PDA

View Full Version : UFOs Generals Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record



dark_spot
2011-Mar-16, 04:23 AM
I've yet to see you guys eviscerate this book. Any comments from the debunking squad?

vonmazur
2011-Mar-16, 05:20 AM
Well, If they said anything substantial, it would be on CNN by now. To what end? How can pointing out the obvious help with this overworked subject?

Dale

captain swoop
2011-Mar-16, 09:19 AM
Well, choose your fave example and post it. What are you wanting?
Are you advocating the conclusions in the book? Are you a believer in Alien UFOs? Do you think there is a conspiracy to cover them up??

Give us some help here.

NEOWatcher
2011-Mar-16, 01:32 PM
What book? Can you give us more information like a link or something? Am I to assume that the thread title is the title of the book?


I've yet to see you guys eviscerate this book. Any comments from the debunking squad?
No; but we've talked at length about ex-military (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/107908-Ex-Military-Personnel-to-Speak-at-National-Press-Club-About-Aliens) at some press conference, which ended up being a press conference pushing some book. Are these the same people?
We've talked about how unreliable eyewitness accounts are especially with no evidence to back it up.
We've talked at great length about Hastings (if that's who wrote the book).

So; what's in the book that we haven't already covered?

dark_spot
2011-Mar-16, 04:56 PM
This book. http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pilots-Government-Officials/dp/0307716848

I think at this point, you guys have gotten me more interested in the social mechanic behind your "debunkery" than the subject matter itself.

Strange
2011-Mar-16, 04:59 PM
I think at this point, you guys have gotten me more interested in the social mechanic behind your "debunkery" than the subject matter itself.

Why? Do you think it is wrong to be skeptical and test the evidence?

dark_spot
2011-Mar-16, 05:07 PM
The pattern suggest that extreme and deliberate skepticism is promoted as opposed to a "healthy dose of"....

Strange
2011-Mar-16, 05:30 PM
The pattern suggest that extreme and deliberate skepticism is promoted as opposed to a "healthy dose of"....

I haven't noticed that. But maybe I am not skeptical enough. Or too skeptical. I have only seen people question the quality/validity of evidence or present alternative evidence. At least, among the "debunkers"; I have seen a few UFO proponents storm off in a hissy fit when their ideas or evidence are questioned.

Hal37214
2011-Mar-16, 05:31 PM
The pattern suggest that extreme and deliberate skepticism is promoted as opposed to a "healthy dose of"....

I'm not sure what you mean by "extreme and deliberate," but if that's anything like "consistent and methodical," I'd consider that to be pretty healthy, myself.

R.A.F.
2011-Mar-16, 05:33 PM
The pattern suggest that extreme and deliberate skepticism is promoted as opposed to a "healthy dose of"....

What "pattern"??

Gillianren
2011-Mar-16, 06:10 PM
The pattern suggest that extreme and deliberate skepticism is promoted as opposed to a "healthy dose of"....

In your opinion, what is a healthy does, then?

NEOWatcher
2011-Mar-16, 06:21 PM
The pattern suggest that extreme and deliberate skepticism is promoted as opposed to a "healthy dose of"....
On the flip side, you are making judgments before attempting any answers to some questions. Since that will turn out to be a stalemate and probably head the thread to closure, or some hot heads getting banned, how about we get back to those questions?

For instance, what is in the book that wasn't addressed in other threads?

dark_spot
2011-Mar-16, 06:22 PM
In your opinion, what is a healthy does, then?

A Gaussian distribution of "maybe"....

dark_spot
2011-Mar-16, 06:27 PM
My position has always been that some military branches and intelligence agencies have exotic vehicles which are going to appear to the layman as "otherworldly". The consensus here has always been "totally impossible". I don't think that represents a healthy dose, its just too extreme.

Rhaedas
2011-Mar-16, 06:29 PM
Anyone can speculate on things. Without evidence though, that's all you're left with is "maybe".

dark_spot
2011-Mar-16, 06:31 PM
On the flip side, you are making judgments before attempting any answers to some questions. Since that will turn out to be a stalemate and probably head the thread to closure, or some hot heads getting banned, how about we get back to those questions?

For instance, what is in the book that wasn't addressed in other threads?

Have a read of the excerpts: http://ufosontherecord.com/excerpts/

Garrison
2011-Mar-16, 06:57 PM
My position has always been that some military branches and intelligence agencies have exotic vehicles which are going to appear to the layman as "otherworldly". The consensus here has always been "totally impossible". I don't think that represents a healthy dose, its just too extreme.

The consensus among whom? The misidentification of the F117-A that generated the surge in reports of triangular UFO's in the 1980's has been brought up a number of times on this forum, and I doubt whether anyone would dispute that aerospace hardware exotic or otherwise can be taken for alien spacecraft by those who are so inclined. Which is in fact all the more reason not to extend a 'maybe' to the endless stream of cases where the evidence amounts to no more than; 'I saw something in the sky'.

Garrison
2011-Mar-16, 07:02 PM
Have a read of the excerpts: http://ufosontherecord.com/excerpts/

I would prefer you to summarize in your own words what you think this book brings that is new when compared to the previous discussions on the topic of UFO's That have occurred on this board. I ask because to this point your posts suggest you are guessing about people's views without having read any of the previous discussions.

Gillianren
2011-Mar-16, 07:12 PM
A Gaussian distribution of "maybe"....

I have no idea what that even means.

eburacum45
2011-Mar-16, 07:24 PM
The best way to debate a book like this is not simply to point at it and say 'what do you think of that?'
Instead we should consider each case separately and methodically, preferably by devoting a separate thread to each one. That avoids making the mistake that many proponents make, which is to avoid discussing particular cases but instead skipping from one to another when the problems start becoming obvious.

So; if you are willing to defend the book's conclusions, pick one particularly convincing case, and we'll look at it in detail. Then we can perhaps move onto another one, ideally in a separate thread. And so on. Some cases are intriguing, and in past discussions we haven't always been able to come to any firm conclusions; but others are reasonably easy to explain, at least in theory.

