Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 199

Thread: Pentagon UFO Report

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,978
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    Maybe I'm just trying to argue semantics and getting in a muddle, but I really can't get my head around why something can be dismissed over something else about something unknown in the first place. If a UAP remains a UAP then all bets are on, don't you think?
    No. I think some bets have to be assigned zero probability, judged on the available evidence. I can't see why I should entertain those at all. So I should act is if those options simply don't exist. That is, I dismiss them, by most usages of the word dismiss. That doesn't mean I won't rexamine these bets if applicable evidence is presented in the future, any more than when my headmaster told me I was "dismissed" at the end of an interview it implied that he expected never to see me again.

    What you appear to be arguing is that no evidence-free option can ever be ignored. At which point the hypothesis landscape fills up with garbage, and science goes out the window.

    Grant Hutchison

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,843
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    What you appear to be arguing is that no evidence-free option can ever be ignored. At which point the hypothesis landscape fills up with garbage, and science goes out the window.
    Cosomocrazy, that's also how I interpret your meaning of dismissal. You seem to imply you can consider anything possible that hasn't been explicitly shown to be impossible. But science can't prove a negative. It can only rule out things as inconsistent with observational data.

    There's no way to prove that all UFO/UAP/UTI are NOT aliens. Nevertheless I have to weigh the available information and allot my mental resources accordingly. That's not the same as your extreme definition of dismissing an idea. My version is more like provisional dismissal.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,800
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    ... we have evidence already that there is highly likely to be Earth like planets in almost every solar system?
    There is an ambiguity in the category 'Earth like', however. Astronomers who state that there are Earth-like planets in abundance seem to include both Mars and Venus in the category 'Earth-like. Whereas one has practically no water and a 700 Kelvin surface temperature, and the other has practically no atmosphere and a 210 Kelvin surface. Earth-like planets seem to include tidally-looked worlds blasted by radiation, ocean worlds with no rocky surface at all, worlds with up to 90 degrees of tilt, worlds with stagnant-lid plate tectonics and no carbon cycle, dried out worlds covered in sand or salt, superterrestrials with high gravity and dense atmospheres of hydrogen and helium - none of which would resemble Earth any more closely than Venus or Mars do.

    Earth-like seems to mean something very different to a lot of astronomers, and we can't rely on the existence of worlds bearing complex life just by finding a few terrestrial-type worlds in the data.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    No. I think some bets have to be assigned zero probability, judged on the available evidence. I can't see why I should entertain those at all. So I should act is if those options simply don't exist. That is, I dismiss them, by most usages of the word dismiss. That doesn't mean I won't rexamine these bets if applicable evidence is presented in the future, any more than when my headmaster told me I was "dismissed" at the end of an interview it implied that he expected never to see me again.

    What you appear to be arguing is that no evidence-free option can ever be ignored. At which point the hypothesis landscape fills up with garbage, and science goes out the window.

    Grant Hutchison
    I don't disagree with you, why waste time and resource on something that there is absolutely no evidence for. I think it's really about the way I interpret dismiss in this context.

    In these sightings the available evidence points towards a UAP, there are multiple eye witness's, video and radar recordings that appear to show a UFO. It could turn out to be a glitch, a weather phenomena etc... any number of things. It also could be a "flying object" a bird, drone, balloon etc... it could also be a flying object that did not originate from Earth.

    The evidence presented so far points towards an unidentified flying object, so as extremely unlikely or absurd as it may seem, it is possible that its an object/s that did not originate from Earth.

    Again, this is not my personal opinion because I don't believe we have been visited by E.T, but to me, as extremely unlikely as it might seem (and I don't like the idea) the odds are not zero, so why dismiss the possibility?

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,978
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    Again, this is not my personal opinion because I don't believe we have been visited by E.T, but to me, as extremely unlikely as it might seem (and I don't like the idea) the odds are not zero, so why dismiss the possibility?
    We're going round in circles. In the absence of evidence, what justification do you have for claiming the odds are not zero? How is the ETH distinguished from the infinite number of other bizarre scenarios which are also unsupported by evidence?

