Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 127

Thread: Here It Comes...Again

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,074

    Here It Comes...Again

    https://www.newsmax.com/politics/ufo...23/id/1014833/
    Well, how many are willing to bet more than a cup of coffee,that this is it. Full disclosure, the smoking gun or whatever your favorite cliche is. For the last fifty years, the ufo crowd have been telling us it's been right around the corner. I have a feeling nothing new will come out of this.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    2,301
    An interesting read, how many are willing to bet more than a cup of coffee that it'll be explained away as a new and improved top secret hypersonic/anti gravity weather balloon?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    12,482
    Hmmm. Loose with little words.

    "It is breaking our understanding of the current laws of physics that we are looking at," he said. "If you look at quantum physics, there's a lot of modeling that suggests this performance can be explained if you have a deep understanding of quantum physics."
    Quantum physics is actually something we know a thing or two about, so I'm guess they don't know the meaning of the word "breaking". They keep using that word.

    When you get to the point where you can tinker with a field of study with rigor, which is sort of the implication of the term "quantum physics", you have to know something. There's a whole field with a lot of background knowledge that is logically consistent and backed up with math. Not my math, but you know, the general state mathematical ability in the hands of professionals. I'm still confused by the Dollar Menu at fast food restaurants because it never works out to be a dollar per item.
    Solfe

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    An interesting read, how many are willing to bet more than a cup of coffee that it'll be explained away as a new and improved top secret hypersonic/anti gravity weather balloon?
    But maybe it's weather balloons all the way down.

    Grant Hutchison

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,795
    Isn’t Newsmax one of those quack sites that got big by, uh, appealing to certain political CTs back in November?
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroesí wings we fly!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,981
    I noticed it was Newsmax, but in fairness, they arenít the only ones reporting credulously on this subject. I noticed most of the article was quoting Luis Elizondo, who in recent years has been part of the ďTo the StarsĒ nonsense group that is dedicated to making money. Sometime back, I discussed their website that was just full of woo, making assertions not only about inertialess flight technology based only on fuzzy images but also telepathy and a number of other things, asking for donations and talking about how they wanted to put this stuff on TV, which they have since done. Anyway, from previous encounters, Luis did not impress, pushing beliefs and assumptions without evidence, like I often see from UFOlogists.

    Here, I see Luis claiming to be an investigator, but instead again making loads of unsupported assertions. If you see something you donít understand, barring having a machine you can study in detail, you do not jump to conclusions that it is a vehicle and likely based on some kind of advanced physical principle. Instead you describe what you saw as carefully as you can and donít make wild assumptions about it.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    Hmmm. Loose with little words.



    Quantum physics is actually something we know a thing or two about, so I'm guess they don't know the meaning of the word "breaking". They keep using that word.

    When you get to the point where you can tinker with a field of study with rigor, which is sort of the implication of the term "quantum physics", you have to know something. There's a whole field with a lot of background knowledge that is logically consistent and backed up with math. Not my math, but you know, the general state mathematical ability in the hands of professionals. I'm still confused by the Dollar Menu at fast food restaurants because it never works out to be a dollar per item.
    Unfortunately, I’ve forgotten the exact quote, but I remember a physicist writing about this kind of thing, in that case focusing on claims about how the brain works. Basically about how quantum physics is difficult to understand, especially for laymen, and how woo peddlers often invoke quantum physics because it sounds exciting and mysterious and they don’t actually have to explain anything beyond saying “quantum physics.” In that case, he was saying how the brain and quantum physics both seem mysterious and aren’t fully understood so they are a great matchup for certain kinds of claims.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    12,482
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Unfortunately, I’ve forgotten the exact quote, but I remember a physicist writing about this kind of thing, in that case focusing on claims about how the brain works. Basically about how quantum physics is difficult to understand, especially for laymen, and how woo peddlers often invoke quantum physics because it sounds exciting and mysterious and they don’t actually have to explain anything beyond saying “quantum physics.” In that case, he was saying how the brain and quantum physics both seem mysterious and aren’t fully understood so they are a great matchup for certain kinds of claims.
    I've often wondered about that "wonder". "Wonder" is a defense against woo-woo claims. If you have a sense of wonder about things you don't understand and you generally respect other people's insights because that is your only means of interaction with the inquiry in question, then woo doesn't have traction even for the uninformed. I promise that I barely understand math, but I have a vague idea of how it works and how wonderfully it does work in the hands of a skill person. I'm just not that skilled person.