Jim
2011-Mar-16, 07:25 PM
I would prefer you to summarize in your own words what you think this book brings that is new when compared to the previous discussions on the topic of UFO's That have occurred on this board. ...

Let's make that an official request. Link if you want, but provide specific excerpts or summaries here with your understanding of them.

Grashtel
2011-Mar-16, 08:18 PM
My position has always been that some military branches and intelligence agencies have exotic vehicles which are going to appear to the layman as "otherworldly". The consensus here has always been "totally impossible". I don't think that represents a healthy dose, its just too extreme.
Apparently you have been reading a different forum to me, from what I have seen the consensus here is "insufficient evidence" due to both the lack of evidence and the very low quality (eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable due to the nature of human perception and memory, being part of the military, a police officer, or a professional pilot doesn't change this) of what there is.

NEOWatcher
2011-Mar-16, 08:22 PM
Have a read of the excerpts: http://ufosontherecord.com/excerpts/
I know others have said so, but since this was my comment, I prefer to elaborate.

No I haven't read it. Why?
1) You are passing off any work to be done by us. Not fair.
2) If I do read it and analyze it, there' probably a whole other book for me to write, which I can't guarantee will quelch your thirst for explainations.
3) If I do read it, and there are some interesting points, theres still probably a lot that I would pass off as explained that you would consider unexplained.
4) It sounds suspiciously like you're hoping to find some comment by us to attack.

Gillianren
2011-Mar-16, 08:45 PM
Apparently you have been reading a different forum to me, from what I have seen the consensus here is "insufficient evidence" due to both the lack of evidence and the very low quality (eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable due to the nature of human perception and memory, being part of the military, a police officer, or a professional pilot doesn't change this) of what there is.

We do take that the step further in that, because there is no convincing evidence that we are being visited by aliens, there is no reason to believe that we are being visited by aliens. For some reason, people only seem to have a problem with this step when it violates what they want to believe.

PetersCreek
2011-Mar-16, 08:48 PM
The pattern suggest that extreme and deliberate skepticism[...]

I think it would also be helpful if you would define your usage of the term "skepticism".

shadmere
2011-Mar-17, 02:59 PM
I very rarely see anyone say "That's completely impossible." What I do see is people saying things like, "That's unlikely, why should we think that's the case?"

The US government may have exotic vehicles that look like UFOs. Yeah, sure. That's entirely possible. But why should I believe that? Of course they might have super-secret technology, but I'm not going to start thinking that they do until someone shows me convincing evidence of it.

A.DIM
2011-Mar-17, 03:18 PM
We do take that the step further in that, because there is no convincing evidence that we are being visited by aliens, there is no reason to believe that we are being visited by aliens. For some reason, people only seem to have a problem with this step when it violates what they want to believe.

I've yet to understand what would constitute "convincing evidence" of an ETi capable of interstellar travel.
Can you tell me?
I think the consensus here is more "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Although, I don't necessarily consider ET visitation extraordinary. Earthlings, in a blink, have become a space faring civilization. Nothing precludes the possibility of a more advanced civ achieving interstellar travel. For me, it starts with copernican principle, the idea there's nothing special, or extraordinary, here. Couple this with Fermi- and Drake-like calculations it seems there's fair reason to consider the Earth could be visited. What's more there's Inflation Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation (http://www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf).

I don't know if Earth is being visited. I don't know if I want to believe it is, but I don't think we can dismiss the idea as having "no reason."

I can't speak to the book in question but I tend to give people the benefit of doubt, especially those who are seemingly credible; learned, trained, professional people who are generally thought reliable in their daily performance, and appear to have little, if anything, to gain by making such claims. I daresay they often seem to have more to lose.

Swift
2011-Mar-17, 03:28 PM
I've yet to understand what would constitute "convincing evidence" of an ETi capable of interstellar travel.
Can you tell me?
A landing on the White House lawn (or the Kremlin, or the UN, or take your pick). The ETi coming out pressing the flesh with the local press. That would probably convince me. And no, I am not making a joke.


Although, I don't necessarily consider ET visitation extraordinary.
Really?!?

"Yep, look Bob, more ETs visiting" "There goes the neighborhood" (OK that was a joke).

I don't know where to begin to argue that position. Your extraordinary gauge must be set very differently than mine. <shrug>

captain swoop
2011-Mar-17, 03:36 PM
So they say they saw a UFO and they are
credible; learned, trained, professional people who are generally thought reliable in their daily performance, and appear to have little, if anything, to gain by making such claims.

How does that make ita UFO?

eburacum45
2011-Mar-17, 03:51 PM
I've yet to understand what would constitute "convincing evidence" of an ETi capable of interstellar travel.
Can you tell me? Find some alien DNA, or some extraterrestrial technology, and you've got some good evidence. Lights in the sky can be (and are) misinterpreted, radar returns can be (and are) caused by anomalous propagation, even marks on the ground can have mundane causes. But physical evidence such as technology or biological traces could be examined in the laboratory, preferably by as many labs as possible.


What's more there's Inflation Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation. This particular 'paper' has been discussed on this forum before and is unmitigated garbage. There is currently no evidence that wormholes, warp drive or 'Krasnikov tubes' are feasible or can be used for transport. There is really no good evidence that actual spacecraft are visiting the Earth. Finding alternative explanations for the observations of a witness is not 'demeaning' to that witness; it is a necessary part of any investigation or discussion.

R.A.F.
2011-Mar-17, 04:58 PM
I don't know if Earth is being visited. I don't know if I want to believe it is, but I don't think we can dismiss the idea as having "no reason."

Seriously, what does your personal belief have to do with anything??

...and the idea of visiting aliens has not been dismissed as having "no reason". It is not a generally accepted by the scientific community because of the lack of evidence.

Since this is the CT section of the board, would you like to provide any evidence for ET visitation?


I tend to give people the benefit of doubt, especially those who are seemingly credible; learned, trained, professional people who are generally thought reliable in their daily performance, and appear to have little, if anything, to gain by making such claims. I daresay they often seem to have more to lose.

Of course you're not speaking of anyone who makes a living selling books as they would have something to "gain", right. :)

Gillianren
2011-Mar-17, 05:26 PM
I've yet to understand what would constitute "convincing evidence" of an ETi capable of interstellar travel.
Can you tell me?

Does that mean you find blurry pictures and eyewitness testimony convincing? Perhaps crop circles? No. If we were being visited, the quantity and quality of recordings of visitations should increase, given that practically everyone now has a camera with them all the time. However, what we're still getting is the same blurry shots which are obviously reflections or sky lanterns. We get claims of things' being "obviously not from Earth," but no good analysis is ever done. If we're just being buzzed, fine; all we'd have would be photographic evidence. However, that's seldom what's being claimed. At very least, there's a claim of a crash. Yet when you go looking for physical evidence, you get either scam artists or people whose stories have been changing ever since they started telling it, often radically. I don't require aliens' landing at the White House or the Kremlin, and I certainly don't require their appearance on CNN or the BBC. However, it's obvious they're what's called a "jealous phenomenon"--if you don't believe in 'em, you don't see 'em. And you don't find that suspicious?


I don't know if Earth is being visited. I don't know if I want to believe it is, but I don't think we can dismiss the idea as having "no reason."

Why not? What direct evidence do you have that would lead you to believe we're being visited? Or is it just that things you've read and do want to believe tell you that you ought?


I can't speak to the book in question but I tend to give people the benefit of doubt, especially those who are seemingly credible; learned, trained, professional people who are generally thought reliable in their daily performance, and appear to have little, if anything, to gain by making such claims. I daresay they often seem to have more to lose.

Sure; I don't think they're lying. I think at least some of them believe what they're saying, though I do think some are in it for the living which can be made on the UFO circuit. It's better than working fast food or retail, certainly. However, study after study shows that eyewitness testimony is flawed. What evidence do you have that "learned, trained, professional people who are generally thought reliable in their daily performance" are exempt from the known mental workings which colour memory? Come to that, yeah, what do you consider "extraordinary"?

I've never much gotten those questions answered, so maybe you'll consider us even.

Garrison
2011-Mar-17, 05:29 PM
A.DIM you need to understand that eyewitnesses can be honest, sincere, and still utterly wrong in their recollection of events. A little googling will reveal any number of studies that support this, not to mention reports of the all too many individuals convicted on plausible but inaccurate eyewitness evidence.

Garrison
2011-Mar-17, 05:35 PM
Does that mean you find blurry pictures and eyewitness testimony convincing? Perhaps crop circles? No. If we were being visited, the quantity and quality of recordings of visitations should increase, given that practically everyone now has a camera with them all the time.

You only have to compare the UFO material to the wealth of high quality imagery taken by ordinary individuals during recent natural disasters, recording the very moment of catastrophe even as they are in the midst of it. And yet the best the UFO enthusiasts can come up with are blobs and blurs.

gzhpcu
2011-Mar-17, 06:00 PM
UFOs are a modern version of angels in the Middle Ages. You see something you can't explain in the sky, and immediately some people term if an "UFO", using the term as a synonym for extraterrestrial spaceship. With the proliferation of cellphones, smartphones around, you would expect a huge upsurge in sightings. Not so. And when something is recorded, it is invariably a distant blurry image which could be anything.
What I am missing, is a photograph of a real nuts and bolts closeup.

JeffD1
2011-Mar-17, 06:30 PM
A landing on the White House lawn (or the Kremlin, or the UN, or take your pick). The ETi coming out pressing the flesh with the local press. That would probably convince me. And no, I am not making a joke.


Metropolis bias!!
If one landed accross the street from the TV station I work at in a town of under 20,000 I can garuntee that it would be video taped. If it stayed put long enough for higher authorities to come and see it that would satisfy most that such an event took place.


To the OP, so far in this thread the only actual claim mentioned is a passing remark by the poster about 'exotic' vehicles which may or may not even apply to the OP about ETs.

Will we ever see anything from the OP's author that constitutes something to discuss?

Demands that amount to; "look, read this and get back to me!" do not cut it.

Swift
2011-Mar-17, 08:57 PM
You only have to compare the UFO material to the wealth of high quality imagery taken by ordinary individuals during recent natural disasters, recording the very moment of catastrophe even as they are in the midst of it. And yet the best the UFO enthusiasts can come up with are blobs and blurs.
Excellent point. Look at all the pictures and videos we are getting for the tsunami in Japan, at the very moment it washes a building or person away.

JeffD1
2011-Mar-17, 09:49 PM
Well to be fair the Japanese knew a tsunami was on its way, did they not?
OTOH UFO's are not monitored by a UFO warning system(,,,,or are they <<cue spooky music>>)

However the point should be made that despite much better, and much greater numbers, of video recording cameras avaliable now than there were in the 1970's and earlier, the UFO followers have not managed better video than what they had 40 years ago. That in itself is rather odd if the premise is that the number of extraterrestrials visiting this planet has remained the same or increased in the last 4 decades.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Mar-17, 10:22 PM
Although, I don't necessarily consider ET visitation extraordinary.

If someone said, "I don't necessarily consider water wet," that would indicate only that they have no ability to comment usefully on basic physical properties.

Expressing an opinion that is spectacularly wrong, and doing it for years and years and years, merely damages the credibility of the speaker.

Swift
2011-Mar-18, 02:02 AM
Well to be fair the Japanese knew a tsunami was on its way, did they not?
OTOH UFO's are not monitored by a UFO warning system(,,,,or are they <<cue spooky music>>)

I understand your point, but IIRC, the warning was maybe minutes in advance of hitting. And some of these UFO videos last for multiple minutes - so you would similar think people would have time to get a decent shot.