    Grant Hutchison

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,843
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I think it's really about the way I interpret dismiss in this context.
    Yeah, I've already told you that's not what I was saying. Adjust your settings accordingly.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,004
    Iím not really sure about this thread. Is everybody just trying to explain their own position, or are people trying to discipline others into modifying their positions? I personally donít really have a problem with people taking a different position from mine, but find it annoying when they say I am somehow unreasonable for having that position.
    As above, so below

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I’m not really sure about this thread. Is everybody just trying to explain their own position, or are people trying to discipline others into modifying their positions? I personally don’t really have a problem with people taking a different position from mine, but find it annoying when they say I am somehow unreasonable for having that position.
    What do you mean by "discipline others"? Trying to convince is not trying to discipline.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,984
    Do I believe the chances of alien visitation are non-zero? Yes. Do I believe they're high enough to bother taking seriously as an explanation? No.
    _____________________________________________
    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. #130
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I’m not really sure about this thread. Is everybody just trying to explain their own position, or are people trying to discipline others into modifying their positions? I personally don’t really have a problem with people taking a different position from mine, but find it annoying when they say I am somehow unreasonable for having that position.
    My view was called "arrogant or short sighted" by cosmocrazy. Which comes across as trying to discipline.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I’m not really sure about this thread. Is everybody just trying to explain their own position, or are people trying to discipline others into modifying their positions?
    Neither of the above, for me. I can't see that I can state my own position any more clearly and, like you, I don't particularly care if people disagree with me on this topic. I'm just trying to understand cosmocrazy's position--specifically, why he feels the ETH needs to be given special treatment out of the whole landscape of "zero-evidence hypotheses".

    Grant Hutchison

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    My view was called "arrogant or short sighted" by cosmocrazy. Which comes across as trying to discipline.
    My choice of words where wrong, and I apologise for making this statement because since this I have realised that everyone is free to have their idea, beliefs.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Neither of the above, for me. I can't see that I can state my own position any more clearly and, like you, I don't particularly care if people disagree with me on this topic. I'm just trying to understand cosmocrazy's position--specifically, why he feels the ETH needs to be given special treatment out of the whole landscape of "zero-evidence hypotheses".

    Grant Hutchison
    My position is that there is video, radar and multiple eye witness testimony/evidence to support a UFO or UAP (as its liked to be called these days). How credible that evidence is and whether or not it can be explained as originating from Earth is still (as far as I'm aware) currently open for discussion. My "belief" is that it/they are UAP's that originate from Earth, but we may not be able to explain it/them as yet.

    The eye witness and video footage testify that the "object/s" appear to have a smooth symmetrical shape and that they are solid in appearance. This may well be an illusion, (my belief) agreed, but based on this testimony my position is that ET origination should not be totally ruled out, even though I don't personally like the idea.

    I'm not saying ETH should be given special treatment, I'm just trying to understand other people's positions and why dismiss the possibility in this particular case. I think with NCN I was hung up on my mis interpretation of "dismiss" in this context, and then from this I felt that I was being backed into a corner to explain why I should not dismiss the possibility. So maybe my posts come across a bit defensive. I can only apologise for this as I have done to NCN. But I'm not going to change my stance until I can grasp a better understanding.

    I have my own ideas, beliefs, theories etc... but I'm only ever really interested in the facts and rightly or wrongly tend to remain sceptical until verifiable proof is presented. This is why I'm interested in the report, maybe its a fool's errand because the likelihood is that the report is not going to be a revelation. But I remain interested.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,004
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Neither of the above, for me. I can't see that I can state my own position any more clearly and, like you, I don't particularly care if people disagree with me on this topic. I'm just trying to understand cosmocrazy's position--specifically, why he feels the ETH needs to be given special treatment out of the whole landscape of "zero-evidence hypotheses".
    I see nothing wrong with that and respect that position. I guess I was sort of trying to say that it seems to some extent that things go around in a circle because people feel that they are being disciplined by others (what one person said about an other) or that they are being "backed into a corner" (also what one person said). As long as we're trying to understand it seems that the discussion goes forward.
    As above, so below

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,978
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I'm not saying ETH should be given special treatment, I'm just trying to understand other people's positions and why dismiss the possibility in this particular case. I think with NCN I was hung up on my mis interpretation of "dismiss" in this context, and then from this I felt that I was being backed into a corner to explain why I should not dismiss the possibility. So maybe my posts come across a bit defensive. I can only apologise for this as I have done to NCN. But I'm not going to change my stance until I can grasp a better understanding.