    Getting sucked in to the woo requires either a disdain for wonder or a disdain for people who give other people an even shake even when they are incomprehensible. Math is incomprehensible to me but not to everyone. In fact, I find a lot of behaviors and activities to be incomprehensible, but I roll with it because I generally like people.
    Solfe

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,812
    A lot of woo, in my experience, depends most heavily on "I don't understand it therefore no one does therefore [preferred brand of woo]."
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,524
    Here is an article from a more reputable news outlet (NY Magazine).

    One of the classic problems I see with all these is that confusion and misuse of the term "UFO". As you all know, it literally mean 'unknown'. Just because someone sees something that can't be identified doesn't mean it is an ET or anything unusual. It just means we don't know what it was.

    I heard something in my backyard last night, but it was dark out and I couldn't see what it was. It probably was a raccoon or a skunk; but it is unknown. Just because it is unknown doesn't mean it was a Yeti.

    But implying it was an ET is much better for making headlines.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,887

    Here we go agan . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Here is an article from a more reputable news outlet (NY Magazine).

    One of the classic problems I see with all these is that confusion and misuse of the term "UFO". As you all know, it literally mean 'unknown'. Just because someone sees something that can't be identified doesn't mean it is an ET or anything unusual. It just means we don't know what it was.

    I heard something in my backyard last night, but it was dark out and I couldn't see what it was. It probably was a raccoon or a skunk; but it is unknown. Just because it is unknown doesn't mean it was a Yeti.

    But implying it was an ET is much better for making headlines.
    Oh. A not Yeti.

    Alright alrght. I heard those groans.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Just because it is unknown doesn't mean it was a Yeti.
    Well, it might have been.

    Yeti denier
    So . . . does this look as bad as it looks?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,981
    Nah, it must have been a Chupacabra.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    One of the classic problems I see with all these is that confusion and misuse of the term "UFO". As you all know, it literally mean 'unknown'. Just because someone sees something that can't be identified doesn't mean it is an ET or anything unusual. It just means we don't know what it was.
    Yes, that often frustrates me, and it has annoyed me for much of my life. A few decades ago, when I took the alien visitation idea much more seriously, I remember a local TV station with a phone-in poll asking the question, “Do you believe in UFOs?” Even then I remember thinking about what a stupid question that was. To answer “No” you would either have to not understand the question or assume they actually meant “ET spacecraft” by “UFO.”

    And in comments on the article you linked, I saw two about how important it was that someone had said that UFOs are real. Well of course they are real, I’ve seen dozens of flying things I couldn’t identify myself. Big deal. If something is unknown there is little more that you can say about it. Let me know when someone *can* unambiguously identify a flying object as an alien spacecraft. That’s when I’ll get excited.

    A number of times when someone jumped from UFO to assuming an alien spacecraft, I’ve asked how they ruled out angels or dragons. Often they ignore the question, or say I’m not being serious or trolling, but it is an entirely serious question. Depending on their cultural background, many people have assumed something they can’t identify in the air is an angel or dragon. I don’t accept those claims either, of course. I just don’t see what makes an ET spacecraft claim more plausible, and try to get them to think about their beliefs and why others should take their claims any more seriously than ones they scoff at.

    But typically they are too entrenched in their own belief system to seriously consider the question. I usually just hear UFOs “obviously” couldn’t be angels or dragons while ET spacecraft are entirely reasonable, even probable, for reasons they never can seem to explain beyond belief and prejudice.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,792
    I think it will be interesting to see the report. Presumably it includes observations that are not easily explained.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    354
    Oh, come on you guys.... quit being so negative. I have seen a UFO that did things we can't even begin to do. Not only that I have some "memory metal" right here. It's called a leaf spring! Seriously though.... If I hadn't seen it I might be all negative as well, but I did see it.

    I predict that at least a few of you naysayers will be changing your minds within the next few years.
    The timeless ends of formless starts....all ends in dark and begins in light...

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    Oh, come on you guys.... quit being so negative. I have seen a UFO that did things we can't even begin to do. Not only that I have some "memory metal" right here. It's called a leaf spring! Seriously though.... If I hadn't seen it I might be all negative as well, but I did see it.

    I predict that at least a few of you naysayers will be changing your minds within the next few years.
    I'm not negative. But wishful thinking is not good science. You saw something that made you think some UFO was an ET - good for you. Until I see some solid, incontrovertible, and hopefully reproducible evidence, these extraordinary claims will require extraordinary evidence. No endless list of observers claiming "well I've never seen anything like it" will convince me otherwise.

