Some of the sightings are man-made - misinterpretations of aircraft; secret government tests, such as the stealth bomber. Anti-gravity devices are not necessary as an explanation.
Maybe not antigravity devices, but some form of inertia control is evident based on the maneuvers these things exhibit.
UFOs are reported when the observer sees something that does not fit alongside their expected world view! UFOs are a product of the observer's experience, therefore!
This is exactly my point. People have limited experience. Maybe you forgot just how BIG the universe is and just how SMALL you are.
UFO observers reject mundane explanations because they can't accept any number of possibilities. (parallax effect making Venus appear to follow them, for instance, lights on aircraft, shooting stars) and leap to conclusions.
Of course a percentage of UFO sightings are actually attributable to mundane explanations, no one is arguing that. Moot point.
Even if an object displays controlled flight, that in no way implies there is a pilot! If we remove the pilot from the equation, we see that we are not limited to certain G manoeuvres, and a pilotless, remotely controlled aircraft could perform stunts that defy current understanding.
And I guess without a pilot these crafts are suddenly able to move silently, make 90 degree turns at high speeds, and accelerate to impossible speeds.
So, with what we know, natural phenomena getting misreported, mundane man made events being misreported, and secret military testing, do we need involve extra-terrestrials? At what point do they become required to explain things?
This is WHY I am TRYING to get off the subject of ETs, you guys are clearly not ready. Instead I am trying to discuss man kinds involvement in the UFO phenomena.
Show us something that counts as evidence, and maybe we'll be swayed. I'd love it to be true that we were in contact with an alien race, I really would.
As I have said many times, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE (outside expert testimony), why keep bringing this point up when it has been addressed already on SEVERAL different occasions.
This seems to be true of most UFO skeptics. We have a passionate desire that ETs are real and are visiting us, perhaps even in contact with some members of society. We long for it to be true.
Again it appears you guys are more hooked on the ET subject then us, I have been trying (without any luck) to move from the oh so sensitive subject of ETs and focus on man-made. But then you guys couldnt call us crazy anymore so why would you want that?
Once you and electrafixtion decided not to actually participate and logically or reasonably address criticisms and questions, there really isn't anything left except to discuss the motivations and inspirations of the significance-junkies, the mystery-mongers, and the woo-woo. I think I said as much several posts back.
As Ive said before logic is based on causality, without causality logic falls apart. Right now we are only observing the
effect of a
cause which we are incapable of understanding. Because this is something that is "so far out there" we probably dont even have the words or concepts to describe what the cause actually is. So instead we assign causes that make sense to us with our limited scope of experience. We are not even capable of conceiving the actual cause because it lies outside our experience, and SOME peoples imaginations.
This is, perhaps, why there is little left to discuss between the two sides. You trivialize the importance of logic and reason in a discussion.
Tell me then how I could logically go about proving something I have no
proof of and immediately gets me labeled as a crackpot? Its not even possible and you are well aware of this, thats why you keep bringing it up.
You're kidding, right? You have "philosophy" in your user title. SURELY you see how logic and argumentation would be vital in such a discussion. SURELY you're aware that logic and argumentation are taught in basic philosophy.
And I also have astrophysical in my user title. So you cant take one without the other unless of course your purpose is slander. You arent capable of logically proving that they ARENT real man-made flying saucers, can you? But of course the burden of proof is on us, so you have a get out of jail free card and a convenient way of avoiding the tricky parts.
Of course there's no branch of philosophy in "astrophysics." But all academic discourse owes itself to philosophy for the source of argumentation and logic.
Great. So whats the relevance to UFOs? In my experience to logically prove something you either need self evident truths, or evidence. I have neither.
I have not had to make any attempt to "undermine" you -you've done this too efficiently to yourself.
I dont ever remember calling my self crazy, woo woo, gullible, etc... So yes you have made several attempts to undermine my credibility as you have managed to do for astronauts and pilots as well.
I'm more than willing to go back to the original topic, but it will require that you participate with logic and reason and with a desire for intellectual and academic discourse. That's the level we're talking on here. Like or lump it.
Sure but first you have to admit that people have observed things that defy
accepted logic. That seems to be the
pivotal issue here. The first step is for the skeptics to admit that thousands of eye-witnesses potentially saw technology so far beyond the rational capacity of people that they had no other explanations except ETs (even though it was probably man-made). You are incapable of believing that even ONE sighting was something so extraordinary it may have actually been top secret technology from our government. You have made it abundantly clear that thousands of eye witness testimonies spanning countries and years will NOT suffice. So how again am I supposed to logically prove this if you wont even
consider the limited evidence that is out there.
It *isn't* impossible. Nor have I said so. It is, however, highly improbable and there's no good reason to accept such a wild speculation when there are far more parsimonious explanations that introduce fewer new assumptions. In other words, there are better explanations that do not require mystery-mongering or craving undo significance where none is evident.
Simpler explanations sure, but better? Not necessarily. Still not sure how swamp gas can rapidly change direction at incredible speeds. Please explain the physics behind such a claim.
But I guess you have already proved how all eye witnesses are gullible fools subject to their fallible senses. Its a good thing pilots and other professionals with lives in their hands on a daily basis dont follow this skewed line of thinking. Just think how dangerous a plane flight would be if the pilot suddenly realized all his senses are completely unreliable! Oh wait, they ARENT and thats how they land planes safely DAY AFTER DAY.
And in case you ignored this deliberately again...
The feeling that no matter how honest scientists think they are, they are still influenced by various unconscious assumptions that prevent them from attaining true objectivity. Expressed in a sentence, Fort's principle goes something like this: People with a psychological need to believe in marvels are no more prejudiced and gullible than people with a psychological need not to believe in marvels
There some philosophy for you, and its telling you that you need to get off your high horse because your just as prejudice as I am. In fact I may start calling you crazy for NOT believing in man-made UFOs. You nutter.