    I have my own ideas, beliefs, theories etc... but I'm only ever really interested in the facts and rightly or wrongly tend to remain sceptical until verifiable proof is presented. This is why I'm interested in the report, maybe its a fool's errand because the likelihood is that the report is not going to be a revelation. But I remain interested.
    I'm afraid I'm no nearer understanding why you want to keep the door open on the ETH, given the current level of non-evidence. Particular since you emphasize a very reasonable need to "remain sceptical until verifiable proof is presented."

    I keep thinking how this would play in any other setting:
    "Well, Mr Smith, we still don't know why your urine goes a funny colour sometimes. We've run a whole battery of tests and none of them show anything conclusive or consistent so far. So look--I personally think this is unlikely to be the case, but we really need to keep in mind that it could be due to aliens. Very unlikely, obviously, but we can't rule it out."
    "I see, doctor. Now I'd like to speak to whoever's in charge here."

    Grant Hutchison

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,034
    I would be equally alarmed if my doctor said it may be God’s will, but whether that is more likely to pan out than aliens from another star system, I can only guess. Supernatural beings, science doesn’t know everything, and good old mother Nature show no sign of disappearing under a pile of facts. I have to think a lot of people need these ideas to cope with life. Sad for me is the idea that advanced military devices may be involved, but I may be just imagining that to spice my life up with some anxiety.
    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

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,978
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I would be equally alarmed if my doctor said it may be God’s will ...
    Which reminds me of:

    Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the Author of the Universe.
    Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.

    So, as Laplace would ask, do we have need of the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis?

    Grant Hutchison

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,843
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    My choice of words where wrong, and I apologise for making this statement because since this I have realised that everyone is free to have their idea, beliefs.
    Apology accepted.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    I'm afraid I'm no nearer understanding why you want to keep the door open on the ETH, given the current level of non-evidence. Particular since you emphasize a very reasonable need to "remain sceptical until verifiable proof is presented."

    I keep thinking how this would play in any other setting:
    "Well, Mr Smith, we still don't know why your urine goes a funny colour sometimes. We've run a whole battery of tests and none of them show anything conclusive or consistent so far. So look--I personally think this is unlikely to be the case, but we really need to keep in mind that it could be due to aliens. Very unlikely, obviously, but we can't rule it out."
    "I see, doctor. Now I'd like to speak to whoever's in charge here."

    Grant Hutchison
    I think there is an obvious mis-understand between us both, maybe I'm over looking something or rather seeing something that doesn't exist. I don't know...

    I'm stuck on this (my bold) its my understanding that there is a level of evidence that would warrant leaving the door open for ETH, yes maybe just a slight crack, but non zero. The evidence and testimony's support a "flying" object that defies our current known technological level of ability, with no verifiable explanation. This doesn't automatically point to or claim ET origination, but surely it leaves the door slightly open to the possibility?

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Apology accepted.
    Thank you.

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,843
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Supernatural beings, science doesn’t know everything, and good old mother Nature show no sign of disappearing under a pile of facts.
    Science may not know everything but it's a very efficient method of growing increasingly accurate. Science builds on itself, and gets better with age and further testing and data, as the weight of evidence grows heavier. A "pile of facts" are still verified facts even if some surprises do pop up.

    Note that the standard of what makes a fact is much higher in science than in everyday experience, so it's the gold standard of extraordinary evidence. A result or observation has to be repeatable, checked and re-checked, and stand up to intense scrutiny.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,978
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I'm stuck on this (my bold) its my understanding that there is a level of evidence that would warrant leaving the door open for ETH, yes maybe just a slight crack, but non zero. The evidence and testimony's support a "flying" object that defies our current known technological level of ability, with no verifiable explanation. This doesn't automatically point to or claim ET origination, but surely it leaves the door slightly open to the possibility?
    Why?