    And I've heard claims of coming new, incontrovertible evidence for something like 50 years; I'm not going to hold my breath.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    I have seen a UFO that did things we can't even begin to do.
    Is that the one you saw split in two and then disappear over opposite horizons simultaneously?

    Grant Hutchison

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    I'm not negative. But wishful thinking is not good science. You saw something that made you think some UFO was an ET - good for you. Until I see some solid, incontrovertible, and hopefully reproducible evidence, these extraordinary claims will require extraordinary evidence. No endless list of observers claiming "well I've never seen anything like it" will convince me otherwise.

    And I've heard claims of coming new, incontrovertible evidence for something like 50 years; I'm not going to hold my breath.
    Not a likely occurrence, IMO.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    Oh, come on you guys.... quit being so negative.
    Why? Iíve been interested in this subject most of my life. I read books about it when I was a kid. Iíve not only never encountered real evidence, Iím constantly disappointed with the liars, frauds, hucksters and nonsense peddlers.

    As one example, I was very impressed with von Dšniken as a kid. Then I started finding how he deliberately faked some items (like newly inscribed rocks made to look much older) as well as twisting and ignoring archeological and historical evidence to make it sound like it supported his claims. And yet, that stupid History Channel Alien series went back and presented his nonsense claims once again. They simply didnít care they were misleading viewers. I keep running into this attitude, like with the ďTo the stars institute.Ē

    So yes, Iím going to need real evidence, not unsupported claims for my attitude to change.

    I have seen a UFO that did things we can't even begin to do. Not only that I have some "memory metal" right here. It's called a leaf spring! Seriously though.... If I hadn't seen it I might be all negative as well, but I did see it.
    Youíre obviously making assumptions that what you saw was a vehicle or at least artificial. As I just said a couple posts ago:

    If you see something you donít understand, barring having a machine you can study in detail, you do not jump to conclusions that it is a vehicle and likely based on some kind of advanced physical principle. Instead you describe what you saw as carefully as you can and donít make wild assumptions about it.
    That aspect of people making assumptions and jumping to conclusions is another thing I see constantly in UFOlogy.

    I predict that at least a few of you naysayers will be changing your minds within the next few years.


    I will change my mind if and when solid evidence is presented.

    I was going to say almost exactly what Swift said about claims like that. Claims that there will be amazing new developments are in fact a primary reason I became disillusioned with the subject decades ago. Literally every year since my childhood and multiple times a year, there would be someone proclaiming amazing and undeniable evidence for ET visitation was just around the corner. Everything was going to change within a year for sure. Rinse and repeat.

    A bit of advice: Stop making that claim. It sounds lame. If it actually happens, great, but I predict in ten years or fifty, there will still be no real evidence for visitation. Are you familiar with the UFO curse by Philip J. Klass? Here it is:

    To ufologists who publicly criticize me, ... or who even think unkind thoughts about me in private, I do hereby leave and bequeath: THE UFO CURSE:

    No matter how long you live, you will never know any more about UFOs than you know today. You will never know any more about what UFOs really are, or where they come from. You will never know any more about what the U.S. Government really knows about UFOs than you know today. As you lie on your own death-bed you will be as mystified about UFOs as you are today. And you will remember this curse.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,981
    By the way, I think Klass is wrong on one point. With the reporting requirement, I expect people will know more about what the U.S. Government really knows about UFOs than they know today, but it will be underwhelming, so the usual suspects won’t believe it and will insist it is a coverup.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    I predict that at least a few of you naysayers will be changing your minds within the next few years.
    I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect that many like me are not "naysayers." Naysayer means "a person who criticizes, objects to, or opposes something." I don't object to UFOs (in the sense of flying saucers). I have always been an SF fan (like I think many here are), and would love for flying saucers to exist (as long as they don't come with phasers, of course...) I just haven't seen sufficient evidence to convince me that they do, and your saying that you saw something that looked formidable isn't enough for me. When I have seen enough in reputable media in a way that makes it clear they exist (in the same way that I have never seen a Space Shuttle but have seen enough close-up photos and stuff that I have no problem believing they actually existed), I will definitely change my mind, and will be happy to be able to. In the same way, I don't believe in life after death but of course I wish it were true.
    As above, so below

