UFO evidence and how it's handled.

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Curious use of the word humble, in this context,since it's only religion that teaches humility and strangly not off topic.

Religion(s) tried to pretend that we were the centre of the universe and that other religions were so wrong they were evil and should be killed for it.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Religion(s) tried to pretend that we were the centre of the universe and that other religions were so wrong they were evil and should be killed for it.

But that is off topic.

[John Cuthber]

It's an interesting topic where stating something is on topic, but explaining that the statement is wrong is off topic.

[dimreepr]

No, it's a mundane one.

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We could argue over the term "power grab", or wether science/philosophy explicitly teaches humility, but that would be off topic; I'd enjoy the exchange though, if you want to post a new topic.

Yes I agree further discussion would take us too far off topic, but by all means if you want to continue into a new thread then go ahead.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes I agree further discussion would take us too far off topic, but by all means if you want to continue into a new thread then go ahead.

Then it seems that niether of us cares enough.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

TBF mistermack did.

Ah. I missed that. I think that is pretty implausible (on about the same level as aliens  )

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Ah. I missed that. I think that is pretty implausible (on about the same level as aliens  )

Indeed

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Has anyone ever claimed that?

Yes, in fact mrmack did in the above post. 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

If anyone said that everyone were lying, I would consider them just as ridiculous as someone who claims that aliens walk among us and run the government.

As would I but the go to explanation of lies or hallucinations brought on by drugs is insulting. BTW what drugs exactly cause people to see aliens? 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Volume of data is not the same thing as quality of evidence.

Lack of data, no qualifier, is often used to dismiss sightings, now the data has quality? 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

A single data point could be compelling. But a gazillion bits of low quality data are no more useful than 10.

Yet there is no guideline for quality of UFO data... 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

You really think those are the only two possible explanations?

Give me another that ticks all the boxes to explain glowing objects hovering over nuclear missile silos that shut them down? 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Sorry, but no. Mundane explanations are based on known, existing phenomena (despite your attempts at ridicule and dismissing them out of hand [see what I did there?]). Any explanation based on aliens is inherently less plausible than any mundane explanation because it is not based on things that are known to exist.

So slow moving meteors or a comet can explain a UFO when meteors do not move slowly, could not explain an object seen close up,  and comets appear stationary in the sky for weeks? 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Your are being blinded by your faith, here.

I have no faith, I am an apistevist, but skepticism can be taken to far as easily as faith...   

3 hours ago, Strange said:

So, you are saying that either aliens only ever visit the USA, or the US Air Force has a lot more control than seems reasonable. 

 

No I am saying it's quite possible the Air Force is trying to cover up their own activities by invoking UFOs and the meme got out of hand early on and they haven't been able to put the genie back in the bottle... Hence the "me too" comment I made... 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

We could argue over the term "power grab", or wether science/philosophy explicitly teaches humility, but that would be off topic; I'd enjoy the exchange though, if you want to post a new topic.

I am of the opinion that in the UFO phenomena we are witnessing first hand the manner in which religions form... 

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I am of the opinion that in the UFO phenomena we are witnessing first hand the manner in which religions form... 

Hardly the mundane explanation, given that 2'000 years ago, aliens wouldn't be the first or most obvious, explanation...

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Hardly the mundane explanation, given that 2'000 years ago, aliens wouldn't be the first or most obvious, explanation...

Talk about missing the point, then it was gods now it's aliens but the emotional doubling down on something unknown as an explanation for the unknown that has no hard evidence is very much the same... You should google the Contactee movement of the 50s... I know people personally that still cling to that movement and refuse to consider how ridiculous it is... 

Edited November 9, 2019 by Moontanman

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

As would I but the go to explanation of lies or hallucinations brought on by drugs is insulting. BTW what drugs exactly cause people to see aliens?

LSD, for one. 

But I would think most people taking drugs that can cause hallucinations would know (afterwards, at least) that it was a hallucination. There are a small proportion who believe that it is revealing a reality that they couldn't perceive otherwise.

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Lack of data, no qualifier, is often used to dismiss sightings, now the data has quality? 

Of course data has quality. For example, "it looked really big" vs "it was 120 metres long and 80 metres wide".

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

So slow moving meteors or a comet can explain a UFO when meteors do not move slowly, could not explain an object seen close up,  and comets appear stationary in the sky for weeks? 

I am not going to comment on specific things like this. Apart from anything else, I don't trust you to report accurately what was said, given your habit of dismissing explanations out of hand.

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I have no faith, I am an apistevist, but skepticism can be taken to far as easily as faith... 

Your belief in aliens is indistinguishable from religious belief.

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

No I am saying it's quite possible the Air Force is trying to cover up their own activities by invoking UFOs and the meme got out of hand early on and they haven't been able to put the genie back in the bottle...

And yet, other countries that are no under the thumb of the US Air Force have not released this information that you insist they are covering up.

Perhaps because it doesn't;t exist.

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I am of the opinion that in the UFO phenomena we are witnessing first hand the manner in which religions form...

Very similar. So, presumably you would say that people who see angels, experience miracles or have conversations with god need to be taken seriously?

[Moontanman]

 

Quote

But I would think most people taking drugs that can cause hallucinations would know (afterwards, at least) that it was a hallucination. There are a small proportion who believe that it is revealing a reality that they couldn't perceive otherwise.

Why odes the old saw "have you been drinking or smoking" always come up when UFOs are talked about? 

Quote

Of course data has quality. For example, "it looked really big" vs "it was 120 metres long and 80 metres wide".

Of course it does but as I said this is never a qualification when people claim that UFO reports suffer from a lack of data.  

Quote

I am not going to comment on specific things like this. Apart from anything else, I don't trust you to report accurately what was said, given your habit of dismissing explanations out of hand.

Your opinion is meaningless please give an example of me dismissing explanations out of hand.... 

Quote

Your belief in aliens is indistinguishable from religious belief.

You are in no position to judge me on this and I have stated many times I do not believe in aliens are you calling me a liar? Or can you show something that indicates I am a liar? 

Quote

And yet, other countries that are no under the thumb of the US Air Force have not released this information that you insist they are covering up.

Actually they have and admit that many  sightings are extraordinary see France's assessment. But is it true the USA has a considerable influence on other governments but nonetheless UFO reports are world wide but largely dismissed because they are dismissed by the US and so must be what  the US says they are. 

Quote

Perhaps because it doesn't;t exist.

Perhaps because it does and you being unwilling to consider it are unaware of it. 

Quote

Very similar. So, presumably you would say that people who see angels, experience miracles or have conversations with god need to be taken seriously?

Strange you are being insulting/disrespectful for no apparent reason... I would suggest that if this discussion pushes your buttons you withdraw from it... 

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/97unclass/ufo.html

Quote

According to later estimates from CIA officials who worked on the U-2 project and the OXCART (SR-71, or Blackbird) project, over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely the U-2) over the United States. (45) This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project. While perhaps justified, this deception added fuel to the later conspiracy theories and the coverup controversy of the 1970s. The percentage of what the Air Force considered unexplained UFO sightings fell to 5.9 percent in 1955 and to 4 percent in 1956. (46)

 

Quote

At the same time, pressure was building for the release of the Robertson panel report on UFOs. In 1956, Edward Ruppelt, former head of the Air Force BLUE BOOK project, publicly revealed the existence of the panel. A best-selling book by UFOlogist Donald Keyhoe, a retired Marine Corps major, advocated release of all government information relating to UFOs. Civilian UFO groups such as the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) and the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO) immediately pushed for release of the Robertson panel report. (47) Under pressure, the Air Force approached CIA for permission to declassify and release the report. Despite such pressure, Philip Strong, Deputy Assistant Director of OSI, refused to declassify the report and declined to disclose CIA sponsorship of the panel. As an alternative, the Agency prepared a sanitized version of the report which deleted any reference to CIA and avoided mention of any psychological warfare potential in the UFO controversy. (48)

 

Quote

They demanded the release of the full Robertson panel report and confirmation of CIA involvement in the UFO issue. Davidson had convinced himself that the Agency, not the Air Force, carried most of the responsibility for UFO analysis and that "the activities of the US Government are responsible for the flying saucer sightings of the last decade." Indeed, because of the undisclosed U-2 and OXCART flights, Davidson was closer to the truth than he suspected. CI, nevertheless held firm to its policy of not revealing its role in UFO investigations and refused to declassify the full Robertson panel report. (49)

 

Quote

At the same time that CIA was conducting this latest internal review of UFOs, public pressure forced the Air Force to establish a special ad hoc committee to review BLUE BOOK. Chaired by Dr. Brian O'Brien, a member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, the panel included Carl Sagan, the famous astronomer from Cornell University. Its report offered nothing new. It declared that UFOs did not threaten the national security and that it could find "no UFO case which represented technological or scientific advances outside of a terrestrial framework." The committee did recommend that UFOs be studied intensively, with a leading university acting as a coordinator for the project, to settle the issue conclusively. (70)

 

Quote

Unknown to CIA officials, Dr. James E. McDonald, a noted atmospheric physicist from the University of Arizona, had already seen the Durant report on the Robertson panel proceedings at Wright-Patterson on 6 June 1966. When McDonald returned to Wright-Patterson on 30 June to copy the report, however, the Air Force refused to let him see it again, stating that it was a CIA classified document. Emerging as a UFO authority, McDonald publicly claimed that the CIA was behind the Air Force secrecy policies and coverup. He demanded the release of the full Robertson panel report and the Durant report. (74)

 

Edited November 9, 2019 by Moontanman

[swansont]

On 11/8/2019 at 2:36 PM, mistermack said:

But personally, I think the very first go-to explanation for any UFO claim should be that the witnesses are lying, and/or that the person reporting second-hand what alleged witnesses said is lying. There's a huge amount of lying happening every day. Some people just can't help themselves, and those of us who are unused to their ways are often easily taken in. 

There are many instances where it’s been confirmed that the witness was not lying about seeing something they could not unidentify, so to me this is a non-starter. I’ve seen a UFO. I was able to later identify it.

[Moontanman]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

There are many instances where it’s been confirmed that the witness was not lying about seeing something they could not unidentify, so to me this is a non-starter. I’ve seen a UFO. I was able to later identify it.

I've seen the whole dancing Venus thing several times, it's not unusual here on the coast but it never made me think of aliens just a temperature inversion. I did see huge purple clouds suddenly erupt in the night sky while traveling through the green swamp about 35 years ago. Now that was spooky, we pulled off the road and took photos but they never turned out. Years later I found out it was a NASA venture where they were releasing Chemicals in low Earth orbit to study radiation or something like that...  

http://www.nuforc.org/Coyne.html

Quote

Any theory of the object's being a meteor (UFO skeptic Philip Klass maintains that the object was a "fireball of the Orionid meteor shower") can readily be rejected on the basis of:  (1) the duration of the event (an estimated 300 seconds); (2) the marked deceleration and hard-angle maneuver of the object at closest approach; (3) the precisely defined shape of the object; and (4) the horizon-to-horizon flight path.

 

[mistermack]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

There are many instances where it’s been confirmed that the witness was not lying about seeing something they could not unidentify, so to me this is a non-starter. I’ve seen a UFO. I was able to later identify it.

That's just definitions. That might come under the widest definition of UFO, but it's not how I use the word. I tend to keep it for flying objects that defy normal observations of flying objects in some way. It's how most of the public use the expression. Of course, what's a UFO to one person might not be to someone else. 

When I said that the first and most likely explanation is that they are lying, I'm referring to the cases that apparently can't be explained. That's a real UFO to me. Not a bin liner in the wind, or a vague light in the sky. 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

That's just definitions. That might come under the widest definition of UFO, but it's not how I use the word. I tend to keep it for flying objects that defy normal observations of flying objects in some way. It's how most of the public use the expression. Of course, what's a UFO to one person might not be to someone else. 

When I said that the first and most likely explanation is that they are lying, I'm referring to the cases that apparently can't be explained. That's a real UFO to me. Not a bin liner in the wind, or a vague light in the sky. 

That does not change the facts or that they are lying, in most cases they are just mistaken, like you.

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That does not change the facts or that they are lying, in most cases they are just mistaken, like you.

Where a mistake is an option, I wouldn't even class that as a UFO sighting. To me, the term implies that some effort has been made to investigate, and the normal explanations have been examined and excluded. 

Like I said above, I wouldn't personally count a bin bag in the wind as a UFO sighting, even if some people got excited about it. 

[dimreepr]

59 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Where a mistake is an option, I wouldn't even class that as a UFO sighting.

To me, the term implies that some effort has been made to investigate, and the normal explanations have been examined and excluded. 

Like I said above, I wouldn't personally count a bin bag in the wind as a UFO sighting, even if some people got excited about it. 

and who are you to judge, a bin bag in a cross wind from an alien sight seeing?

Edited November 10, 2019 by dimreepr

[mistermack]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

and who are you to judge, a bin bag in a cross wind from an alien sight seeing?

I judge for myself, and sometimes offer my opinion. That's as far as it ever goes. I never claimed any more than that. Sometimes I offer links, but it's only to help other people make their own judgements. 

I don't recall ever putting myself up as a judge on anything. I'm not going to start writing "in my opinion" if front of every post. I take that as already understood, by most people reading it.

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I judge for myself, and sometimes offer my opinion. That's as far as it ever goes. I never claimed any more than that. Sometimes I offer links, but it's only to help other people make their own judgements. 

I don't recall ever putting myself up as a judge on anything. I'm not going to start writing "in my opinion" if front of every post. I take that as already understood, by most people reading it.

 not this again?  When are you going to start being honest? 

Edited November 10, 2019 by dimreepr

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

 not this again?  When are you going to start being honest? 

I won't ever be that rude about you. ☺️

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

I won't ever be that rude about you. ☺️

give it time.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

That's just definitions. That might come under the widest definition of UFO, but it's not how I use the word. I tend to keep it for flying objects that defy normal observations of flying objects in some way. It's how most of the public use the expression. Of course, what's a UFO to one person might not be to someone else. 

And how do you know I mean it in another way? The object acted in a way that was unusual. In particular, the way it was lit (this was before dawn), and to some extent how it moved (I couldn't tell how far away it was, because I didn't know how big it was). But, it being the Washington DC area and it was along a commuting route, I knew I wouldn't be the only one seeing it. The local news tracked it down; I imagine they had gotten calls.

 

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

When I said that the first and most likely explanation is that they are lying, I'm referring to the cases that apparently can't be explained. That's a real UFO to me. Not a bin liner in the wind, or a vague light in the sky. 

OK, so you want to use the word in a way that's unlike anyone else. Kinda defeats the purpose of language, though.

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

OK, so you want to use the word in a way that's unlike anyone else. Kinda defeats the purpose of language, though.

Who are you to judge how anyone else uses the word?  😊