    The idea that aliens are flying vehicles around the sky is simply the latest psychosocial fashion of explanation for "seeing stuff we can't identify". It used to be mystery German airships, which were huge and sausage-shaped and slow-moving and carried searchlights, and were marvellously well-attested by the traditional "reliable eyewitnesses". They've all gone now. Before that, it was non-technological explanations--angels and dragons, and so on. Why are these "objects" in the sky now considered more likely to be space aliens than Germans or angels? What evidence do we have that they involve "technology" at all, rather than that they're currently being interpreted as technology, because that's what people currently expect to see?

    Grant Hutchison

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Science may not know everything but it's a very efficient method of growing increasingly accurate. Science builds on itself, and gets better with age and further testing and data, as the weight of evidence grows heavier. A "pile of facts" are still verified facts even if some surprises do pop up.

    Note that the standard of what makes a fact is much higher in science than in everyday experience, so it's the gold standard of extraordinary evidence. A result or observation has to be repeatable, checked and re-checked, and stand up to intense scrutiny.
    Yeah, i do know about science, I hoped the context would reveal that I do not share those beliefs while acknowledging beliefs are untestable. I regret you did not pick up my drift there, but I shall continue to post understatements or even self contradictory ones in the old school British style. In avoiding stating the obvious, I know it can be confusing, but sometimes clarity, sometimes adumbration.
    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

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,843
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I think there is an obvious mis-understand between us both, maybe I'm over looking something or rather seeing something that doesn't exist. I don't know...

    I'm stuck on this (my bold) its my understanding that there is a level of evidence that would warrant leaving the door open for ETH, yes maybe just a slight crack, but non zero. The evidence and testimony's support a "flying" object that defies our current known technological level of ability, with no verifiable explanation. This doesn't automatically point to or claim ET origination, but surely it leaves the door slightly open to the possibility?
    It leaves the door open to an endless number of possible explanations, only one of them being aliens. And most terrestrial phenomena would require far less extraordinary evidence. We already know secret military aircraft exist....
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,004
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post

    I'm stuck on this (my bold) its my understanding that there is a level of evidence that would warrant leaving the door open for ETH, yes maybe just a slight crack, but non zero.
    Does anyone think itís zero? Not me.
    As above, so below

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,420
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I think there is an obvious mis-understand between us both, maybe I'm over looking something or rather seeing something that doesn't exist. I don't know...

    I'm stuck on this (my bold) its my understanding that there is a level of evidence that would warrant leaving the door open for ETH, yes maybe just a slight crack, but non zero. The evidence and testimony's support a "flying" object that defies our current known technological level of ability, with no verifiable explanation. This doesn't automatically point to or claim ET origination, but surely it leaves the door slightly open to the possibility?
    (emphasis added). What evidence is this? As far as Iím aware, there is evidence of things people couldnít identify. Iím not aware of evidence of technological flying objects that exceed known technology.

    "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

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    It leaves the door open to an endless number of possible explanations, only one of them being aliens. And most terrestrial phenomena would require far less extraordinary evidence. We already know secret military aircraft exist....
    So youíre saying itít much more likely itís not ETs? I totally agree.
    As above, so below

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    It leaves the door open to an endless number of possible explanations, only one of them being aliens. And most terrestrial phenomena would require far less extraordinary evidence. We already know secret military aircraft exist....
    Yep, and this would satisfy my beliefs rather than ET.

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Does anyone think it’s zero? Not me.
    I think it's effectively zero, after the reasoning of Laplace. There are better mundane explanations, so I have no need of the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis.
    The other problem with the ETH is that it is an infinitely malleable hypothesis that can be used to "explain" anything. An explanation that explains everything explains nothing.

    Grant Hutchison

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    (emphasis added). What evidence is this? As far as I’m aware, there is evidence of things people couldn’t identify. I’m not aware of evidence of technological flying objects that exceed known technology.
    Appearance & testimonies, not verifiable concrete evidence, if there was verifiable evidence then we could begin to dismiss certain possibilities already.

Posting Permissions

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