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,781
    Mick West of Metabunk interviewed Luis Elizondo recently. West proposed some very sensible explanations for the recent Navy airforce clips showing unidentified phenomena, and all Elizondo could reply is 'our analysis was different'.
    https://www.tftrh.com/2021/03/11/epi...atip-and-ttsa/

    Elizondo claims to be involved in the 'disclosure' of data about UFOs, but when you ask him about the details, he either doesn't know the answers, or he can't discuss the details because of national security. I expect all 'disclosures' will be like this - no real opportunity to dissect the evidence, because reasons. We will end up none the wiser at the end of the day.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    I predict that at least a few of you naysayers will be changing your minds within the next few years.
    A little definition, and you've got a testable hypothesis. How many are "a few", and how will you determine whether they have changed their minds? (Also should specify how many years is a "few years".)
    So . . . does this look as bad as it looks?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,564
    The use of the word "naysayer" is essentially a prejudgment of the issue--there's an assumption that the person saying "no" is doing so out of habit, perversity or cynicism, rather than logical argument. In other words, it's a way of avoiding engagement with the negative arguments offered.

    Grant Hutchison

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    Oh, come on you guys.... quit being so negative. I have seen a UFO that did things we can't even begin to do. ...Seriously though.... If I hadn't seen it I might be all negative as well, but I did see it.

    I predict that at least a few of you naysayers will be changing your minds within the next few years.
    What you witnessed may have done things that did not necessarily indicate it was an aircraft or spacecraft, either.

    Saying "I require evidence" is not "negative". It's saying I'm reserving judgement until facts are available. You saw something. You do not know what that something was. Those are, at present, the only facts you can verify.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Is that the one you saw split in two and then disappear over opposite horizons simultaneously?

    Grant Hutchison
    You remember! Actually it split into 3 after stopping its transit for several seconds and just sitting there, then it split and they did a little dance around each other and then they tri-sected the sky at 120 degrees apart and went over the horizons in approx 1-2 seconds. This was in the 70's while on a river trip in the Selway Bitteroot wilderness area in Idaho. And no... I didn't have a protractor or a photo but it sure looked like they departed equally degree wise.....
    Last edited by Grant Hatch; 2021-Apr-02 at 04:12 AM.
    The timeless ends of formless starts....all ends in dark and begins in light...

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    You remember! Actually it split into 3 after stopping its transit for several seconds and just sitting there, then it split and they did a little dance around each other and then they tri-sected the sky at 120 degrees apart and went over the horizons in approx 1-2 seconds.
    I remember, because it makes you an "unreliable witness", because part of that story involves you seeing something you couldn't have seen. I'm IN NO WAY claiming that you made this up, but it's anatomically impossible for you to have seen three objects go over the horizon, 120 degrees apart, simultaneously.
    People "see" impossible stuff all the time--I've seen my share, including a row of giant bouncing yellow balls travelling uphill ahead of me on a misty Scottish mountainside. It happens both because our brains add "best guess" data to fill-in incomplete or confusing sensory data, and because our memories endlessly reprocess stuff that we ruminate on. (I was very briefly at the receiving end of legal action brought by someone, a person from the "trained to observe" category beloved by the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis, who reported seeing me do something that was both intrinsically impossible and impossible for that person to have observed from the vantage point they occupied. I believe the person was completely sincere.)
    Anyway. Just my take on why I find "reliable eyewitness" accounts of "inexplicable" phenomena less than compelling.

    Grant Hutchison

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,750
    The US military budget of over 700 billion dollars includes R and D of 95 billion or thereabouts, which buys a lot of high tech stuff. We hear about hypersonic missiles, stealth technology, but not so much about what might be seen as UFOs. As part of context for that spend, I read the Swiss armed fleet of 40 F35 multirole aircraft is a snip at only 6.6 billion. Just saying, the whole weather service is only a billion or so including all those balloons. NASA, what, only 25 billion? It makes me wonder.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,564
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    The US military budget of over 700 billion dollars includes R and D of 95 billion or thereabouts, which buys a lot of high tech stuff. We hear about hypersonic missiles, stealth technology, but not so much about what might be seen as UFOs. As part of context for that spend, I read the Swiss armed fleet of 40 F35 multirole aircraft is a snip at only 6.6 billion. Just saying, the whole weather service is only a billion or so including all those balloons. NASA, what, only 25 billion? It makes me wonder.
    I'm sorry, I can't seem to figure out what it makes you wonder.

    Grant Hutchison

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •