The Thing about UFOs...

[SkinWalker]

I specifically asked for specifics.

So in your opinion, SPECIFICALLY WHAT COMBINATION OF NATURAL PHENOMENA AND MAN-MADE OBJECTS ACCOUNT FOR UFOs?

Why would you demand specifics for a general context? That doesn't make sense nor is it logically sound if one were to present the necessity for such a demand as an argument.

It would be akin to asking "what combination of v-hulls and flat-bottoms account for boat traffic on a lake."

We know that boats on a lake generally come in one of these types. We know that lakes exist. We know that boats exist. Does not knowing the specific combination of these hull-types somehow invalidate the claim that the objects on the lake are boats? It seems as though you are implying this argument:

If the specific combination of NP and MO cannot be shown, then space aliens exist.
The specific combination of NP and MO cannot be shown.
Therefore, space aliens exist.

If I've misread, then it's due only to the ad hominem, back and forth, bickering that envelopes and utterly consumes any rational or coherent discourse.

 

[SkinWalker]

At any rate, the poll is poorly constructed since it is clearly limited by the poll creator's bias. UFOs, simply put, are "unidentified flying objects," but in the colloquial and general definition usually equate to "space aliens" or "extra-terrestrial" intelligence of some sort.

These sorts of fantasies persist, usually waxing and waning with time as new generations "discover" just enough science and fiction to make them fantasize about the possibilities. The space alien/ETI hypothesis never ends up holding any water or showing itself to be evidenced-based, however, leaving more parsimonious and demonstrable explanations to fill the void.

Clearly, UFOs are a natural phenomena. Even man-made objects are natural in the sense that they exist in the natural universe. Anything that exists outside the natural universe is, by definition, paranormal (or sub-natural to quote Anne Druyan). But, if we say that "natural phenomena" equate to processes or effects produced without the intervention of man, then UFOs are a combination of natural and man-made phenomena.

That combination cannot be specified unless certain parameters are first specified. For instance: what event or events in space/time? It is unreasonable for anyone to be expected to even quantify x number of natural phenomena and y number of man-made since we don't know the specified events nor are the data available to make such evaluations.

UFO "enthusiasts", however, have made such weak arguments in the past in which they fallaciously assume that since skeptics and rationalists cannot quickly and specifically identify with evidence each and every UFO event in history that this is, somehow, evidence for the supernatural and paranormal explanation of ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence).

Unfortunately for the UFO "enthusiasts", such evidence is neither required nor expected since skeptics and rationalists aren't making truth claims that haven't been show to be true at least once if not many times over. The UFO enthusiast, on the other hand, makes a truth claim that has never -not once- been shown to be true.

And yet, UFO cranks and crackpots go on and on about how they are "unquestionably real" and claim to rely on science all the while not understanding how science is actually conducted.

We shouldn't belittle them with back-and-forth banter composed primarily of ad hominem attacks and insults. I realize that I'm ignoring my advice in the previous paragraph, but there really are no other labels that more adequately capture the essential characteristics of the UFO enthusiasts that go to these wild, speculative extremes than "crank" and "crackpot."

 

[Read-Only]

Thank you, Skinwalker, that was well-put.

Even the most dim-witted of the cranks and crackpots should be able to gain something from that. However, since they ARE cranks and crackpots (and poorly educated on top of that), even clear logic won't have much effect on their idiotic system of beliefs.

As I've said elsewhere and borrowing on an old saying, " A fool and his money are soon parted, but a fool and his foolishness are bound together for life."

 

[phlogistician]

If we (as in the general public) perceive an object as flying, ANY other definition is moot.

Any 'other'? There was an 'or' in my sentence, extra terrestrial craft, OR secret military. (also natural phenomena should be included, as too many people report that, when it clearly ISN'T flying!!!!!!!!!)

But you did say 'perceive' as flying, which is interesting, 'cos I've seen stationary blobs of light reported as UFO's! Seems it is more about perception, than actual fact, which is why recording these events is very important, so people can examine them rationally. It is a shame however, that all material labelled as 'UFO' is of poor quality, or an over zoomed blob of light, etc etc, and there has not been compelling video yet.