Swift
2011-Mar-18, 02:03 AM
Well to be fair the Japanese knew a tsunami was on its way, did they not?
OTOH UFO's are not monitored by a UFO warning system(,,,,or are they <<cue spooky music>>)

I understand your point, but IIRC, the warning was maybe minutes in advance of hitting. And some of these UFO videos last for multiple minutes - so you would similar think people would have time to get a decent shot.

JeffD1
2011-Mar-18, 09:45 PM
I understand your point, but IIRC, the warning was maybe minutes in advance of hitting. And some of these UFO videos last for multiple minutes - so you would similar think people would have time to get a decent shot.

I certainly understand your point as well and basically agreed with it in the next paragraph in my post above.

There can still be made a point that going to get a videocamera in the minutes prior to an event is much different, emotionally, than running to get one while an event is occuring. The "deer in the headlights" response basically.
However I believe that the effect this would have on the number of videos would be far outstripped by the sheer increase in the number of video cameras in the general populace now compared to the 1970's.

I don't want to put words in the mouths of ET visitation proponents (awww,, who am I kidding, yes I do) but I believe the rebuttal to this would be that the advanced tech of the ETs causes humans to be mesmerized resulting in the thought process required to go and retrieve a camera and point and shoot just does not take place in most cases, or that the advanced tech jams the recording ability of the camera or even places false images on it. What I refer to as an appeal to magic.

Jamotron
2011-Mar-18, 11:04 PM
The author of the book, Leslie Keane, was a guest on Are We Alone? a while back.
I suggest you check it out:http://radio.seti.org/episodes/Skeptic_Check_Saucer_s_Apprentice
I was not overly impressed by her on this show.

astrophotographer
2011-Mar-18, 11:25 PM
Just to add my two cents. I discussed this book in SUNlite 2-6 (page 12)

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite2_6.pdf

Additionally, Kean's work on Kecksburg was less than stellar, where she ignored any evidence gathered by scientists in 1965 that demonstrated what was seen that night was just an ordinary fireball meteor.

Finally, Carol Rainey's recent piece about abductions described Kean's foray into that UFO field. She was not very impressive and appeared quite gullible.

http://www.paratopia.net/paratopia_magazine/mag_preview_final.pdf

Kean is cashing in on a book that basically is just a rehash of the same old arguments and using various military personnel as her arguments. However, as most UFO writers tend to do, she omits any references to plausible explanations to these cases. Of course, it is easier to sell mysteries than solutions to those mysteries.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Mar-18, 11:41 PM
My position has always been that some military branches and intelligence agencies have exotic vehicles which are going to appear to the layman as "otherworldly". The consensus here has always been "totally impossible". I don't think that represents a healthy dose, its just too extreme.
You mean like the F-117 Nighthawk?

I think the consensus here tends to be that planes like those are much more likely to be the cause of some of the observations that aliens are.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Mar-18, 11:50 PM
I've yet to understand what would constitute "convincing evidence" of an ETi capable of interstellar travel.
Can you tell me?
An actual craft, in broad daylight, that people can touch and examine.
Sharp photos of them doing so.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Mar-19, 12:12 AM
I've yet to understand what would constitute "convincing evidence" of an ETi capable of interstellar travel.
Can you tell me?


Asking this absurd question is a way of announcing, "I am not open to reasoned discourse."

Clearly a several-thousand-year-old legend that speaks of gods coming from heaven to Earth is not in any sense convincing evidence of ET visitation. Nor is yet another vague account of some lights in the sky.

Clearly a non-human lifeform with advanced technology does count as convincing evidence.

Clearly there are grey in-between areas, and we can debate where to draw the lines.

But most clearly of all, there hasn't been a single event that comes close to qualifying as convincing evidence.

One might as well argue that they don't understand what would constitute "convincing evidence" of a full-scale attack by flesh-eating zombies. Your standards may vary, but we can say with absolute certainty that it is not happening right now.

Garrison
2011-Mar-19, 01:07 AM
The question is surely not what constitutes convincing evidence but when are going to get any worthwhile evidence from the alien visitation crowd. They've offered nothing but bad photos and stories of encounters that offer no useful data. I'm tempted to ask that of A.DIM but this isn't his thread, perhaps he would like to open a thread of his own to discuss the views he's put forward?

captain swoop
2011-Mar-19, 07:56 PM
WHo would need to run and find a video camera? Most phones have video capability

JeffD1
2011-Mar-19, 09:03 PM
WHo would need to run and find a video camera? Most phones have video capability

Good point. Mine doesn't though. It has a still cam, a very bad one, to the point of being useless.

Then again I use it as a phone and send a few text messages a year, and the phone came as part of the 18 month contract.

Garrison
2011-Mar-20, 12:08 AM
Good point. Mine doesn't though. It has a still cam, a very bad one, to the point of being useless.

Then again I use it as a phone and send a few text messages a year, and the phone came as part of the 18 month contract.

That's rather missing the point, with the sheer number of phone cameras(regardless of the individual quality of some models), not to mention the abundance of CCTV cameras, it is simply not credible that the volume and quality of UFO photos remains so low. and for much the same reason I really don't buy the 'deer in the headlights' concept either as an explanation; some people might freeze, others are going to snap away with their camera phone until they fill the memory. Frankly the explanations from the UFO crowd just get thinner are time goes on but still they insist every one else has to be open minded to their fantastical beliefs.

Gillianren
2011-Mar-20, 06:18 AM
I mean, I don't even have a cell phone, but odds are very good that anyone I would be with would, and odds are good it would probably have video capability. At minimum, pictures.

Eric12407
2011-Mar-20, 02:56 PM
Since when have scientists and science demanded "proof" of some mystery before they would investigate it? ....... We have a very strange situation where ordinary people are expected to do the work of scientists because science has failed in its mandate to investigate reality. The reality is ..... many millions of people are seeing phenomena that they can't explain ... and are having experiences that are very interesting

The issue is that .... the root of the phenomena has such earth shattering implications for our world view that most scientists are not flexible enough to consider them ...

