter of minutes.

What was ChrLzs response to that? He simply ignored it and repeated his claim that human memory is flawed. Well, pointing out that human memory is subject to error is in no way tantamount to arguing why a specific memory is likely erroneous. So, yes, he dismissed out of hand my reasons for ascribing a high probability that my memory is not in error in this case.

You should also note that in his last post in this thread, ChrLzs utterly ignored the points I made in posts # 265 and 266. Instead, I was accused of having a history of making claims that I'm unwilling to defend as well as ignoring any objections. All one need do is review my posts in this thread and the thread about my sighting to see that this is demonstrably false. 

He also accused me of thinking my memory is perfect, thus demonstrating that he either did not read my posts to him where I conceded that memory is fallible, or that he read them and didn't comprehend them, or that he doesn't care to honestly represent my views.

He then went on to accuse me of running away when challenged to capture these lights on video. You can read my thread to see that this is false, as I tried to take video of the night sky with my phone but had no luck. Moreover, I have not seen these lights since I saw them those years ago.

He then went on to suggest that my unfamiliarity with the positions of celestial bodies relative to me at the time is an indication that I did not see what I claim to have seen. That is an absurd argument. Not knowing what constellation I'm looking at has absolutely no impact on my brain's ability to perceive and remember.

One wonders why Chuck has to resort to such  tactics. And it is such tactics that I take issue with.

Quote

There's nothing wrong with that, that's what you should do, I'm sure you dismiss many things also after reasoned consideration, and he's clarified it is nonetheless ultimately possible just extremely unlikely, fwiw.

And one of his reasons (his biggest reason?) for saying it is unlikely that I saw what I saw is because there are no videos out there that he has seen that convinces him that such a phenomenon has existed. Very well; at best, he can simply say that he sees no reason to believe that I saw what I saw, rather than casting aspersions and using the weak arguments he has used. 

I'd still be interested to know what he and others reading this would think had they seen what I saw. 

 

Quote

You've made it clear you're not expecting anybody to accept your story as evidence; that's great and 100% logical, but I don't know if you're then thinking through the repercussions of that.

Why do you say that? It isn't clear to me after reading the rest of your post.

Quote

All this side discussion that is only happening because there isn't any good evidence to discuss, and it's basic that you should be skeptical about something that doesn't have that. 

Indeed. 

Quote

Sometimes it seems like the complaint comes down to the silly, "you're saying you're 99.999% sure I didn't see anything moving abnormally when any rational person would only be 98% sure I didn't; how ridiculous!".

You are missing my point. It doesn't bother me at all that people don't accept my story. My beef is people ignoring my reasons for why I personally find no good reason to doubt what I saw. By ignoring my reasons, they are dismissing them out of hand.

 

Quote

But keep in mind that despite all that, it doesn't have to remove anything from the experience especially since you had it with someone else.  I hope you reminisce about that crazy time you saw those weird lights in the sky forever, it's a cool experience to share with someone no matter what the reality. 

[Trelane]

Danger, danger....thread officially hijacked

[SeekTruth]

30 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Danger, danger....thread officially hijacked

Funny how selective you are with who you accuse of hijacking a thread. Why is that? Why not contribute something intelligent?