That's the problem here. It's people like you that feebly attempt to discredit the legitimate phenomenon, based on your opinion rather than any substantial facts, that make the UFO controversy so obvious.

The UFO controversy? There you go, hiding behind the term again. I am in no doubt that secret military aircraft are flown and tested, and these tests may be witnessed and reported. Now, if you use the term UFO, but mean 'extra terrestrial craft' you are being dishonest. Say what you mean. Do you mean 'Extra Terrestrial Craft'?

You abound in nonobjective clique mentality.

Exactly not. I am objective. I simply look for evidence, and so far, have found nothing compelling. I myself have had an alien abduction experience, but know it was nothing more than a hypnagogic dream. I have seen lights lights in the sky, that looked odd, until the aircraft changed course, and I realised it was a regular passenger jet. I have checked out many and various testimonies and videos, and none sway me, due to lack of evidence and corroboration.

You completely IGNORE the tremendous body of more than legitimate evidential testimony as presented by extremely credible scientists/pilots/astronauts, etc. and submit your own OPINIONS as if it were actual "fact of the matter" reality.

There's a tremendous amount of crap out there, that people claim to be UFOs. If you have a decent video, please link it, and save me the time sifting through the crap. BTW, I used to work with a bunch of astronomers, and met an astronaut, ... and no-one believed we were getting visited by ETs. Having PhD's in physics and understanding the huge problems with visiting other planets, I guess gives folks that opinion.

That's BULLSHIT, "dude". Give credit where credit is due. Gordon Cooper was no crack pot hack seeking attention as some are implying here. That's out and outright slander.

How can I slander someone I have never mentioned? Get a grip! First mention in this thread was by _you_ in reply to Read-Only.

Why would you attempt in such a childish manner to muddy the factual waters with a deliberate attempt to associate Gordon Cooper's testimony with that retarded Alien Autopsy film?

I didn't. I haven't discussed Gordon Cooper yet. The alien autopsy film was on a site linked in this thread, with supposed real UFO footage on. The site clearly hosted the usual blurry blobs of light, fakes, and the alien autopsy fake. That is the level of 'evidence' we are presented with. Now, if you want to talk about Gordon Cooper we can, but don't try to weave straw men, play it straight, eh?

Just because a site that has MANY numerous contributers to it's data base, has a copy of that obvious fraud on it, what the heck does that prove?

That the site owners and it's contributors lack discernment and critical thinking, and both are essential.

Absolutely NOTHING with respect to Cooper's testimony which you are about as qualified to refute as The Town Clown.

I have't tried to refute it yet. I have made no association between the two. I think you are convolving some replies here.

Read Coloring Books: I have given you several very real clues as to my age in the last three posts that I made on this forum....conspiratorial effort on my behalf to cover up my age. You "true believers", you're all the same.

I haven't mentioned your age. I think you are getting confused. Re-read the thread, and reply to what I have said in one post, and to what Read-Only has said in another.

 

[Ophiolite]

What I want to know is according to you what combination of man-made and natural phenomena causes UFOs?

I understand you to be asking for a list of the likely candidates for UFO sightings, where the base hypothesis is that UFO sightings are either of man-made objects or natural phenomena.

The commenest natural phenomena responsible for UFO sightings are human cognitive processes. At the heart of the issue are two factors:
a) We do not see things we perceive them. Perception is a process (more accurately a suite of processes) that involves interpretation. I use interpretation here in a broad sense. The point is that what we think we are seeing is an interpretation of what is there. I imagine you are familiar with the blind spot, that is an example of what I am talking about.
b) Critical thinking is an acquired skill. Few people have acquired it and many those use it in an intermittent and discordant manner.

These two factors may lead to UFO sightings when people see any of the following (no particular order and not comprehensive):
Planes (especially high performance, military test projects)
Meteors
Venus
Birds
Balloons
Etc.

 

[Read-Only]

I understand you to be asking for a list of the likely candidates for UFO sightings, where the base hypothesis is that UFO sightings are either of man-made objects or natural phenomena.

The commenest natural phenomena responsible for UFO sightings are human cognitive processes. At the heart of the issue are two factors:
a) We do not see things we perceive them. Perception is a process (more accurately a suite of processes) that involves interpretation. I use interpretation here in a broad sense. The point is that what we think we are seeing is an interpretation of what is there. I imagine you are familiar with the blind spot, that is an example of what I am talking about.
b) Critical thinking is an acquired skill. Few people have acquired it and many those use it in an intermittent and discordant manner.

These two factors may lead to UFO sightings when people see any of the following (no particular order and not comprehensive):
Planes (especially high performance, military test projects)
Meteors
Venus
Birds
Balloons
Etc.

Indeed, perception IS a major element in many 'sightings.'

For example, who has not driven on a reasonably clear night and not had the perception that the Moon was keeping pace with them? Regardless of how fast or how slow the driving speed is, the Moon appears to match it perfectly, never failing.

And while the reason behind that particular experience is understood by anyone but a child, there are similar things that clearly produce the same results in many adult minds. And that's were Oph's second point (about critical thinking) comes into full play. The sad truth is that many who WANT to believe that some things seen represent 'alien' activity either lack critical thinking OR actually make a mental effort to turn it off. Whenever one WANTS to believe the unbelievable, it's quite a simple thing to accomplish.

And that's precisely why eyewitness testimony is worthless in connection with such things.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I've voted man made, as it is the closest.

If there was a man made plus natural phenomena option, I would have chosen that.

Aliens coming to earth and just spinning around in spaceships?
Why???

Perhaps.....
To study our methods of government?
To gain knowledge from our religious people?
To learn how to be complete Dickheads in the Earthling manner?

Look space-people, just invade us or flip off (sorry for the language)

No. It's aircraft, balloons, lightning, atmospheric electrical effects, drugs, drunkenness, etcetera.
Why would anyone think it was Aliens?

 

[phlogistician]

Why would anyone think it was Aliens?

It's a New Age religious phenomenon. These people need to believe in something, traditional religions don't fit the bill (although Norval/Craterchains is some Christian end times whacknut too) and Aliens and conspiracies appeals to them.

It's why they deny science, just like religious whacknuts, because it spoils their mystery.

Personally, I think there is more than enough mystery in science to keep me amused, and I don't need a rectal probe to make me grin.

 

[EndLightEnd]

I gave you VERY good specifics and you cannot even comprehend them.

Quote yourself then where you did this. I must have missed it.

 

[EndLightEnd]

But, if we say that "natural phenomena" equate to processes or effects produced without the intervention of man, then UFOs are a combination of natural and man-made phenomena.

Ok so then how is a man-made craft a combination of something that is an "effect produced without the intervention of man"?:shrug:

UFO "enthusiasts", however, have made such weak arguments in the past in which they fallaciously assume that since skeptics and rationalists cannot quickly and specifically identify with evidence each and every UFO event in history that this is, somehow, evidence for the supernatural and paranormal explanation of ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence).

Well if you actually knew where I stood on the subject I believe most UFOs are man-made.

And yet, UFO cranks and crackpots go on and on about how they are "unquestionably real" and claim to rely on science all the while not understanding how science is actually conducted.

I think everyone here agrees that they are unquestionably real. The question is WHAT ARE THEY?

We shouldn't belittle them with back-and-forth banter composed primarily of ad hominem attacks and insults.

Tell that to the a-hole Read-Only.

but there really are no other labels that more adequately capture the essential characteristics of the UFO enthusiasts that go to these wild, speculative extremes than "crank" and "crackpot."

Oh yes I must be crazy for thinking that our government has secret technology not shared with the public. I merely suggested aliens as a POSSIBILITY, not a GIVEN.
Are you sure IM the ignorant one?

You people are so predjudice that WHENEVER a UFO is mentioned you automatically think I am talking about ETs. Then you go into a long explanation on how gullible I am when thats not even what I was talking about.

 

[EndLightEnd]

However, since they ARE cranks and crackpots (and poorly educated on top of that), even clear logic won't have much effect on their idiotic system of beliefs.

Read-Only, you assume way too much. That is why I cannot take you seriously.

Anything I say that doesnt agree with YOUR views is automatically lack of education on MY part. You really can not see ANY issue from a perspective other than yours (which of course is the right one isnt it?, how else can you justify such reckless and unwarranted anger?)