Specifically ...... it has to do with the development and evolution of consciousness ..
the realization that our reality is fundamentally a spiritual one ... that we are in a universe that teems with intelligent life ...

You can sit here tlll the cows come home droning on and on "there's no evidence" ... that's fine ..... You're just missing the point of the whole thing and it will make it difficult for you to adjust. At least you've gotten a head's up so it won't be a complete surprise.

The world is shaped by spirit ..... you have a soul ... and there is a creator.
Everything else is details that we can work out by helping each other in a collaborative cooperational model.

Swift
2011-Mar-20, 03:56 PM
The world is shaped by spirit ..... you have a soul ... and there is a creator.
Eric12407 - We have very specific rules about religion discussions on BAUT. They are general not allowed, with very few exceptions. You have been here longs enough to know that - if you don't, please review the rules.

Garrison
2011-Mar-20, 04:15 PM
Since when have scientists and science demanded "proof" of some mystery before they would investigate it? ....... We have a very strange situation where ordinary people are expected to do the work of scientists because science has failed in its mandate to investigate reality. The reality is ..... many millions of people are seeing phenomena that they can't explain ... and are having experiences that are very interesting


In most of these case all we have offered is basically someone saying 'I saw something weird in the sky', and the inability to explain what they saw often comes back to lack of knowledge about the skies that leads them to assign a spurious explanation to ordinary physical phenomenon, not to mention a predisposition to see alien spacecraft; and that doesn't even account for outright hoaxes.
Scientists don't demand proof before investigating, they just require some reason to believe the phenomenon actually exists. To date UFO sightings are of more interest to psychologists than physicists.


You can sit here tlll the cows come home droning on and on "there's no evidence" ... that's fine ..... You're just missing the point of the whole thing and it will make it difficult for you to adjust. At least you've gotten a head's up so it won't be a complete surprise.

Asking for evidence is missing the point? Sorry but I personally am going to keep asking, especially when the UFO phenomenon seems to consist of mistaken identification, misperception, and outright fraud. If you want to take the word of people who can't tell the difference between Venus/Chinese lanterns/aircraft lights and an alien spacecraft that's your right, just don't expect it to sway very many people here.

eburacum45
2011-Mar-20, 05:26 PM
One good response to this book is available here, written by Jim Oberg, who was an active BAUT member a few years ago;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38852385/ns/technology_and_science-space/
some extracts

In these stories, investigators have failed to pinpoint phenomena to explain the sightings. And because the primary witnesses are pilots, the accounts are considered more credible than run-of-the-mill UFO reports. But are they really?

Experienced UFO investigators realize that pilots, who instinctively and quite properly interpret visual phenomena in the most hazardous terms, are not dispassionate observers. For pilots, a split-second diagnosis can be a matter of life or death and so they're inclined to overestimate the potential threats posed by what they see.

a much simpler explanation makes more sense: The difference is due to "observer bias." People see what they expect to see, and combat pilots expect to encounter combative bogies. Civilian pilots mostly fear accidental collisions.
also see
10 solved UFO mysteries from the Weinstein list
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38874521

I'm particularly disappointed by the claim by Kean that the Guernsey case was corroborated by radar; the most detailed examination of the case so far, by Jean-Francois Baure, David Clarke and others, showed that the radar evidence was unconvincing. In fact none of the cases delineated by Kean are convincing, although some are intriguing.

Gillianren
2011-Mar-20, 05:50 PM
Since when have scientists and science demanded "proof" of some mystery before they would investigate it?

What can be investigated has been. After many, many years of investigation, we are still at "no evidence and no reason to believe."

Strange
2011-Mar-20, 06:10 PM
Since when have scientists and science demanded "proof" of some mystery before they would investigate it?

No one is demanding "proof" just evidence that stands up to scrutiny, which a few lights and odd stories don't.


We have a very strange situation where ordinary people are expected to do the work of scientists because science has failed in its mandate to investigate reality.

But people have investigated. And found ... nothing. Or, best, nothing conclusive. The "strongest" UFO cases are just that: unidentified.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Mar-20, 06:48 PM
We have a very strange situation where ordinary people are expected to do the work of scientists because science has failed in its mandate to investigate reality.

You mean science has failed to find something that isn't there?


You can sit here tlll the cows come home droning on and on "there's no evidence" ... that's fine .....

And you can sit there till the cows come home pretending that the lack of evidence doesn't matter.

If we are to believe one thing without evidence, why not believe another? There is no evidence that aliens are visiting us, but if I choose to believe that aliens are visiting us, why don't I also believe there's an elephant in my kitchen, or penguins can fly?


You're just missing the point of the whole thing and it will make it difficult for you to adjust. At least you've gotten a head's up so it won't be a complete surprise.

Some of us have been waiting a very long time for the aliens to arrive. Some of us crave it. I can't help thinking that if and when the aliens do finally get here, those of us who base our reality on evidence will cope rather better than you, Eric.

Eric12407
2011-Mar-20, 07:42 PM
It's not about aliens "arriving" here ..... what good would that do ...?

It's about us developing into a more aware, compassionate, intelligent and cooperative species ....

Presently it's about taking the opportunity to exhibit these characteristics with the expression of your free will .....

Eventually the world will change and a new consensual reality will be born ....

All the "aliens" really want is for us to help one another ....

Paul Beardsley
2011-Mar-20, 07:47 PM
It's not about aliens "arriving" here ..... what good would that do ...?

Do you really need to ask? Seriously, do you really need to ask?

[Snip platitudes]


All the "aliens" really want is for us to help one another ....

And you gained this priviledged knowledge from where?

Selenite
2011-Mar-20, 07:48 PM
It's not about aliens "arriving" here ..... what good would that do ...?

It'd remove a lot of doubt. Right now you are advocating the existence of ephemeral beings who won't or can't consent to mingle with us, who wish to better us. Sounds a lot like a religious vision.

Garrison
2011-Mar-20, 08:19 PM
It's not about aliens "arriving" here ..... what good would that do ...?

On the one hand you say this, then we get this:



All the "aliens" really want is for us to help one another ....

So are they here or not? Do you have anything concrete to offer or just this vague mystic nonsense?

PetersCreek
2011-Mar-20, 09:27 PM
It's about us developing into a more aware, compassionate, intelligent and cooperative species ....

Presently it's about taking the opportunity to exhibit these characteristics with the expression of your free will .....

Eventually the world will change and a new consensual reality will be born ....

No, that is not what this thread is about. Stay on topic and stay away from your religious/spiritual agenda. Last warning.

Eric12407
2011-Mar-20, 10:49 PM
The phenomena has its roots in the evolution of consciousness ....
Is that non spiritual enough? ...

Material evolution has largely run its course and further evolution will be of the powers of the mind. As our minds evolve our expanded awareness and maturity will allow us to meet other life forms of the universe as opposed to them revealing themselves to us at our stage of understanding .. which is in its infancy.

Their presence is an evolutionary prod to that direction .... a guide ... a signpost to greater realities ...

LotusExcelle
2011-Mar-20, 11:02 PM
You still have yet to provide proof of anything you are claiming. Just generalized, watered-down proclamations that cannot be interpreted.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Mar-20, 11:02 PM
The phenomena has its roots in the evolution of consciousness ....
Is that non spiritual enough? ...

Material evolution has largely run its course and further evolution will be of the powers of the mind. As our minds evolve our expanded awareness and maturity will allow us to meet other life forms of the universe as opposed to them revealing themselves to us at our stage of understanding .. which is in its infancy.

Their presence is an evolutionary prod to that direction .... a guide ... a signpost to greater realities ...

We are so far beyond these hippie ideas of evolution, consciousness and aliens.

Selenite
2011-Mar-20, 11:02 PM
Their presence is an evolutionary prod to that direction .... a guide ... a signpost to greater realities ...

What presence? You said their arrival would do no good so they can't be physically present. How are these unfelt prods and invisible signposts supposed to direct us? Do you have any actual hard evidence to offer or just more of this gaussian blurred gobbledygook?

Strange
2011-Mar-20, 11:22 PM
The phenomena has its roots in the evolution of consciousness ....

What phenomena? Do you have any evidence of phenomena that "has its roots in the evolution of consciousness" ?


Material evolution has largely run its course

Do you have any evidence for that (false) assertion?

Garrison
2011-Mar-20, 11:34 PM
Material evolution has largely run its course and further evolution will be of the powers of the mind.


All that demonstrates is that you really don't understand anything about evolution. Again are you going to offer some evidence for the validity of the UFO phenomenon and your interpretation or just keep throwing out these content free statements that in the end come down to a demand that we simply believe.

Garrison
2011-Mar-20, 11:39 PM
We are so far beyond these hippie ideas of evolution, consciousness and aliens.

It does rather come across as the old idea of benevolent higher beings that was popular with UFO believers a few decades ago, and went out of fashion as the more inherently sinister abduction phenomenon took centre stage. Odd isn't it how the aliens alleged behaviour and motivations always seem to mirror the terrestrial, and more especially US, concerns and attitudes of the day, not to mention what's on at the movies...

stutefish
2011-Mar-21, 01:22 AM
I mean, I don't even have a cell phone, but odds are very good that anyone I would be with would, and odds are good it would probably have video capability. At minimum, pictures.

I think the premise of UFOs as alien spacecraft is fail for all sorts of good reasons. I just don't think that a lack of cameraphone pictures is one of them.

This morning, the missus and I went down to the park at dawn, to watch the local crows leave their roost (which is in a dense copse in the middle of the park). We were equipped not only with our cameraphones, but with an actual camera: A Pentax K200D. Probably an amateur's camera to many on this board, but it certainly has more features than I've figured out how to use. It may even have features suitable for photographing crows in flight at dawn. But I'll tell you something: I sure couldn't find them.

Mind you, there wasn't a lot of light, so the automatic shutter speed was a lot slower than it might have been at high noon. And without what my brother-in-law, a serious photography hobbyist, calls a "long, fast lens", I wasn't really expecting to get anything much besides what I did get: lots of blurry pictures of stuff that may or may not have been crows in flight.

But my point is this: There I was, equipped with a camera far more sophisticated than the most expensive cameraphone. I knew exactly when and where to look for my subject. I had positioned myself perfectly to track and photograph flying objects as they passed within 50 meters of me. And even so, my photos are rubbish.

So, while I'm not woo at all, after this morning's experiences I'm inclined to reject the implication that because everybody has a cameraphone, somebody somewhere should have some non-rubbish photos of UFOs.

Hrm. The airshow is coming to town in a couple months. I'll see if I can get some non-rubbish photos with my cameraphone, of the usual airshow goings-on. I'm willing to bet, though, that even these IFOs, in broad daylight with plenty of preparation, will look like rubbish when imaged by an amateur with a cameraphone. The thing to do, I suppose, would be to keep the phone sleeping in my pocket, until after the stunt pilot has started his routine, then fish it out and try to get some snapshots before the action is over.

Who knows? Maybe I'll get some really good, suitable-for-analysis photos of the Blue Angels! But until I do, I'm inclined to reject the notion that UFO woos can be reasonably expected to get good pictures with their cameraphones.

In the mean time, maybe Gillianren can conduct some experiments: The next time she's out with a cameraphone-equipped friend, she can say, "quick, get a shot of that bird in flight!" If we're rewarded with lots of good pictures of finches and jays and pigeons and crows and whatnot, then maybe we should expect similar results from UFOlogists.

Gillianren
2011-Mar-21, 01:40 AM
Wait, how is this just about me? What about all the other people who have raised the same point?

But you know, people have been getting candid shots of birds and such for a very long time. Did you see the film taken by a guy who was in his car when the tsunami struck? And I would think he would have been a little less worried about quality photography than someone who thought their shot was the only record something would have.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Mar-21, 05:27 AM
Just for fun, as a test of what you're saying. I took my camera out on the balcony and snapped 16 pictures in a minute., I didn't really want to take anymore because I crawled out of bed without getting dressed to do it and cold feet on a freezing balcony at 6 in the morning isn't all that much fun.

Definitely sub-optimal situation for taking pictures of moving objects but still, here's one of them, after simple cropping and scaling with no other manipulation apart for the atrocious reencoding with extreme compression which is done by the board software when pictures are uploaded:
http://www.bautforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14725&d=1300684508
I wouldn't call that anything but birds, though admittedly the top bird does look like it's ready to get cropped, blown up and called evidence of an exotic experimental plane:D

If the "evidence" so far can't even compete with what I can do in those circumstances they're got nothing.

ETA:

This morning, the missus and I went down to the park at dawn, to watch the local crows leave their roost (which is in a dense copse in the middle of the park). We were equipped not only with our cameraphones, but with an actual camera: A Pentax K200D. Probably an amateur's camera to many on this board, but it certainly has more features than I've figured out how to use. It may even have features suitable for photographing crows in flight at dawn. But I'll tell you something: I sure couldn't find them.
Set the mode to Tv (Shutter-Speed Priority), that way you can set the time to something that won't shake too much, 1/100th or 1/200th or so. It'll then automatically set the aperture and the ISO high to compensate for the low light and you will get a picture without the blur.
You may also have to use manual focus when taking a small moving object because it won't stay in one of the focus fields long enough for AF to get it.
Checking the specs for your camera it looks like it's about the same as mine which is a Canon EOS 1000D (for some reason called EOS Rebel XS in the US).

Don J
2011-Mar-21, 05:49 AM
Why all that buzz about UFO pictures or videos ?... if it is too good it is immediately considered a fake made by CGI., if the UFO in the picture or in the video is fuzzy that is the proof that nobody can take a good shot of a UFO.

probable example of a ... too good to be true category.

http://www.unknowncountry.com/out-there/ultra-clear-daylight-ufo-footage-devon

HenrikOlsen
2011-Mar-21, 05:59 AM
That one's in the obvious fake not good enough, category.
The trees the UFO is behind are sharper than the trees next to them supposedly at the same distance.
Trees and UFO are obvious addons.

Luckmeister
2011-Mar-21, 06:56 AM
We are so far beyond these hippie ideas of evolution, consciousness and aliens.


It does rather come across as the old idea of benevolent higher beings that was popular with UFO believers a few decades ago, and went out of fashion as the more inherently sinister abduction phenomenon took centre stage. Odd isn't it how the aliens alleged behaviour and motivations always seem to mirror the terrestrial, and more especially US, concerns and attitudes of the day, not to mention what's on at the movies...

I find it incredible that people will come here, claim they know what their fantasy aliens want and belittle those who insist on good evidence for outrageous beliefs. The human mind has a wonderful ability to fantasize but many ignore its equal ability to separate fantasy from reality. I have found study, testing of ideas and observation of human behaviour a much better path to enlightenment than love beads, mantras, incense and mountaintop gurus. I lived through all that in the 1960's and fortunately matured past that fanciful, albeit alluring, way of thinking. If reality is unsatisfying or downright frightening, it's far better to learn how to cope with it and improve it than to deny it. That's my philosophy and I'm stickin' to it (until ET lands and shows me a better way :shifty:).

Mike

tnjrp
2011-Mar-21, 07:49 AM
UFOs are a modern version of angels in the Middle Ages.Or fairies... But indeed it is starting to look like that at least the Finnish UFO scene is increasingly taken over by "the spiritual crowd" as opposed to "the nuts and bolts crowd" who were the top dogs back in the 90's IIRC. That is, paranormal-but-naturalistic explanations for the presumed alien visitations are being phased out by the flat-out-supernatural. I hear this is not entirely limited to the local enthusiasts (I find it exceedingly difficult to use the term "UFOlogist") either, or one or two random Interwebz posters including some "in the present company".

Eric12407
2011-Mar-21, 08:59 AM
All that demonstrates is that you really don't understand anything about evolution. Again are you going to offer some evidence for the validity of the UFO phenomenon and your interpretation or just keep throwing out these content free statements that in the end come down to a demand that we simply believe.


I don't demand that you believe ... I'm simply telling you what I know. It's the sharing of information. You may choose to discount it ... while others may be intrigued and possibly be confirmed in their own perspective.

Just the consideration that there are other intelligent life forms in the universe is a sign of an expanding awareness and another step in the evolution of the mind and consciousness. So for all the so called blurry photos and non evidence I would say progress has been made albeit less than could have been.

I speak from personal experience about these life forms .... I have expounded on these experiences a couple of times in this forum and the general response is that I should seek counseling.

I don't mind the ridiculing ... I'm just here to tell you that strange and wonderful times are ahead and we need to be flexible in our thinking.

The "evidence" you seek is in your own minds .....

tnjrp
2011-Mar-21, 10:15 AM
I don't demand that you believe ... I'm simply telling you what I know. It's the sharing of information. You may choose to discount it ... while others may be intrigued and possibly be confirmed in their own perspective. [...] I speak from personal experience about these life forms [...] The "evidence" you seek is in your own mindsIn other words, when you have certain personal, subjective experiences and you subsequently interpret them to fit a particular framework then you will have all the evidence you need. You present the archetypal format for supernaturalist evidence. It convinces you and maybe the likeminded, but why should it convince anybody else over and above all the other supernaturalist explanations?

A.DIM
2011-Mar-21, 12:47 PM
A landing on the White House lawn (or the Kremlin, or the UN, or take your pick). The ETi coming out pressing the flesh with the local press. That would probably convince me. And no, I am not making a joke.

Well, IMO, that scenario is a joke. What makes you assume an advanced species would care to do such a thing? If ETi is visiting Earth it is so far advanced I find it difficult to think they'd even care to engage Earthilngs.


Really?!

"Yep, look Bob, more ETs visiting" "There goes the neighborhood" (OK that was a joke).

I don't know where to begin to argue that position. Your extraordinary gauge must be set very differently than mine. <shrug>

Yeah, there's not much that surprises me, but IMO "extraordinary" is a matter of perspective. From the perspective of earthlings only 200yrs ago there's much that is "extraordinary," much that is taken for granted in today's world. Again, being a space faring civilization ourselves (albeit fledgling), I see nothing that precludes the possibility interstellar travel, for a more advanced intelligence, could be achieved as easily as intercontinental travel is for humans.

A.DIM
2011-Mar-21, 01:13 PM
Find some alien DNA, or some extraterrestrial technology, and you've got some good evidence. Lights in the sky can be (and are) misinterpreted, radar returns can be (and are) caused by anomalous propagation, even marks on the ground can have mundane causes. But physical evidence such as technology or biological traces could be examined in the laboratory, preferably by as many labs as possible.

Certainly, I just don't expect we'll find alien dna or tech, but if we did it would constitute proof, not merely "convincing evidence."
That was my essential point in asking the question; it's all or nothing for skeptics.


This particular 'paper' has been discussed on this forum before and is unmitigated garbage. Maybe so, but it was published in a peer review mainstream journal, the JBIS.


There is currently no evidence that wormholes, warp drive or 'Krasnikov tubes' are feasible or can be used for transport. There is really no good evidence that actual spacecraft are visiting the Earth. Finding alternative explanations for the observations of a witness is not 'demeaning' to that witness; it is a necessary part of any investigation or discussion.
Agreed.
The problem, as I see it, is we simply have no idea what to look for in an advanced interstellar intelligence and technology. They could well appear to us as blurry lights, orbs and rods.
:D

A.DIM
2011-Mar-21, 01:36 PM
Does that mean you find blurry pictures and eyewitness testimony convincing? Perhaps crop circles? No. If we were being visited, the quantity and quality of recordings of visitations should increase, given that practically everyone now has a camera with them all the time. However, what we're still getting is the same blurry shots which are obviously reflections or sky lanterns. We get claims of things' being "obviously not from Earth," but no good analysis is ever done. If we're just being buzzed, fine; all we'd have would be photographic evidence. However, that's seldom what's being claimed. At very least, there's a claim of a crash. Yet when you go looking for physical evidence, you get either scam artists or people whose stories have been changing ever since they started telling it, often radically. I don't require aliens' landing at the White House or the Kremlin, and I certainly don't require their appearance on CNN or the BBC. However, it's obvious they're what's called a "jealous phenomenon"--if you don't believe in 'em, you don't see 'em. And you don't find that suspicious?

Personally, I find the idea of interstellar tech making it to Earth only to crash most humorous.


Why not? What direct evidence do you have that would lead you to believe we're being visited? Or is it just that things you've read and do want to believe tell you that you ought?
There is no direct evidence Earth is being visited. I told you what leads me to believe visitation can't be ruled out and why, in my mind, the idea isn't so extraordinary.


Sure; I don't think they're lying. I think at least some of them believe what they're saying, though I do think some are in it for the living which can be made on the UFO circuit. It's better than working fast food or retail, certainly. However, study after study shows that eyewitness testimony is flawed. What evidence do you have that "learned, trained, professional people who are generally thought reliable in their daily performance" are exempt from the known mental workings which colour memory? Come to that, yeah, what do you consider "extraordinary"?

Not much, if anything. Then again, I could switch gears and go on and on about the "extraordinary" nature of life on Earth, the cosmos, everything - even the earthquakes near Sendai - even while they're not given another perspective.

And certainly such people aren't exempt from flawed eyewitness testimony and recollection; I wouldn't argue otherwise.


I've never much gotten those questions answered, so maybe you'll consider us even.

Well, I don't recall you ever asking me but I didn't consider us uneven.
Thanks for taking the time.

NEOWatcher
2011-Mar-21, 01:36 PM
We have a very strange situation where ordinary people are expected to do the work of scientists because science has failed in its mandate to investigate reality.
But people have investigated. And found ... nothing. Or, best, nothing conclusive. The "strongest" UFO cases are just that: unidentified.

I have heard plenty of arguments from the hoax/sightings/paranormal groups screaming that they want these situations investigated.

First of all, scientists are ordinary people, why can't the two groups overlap? Possibly because they do investigate, and find nothing.

Second; any time I see an attempt at an investigation, I only see results that only explain a limited set of sightings that conflict with others. And the broader the explaination, the more the laws of physics are twisted.

Lastly; I have one question for someone asking for an investigation that I have never heard an answer for...
What are the scientists supposed to look at and how are they supposed to go about an investigation? What methods?

A.DIM
2011-Mar-21, 01:38 PM
An actual craft, in broad daylight, that people can touch and examine.
Sharp photos of them doing so.

Right.
Just as I said, it's all or nothing.
Such things would constitute "proof" not mere "convincing evidence."

A.DIM
2011-Mar-21, 01:53 PM
Asking this absurd question is a way of announcing, "I am not open to reasoned discourse."
....
Your standards may vary, but we can say with absolute certainty that it is not happening right now.

You can claim with absolute certainty that an advanced ETi, say 50K years more advanced (conservative estimate) than humans, is not visiting Earth?
What does such advanced intelligence and tech look like? How did you rule it out?

Personally, I don't know whether or not Earth is being visited but the idea is not extraordinary. Humans became a space faring civilization in less than 10K years, exploring other worlds. Unless you think what has happened here on Earth is extraordinary, somehow special or unique, there is nothing that precludes the possibility of a more advanced ETi exploring our world.

PetersCreek
2011-Mar-21, 02:01 PM
Okeedoke. This thread is hopelessly derailed and therefore closed. Report this post if you have a way of salvaging the topic.