 

[electrafixtion]

Indeed, perception IS a major element in many 'sightings.'

And that's precisely why eyewitness testimony is worthless in connection with such things.

100% speculation on your part RO. That's all. Worthless testimony? You mean the kind of eye witness "worthless testimony" that convicts or proves innocent criminals every day of the week in court? What you are contending is ludicrous. Pilots, astronauts and scientist are called EXPERT WITNESSES Sir. By everyone except the idiots that are self important enough to claim that all of reality lines up with their ignorant narrow minded views. Note that I used the word view. That indicates a PERCEPTION on behalf of those that deny the obvious non man made phenomenon of UFOs. Just more self important nonsense from the man that claims everyone that contends the distinct possibility of alien intelligently controlled craft are "true believers" You're a self important putz that gave up a long time ago. Admit it.

 

[electrafixtion]

I have't tried to refute it yet. I have made no association between the two. I think you are convolving some replies here.



I haven't mentioned your age. I think you are getting confused. Re-read the thread, and reply to what I have said in one post, and to what Read-Only has said in another.

Look, I am going to slow this down a bit for you. It's obvious we are not traveling at the same speed here.

#1 The ONLY reason that I provided the website, that you condemned before examining the issue carefully that it supported, which was a direct response to your question incidentally, was to support the FACT that highly accredited astronauts have indeed publicly acknowledged the reality of alien controlled UFOs and a VERY REAL cover up by the US government. That foremost leading aviation authority and astronaut was Gordon Cooper. Are we clear?

#2 The age thing was a reference to Captain Morgan (Read-Only), not you.

#3 If you are telling me that in this day and age of Internet and video store rental, that you have never seen abundant high quality photographic, video and film based evidence to support the more than legitimate notion of UFO reality, I would suggest investing in a TV. Cause you OBVIOUSLY are not living in the same universe I am. There is countless hundreds of examples of irrefutable (as in already examined by scientists that are truly qualified to make such examinations, not over zealous posters like ANY of us "here") evidence. It's just ridiculous to contend otherwise.

#4 Call them extra terrestrials if you like. Call them intra dimensional if you like. But ANYBODY with a solid understanding of where the United States is presently at with respect to space travel or maned aerodynamic control will make it clear, the UFOs in question are NOT of this earth/dimension with respect to the technologies involved. They come and go so freely and commonly that it's foolish to contend that they are overcoming the same basic finite element analysis that is considered basic protocol with respect to research and development of our own propelled aerodynamic craft. It is true that we (the human race) may in fact be experimenting with this type of technology but it sure as hell is not of our own invention. As the one "true skeptic" (as I am myself) pointed out, UFOs as a very real observation have been a well documented part of the human social structure for thousands of years. That logically more or less negates the notion of this being technology that the human race developed. It's so sad that so many people have to fall back on their immature recall of Star Trek and other Sci Fi entertainment outings to draw (logical!?) comparisons to possible alien realities. Alien simply means "not of this earth" or "not of this dimension" Come to think of it though, Read-Only does bare a slight intellectual resemblance to Doctor Smith from the Lost In Space series.

 

[Read-Only]

100% speculation you your part RO. That's all. Worthless testimony? You mean the kind of eye witness "worthless testimony" that convicts or proves innocent criminals every day of the week in court? What you are contending is ludicrous. Pilots, astronauts and scientist are called EXPERT WITNESSES Sir. By everyone except the idiots that are self important enough to claim that all of reality lines up with their ignorant narrow minded views. Note that I used the word view. That indicates a PERCEPTION on behalf of those that deny the obvious non man made phenomenon of UFOs. Just more self important nonsense from the man that claims everyone that contends the distinct possibility of alien intelligently controlled craft are "true believers" You're a self important putz that gave up a long time ago. Admit it.

You just don't get it, do you?

Eyewitness testimony in the case of UFOs is considerably different from identifying a person in a court of law (which has been later proven to be mistaken in many cases). Dealing with common things that everyone is familiar with - faces, hair color, height, weight - is one thing. Dealing with unknown things like range, speed, shapes, etc. are quite another.

And precisely WHICH scientists are you referring to here when you talk about expert witnesses? Provide a list of names of scientists who are recognized to be experts in the study of UFOs.

 

[electrafixtion]

And precisely WHICH scientists are you referring to here when you talk about expert witnesses? Provide a list of names of scientists who are recognized to be experts in the study of UFOs.

So you want me to do your home work for you eh? Man, you are not only tired and old, you're LAZY.

So far in this thread alone we have

High ranking government officials and one of the most respected astronauts in the history of space flight. I'll be back your plumpness. Don't hurt yourself typing in the meantime.

BTW, Stanton Friedman is one such scientist you might want to attempt elicit a little understanding from. Good luck Sir.

 

[Read-Only]

So you want me to do your home work for you eh? Man, you are not only tired and old, you're LAZY.

Nope - it's your claim, it's up to you to prove it. Simple as that. Not my job at all.

So far in this thread alone we have

High ranking government officials and one of the most respected astronauts in the history of space flight. I'll be back your plumpness. Don't hurt yourself typing in the meantime.

BTW, Stanton Friedman is one such scientist you might want to attempt elicit a little understanding from. Good luck Sir.

Yes, I happen to know about Friedman and I'll grant you ONE point because he does seem reasonable and logical.

Let's see how many others you can come up with...

 

[SkinWalker]

Ok so then how is a man-made craft a combination of something that is an "effect produced without the intervention of man"?

I think you're misunderstanding what is actually being written and argued. When the claims of UFO sightings are taken as a sum of events, they then can be a "combination of man made and natural" events. Indeed, there are other probabilities that are to be included as well, such as delusions, illusions, hallucinations, and out-right lies.

Well if you actually knew where I stood on the subject I believe most UFOs are man-made.

Why does it matter if I know where you stand. I was referring to "UFO enthusiasts" and whether you are one or not is irrelevant to my point.

I think everyone here agrees that they are unquestionably real. The question is WHAT ARE THEY?

No. Everyone here does not agree on this. Some are unquestionably made up or delusions of people who believe they observed something significant when they did not.

Oh yes I must be crazy for thinking that our government has secret technology not shared with the public. I merely suggested aliens as a POSSIBILITY, not a GIVEN.
Are you sure IM the ignorant one?

I am now, since you clearly are ignorant of the points I was making. I might suggest reading a book on critical thinking and logic so that you can improve on this and perhaps eliminate your evident ignorance. Your premise that I'm implying a government has no "secret technology" doesn't follow from the arguments I've made, nor have you logically shown this.

You people are so predjudice that WHENEVER a UFO is mentioned you automatically think I am talking about ETs. Then you go into a long explanation on how gullible I am when thats not even what I was talking about.

Please quote the statement I made that you are gullible. I'm not saying that is or is not my opinion of you, only that you're, again, making a fallacious statement. One is left to wonder why you personalize and automatically identify with my general comments about UFO cranks and crackpots.

What I'm most skeptical of, however, is your tagline of "astrophysical philosopher" since you've demonstrated no knowledge of astrophysics and that you're deficit on any education in philosophy.

 

[EndLightEnd]

Skinwalker my whole point was only that this was the first time Read-Only identified a specific possible cause, instead of being so vague to say "a combination of man-made and natural phenomena"

Where the hell you pulled this crap I dont know. Just more side tracked bickering from another person living in their comfort box with their blinders on and earplugs in.

And why your defending him when theres no REASON for defense I also dont know. I asked HIM a question, not YOU.

No. Everyone here does not agree on this. Some are unquestionably made up or delusions of people who believe they observed something significant when they did not.

What the hell does it matter if SOME are delusional.

EVERYONE is not delusional. What about the people who actually saw something? Your a fool if you seriously deny they exist.

I challenge you to look up pilot, astronauts, and military testimonials.

 

[kmguru]

Anyone has watched UFO Hunters in History channel?

 

[Ophiolite]

I asked HIM a question, not YOU.

If you wanted him to be the only person to deal with it you should have sent him a pm. Once you post it in the thread it is open season.

And if you could get around to responding to my earlier post it would be appreciated. If you keep ignoring me I'll think you are my wife.