Aliens and FBI

[Externet]

Found this, anyone can create news stories with photoshop and anonymous characters.

--> https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/former-cia-agent-reveals-aliens-and-area-51-are-real/vi-AA14MsWI?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=c0cecc7a12bc452191354cfa2fdfc348

[Moontanman]

Yet another whistle blower that is not supposed to exist but are always dismissed as too good to be true when they do show up.  

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Yet another whistle blower that is not supposed to exist but are always dismissed as too good to be true when they do show up.  

It’s an anonymous source whose claims can’t be corroborated

How does one conclude that they are credible, while others with similar credentials, who deny the existence of aliens, are not?

[joigus]

Some people believe as they see and reason, and say why.

Other people see and reason as they believe, and say "why not?"

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s an anonymous source whose claims can’t be corroborated

How does one conclude that they are credible, while others with similar credentials, who deny the existence of aliens, are not?

I agree that an anonymous source is not credible but people have come out with such reports who were far from anonymous and yet they are always dismissed but people who come out with equal "fervor" to debunk with nothing but their word are accepted. 

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I agree that an anonymous source is not credible but people have come out with such reports who were far from anonymous and yet they are always dismissed but people who come out with equal "fervor" to debunk with nothing but their word are accepted. 

Burden of proof is with the people claiming aliens.

[Moontanman]

48 minutes ago, swansont said:

Burden of proof is with the people claiming aliens.

I understand that but requiring proof only from those who claim something extraordinary but not from those who debunk is not quite fair. If you simply ask for evidence then no you don't have a burden of proof but if you claim the extraordinary cannot be such then I think you accept some of the burden. 

Far too long it's been ok to say things like no photos exist but those of unclear subjects or nothing but lights in the sky. But when evidence of the extraordinary turns up, clear photos, that must be either hoaxes or an extraordinary object. I don't think the debunkers get to say it can't be real simply because it's too good to be true. 

Seems to me this is nothing but deciding the outcome before the event. There are dozens if not hundreds of photos that are either something extraordinary or outright hoaxes, there is testimony that has to be either a lie or truth, no middle ground exists. From an astronaut who claims he saw a saucer shaped craft land at an american airbase and saw it filmed, saw the film, turned the film over to the gov and then it vanished to a military photographer who took film of a UFO destroying a missile shortly after launch and saw the film of the event after it happened. There are many examples, but these things are either true or not true and the cover up has cracks but the cracks are dismissed out of hand. These things are not right, you don't to claim they are not true without shouldering some sort of burden of proof for your assertion they are not real in the face of the very thing that is claimed to not exist. 

People have come out to claim the gov is covering something extraordinary, either this is meaningless or the assertion that such a secret cannot be kept without leaks is meaningless. It cannot be both ways.  

[swansont]

 

18 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Far too long it's been ok to say things like no photos exist but those of unclear subjects or nothing but lights in the sky. But when evidence of the extraordinary turns up, clear photos, that must be either hoaxes or an extraordinary object. I don't think the debunkers get to say it can't be real simply because it's too good to be true. 

Where are these clear photos? Especially considering the advances in photographic equipment available to the average person, and its widespread availability.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/settled.png

 

18 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Seems to me this is nothing but deciding the outcome before the event. There are dozens if not hundreds of photos that are either something extraordinary or outright hoaxes, there is testimony that has to be either a lie or truth, no middle ground exists. From an astronaut who claims he saw a saucer shaped craft land at an american airbase and saw it filmed, saw the film, turned the film over to the gov and then it vanished to a military photographer who took film of a UFO destroying a missile shortly after launch and saw the film of the event after it happened. There are many examples, but these things are either true or not true and the cover up has cracks but the cracks are dismissed out of hand. These things are not right, you don't to claim they are not true without shouldering some sort of burden of proof for your assertion they are not real in the face of the very thing that is claimed to not exist. 

They can only be considered real if there is evidence that shows it. 

Asking for evidence that aliens don’t exist is a non-starter. It’s asking to prove a negative. 

18 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

People have come out to claim the gov is covering something extraordinary, either this is meaningless or the assertion that such a secret cannot be kept without leaks is meaningless. It cannot be both ways.  

There is evidence of leaks in the government, of high-level secrets, so if aliens exist, then both can be true.

But it’s a plausibility argument. Why do people leak all of these other secrets, but the evidence of aliens is somehow not subject to these same motivations?

[TheVat]

31 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

There are many examples, but these things are either true or not true and the cover up has cracks but the cracks are dismissed out of hand. These things are not right, you don't to claim they are not true without shouldering some sort of burden of proof for your assertion they are not real in the face of the very thing that is claimed to not exist.  

I hear you on the dismissal out of hand, but my impression is that most investigators are simply evaluating evidence and sensibly applying Sagan's Law.  They aren't asserting a negative, just saying burden of proof isn't met.  I remain open minded, including to alternative hypotheses to the ET one, but like the old Jewish saying goes, your mind can't be so open your brain falls out on the floor.

The eternal question with evidence is what is it evidence of.   Especially when it's produced as evidence of something that millions of people really deeply want to believe.  Desire is a big fat ol' mind-clouder.  

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Where are these clear photos? Especially considering the advances in photographic equipment available to the average person, and its widespread availability.

I have added two phtos to this post, both are considered real, what they are is unknown... hence UFO

2 hours ago, swansont said:

They can only be considered real if there is evidence that shows it. 

How can evidence be given for something so extraordinary it has no way of being shown? 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Asking for evidence that aliens don’t exist is a non-starter. It’s asking to prove a negative.

And yet the current and past philosophy has been to assume the negative. Even though there have been sightings that were seen by multiple independent witnesses, and seen on multiple independent radars. 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

 

There is evidence of leaks in the government, of high-level secrets, so if aliens exist, then both can be true.

Yet when these leaks happen the very idea of them being impossible is used to dismiss them... seems a bit circular to me. 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

But it’s a plausibility argument. Why do people leak all of these other secrets, but the evidence of aliens is somehow not subject to these same motivations?

Secrets of aliens is leaked but it is this leak that is dismissed out of hand. 

The first photo is of a UFO taken in 1965 near Santa Ana Ca https://www.ocregister.com/2009/10/30/ocs-moment-in-ufo-history/

The second is A picture of a flying saucer photographed by farmer Paul Trent, over his farm in Minnville, Ore., on May 11, 1950. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinnville_UFO_photographs

While these photos aren't without some debunkers. Others disagree. 

Quote

Maccabee analysis[edit]

In 1975, the negatives were found in the files of the News-Register by Bruce Maccabee, an optical physicist for the U.S. Navy and a ufologist. After completing his own study of the photos, Maccabee ensured that the original negatives were finally returned to the Trents.[9]

Maccabee analyzed the photos and concluded that the photographs were not hoaxed and showed a "real, physical" object in the sky above the Trent farm.[9] Much of his analysis is based on densitometric measurements, similar to the photometric analysis done by Hartmann. Maccabee argued that the brightness of the object's underside suggested it was at some distance from the camera, not a smaller object close to it.[10]

Maccabee also analyzed the position of various objects in the image as well as an image prepared by Hartmann when he visited the site in June 1967. Based on this, Maccabee argued that the line-of-sight of the two images intersected some distance behind the power lines seen in the photos, providing further evidence, in his opinion, that it was not a small model suspended from the lines.[10] Maccabee stated that his analysis of the object did not find any evidence of a thread or string suspending it from the power lines.[9]

In reply to the skeptical arguments that shadows on objects in the photos proved that they were taken in the morning rather than in the early evening, as the Trents had claimed, Maccabee argued that cloud conditions in the McMinnville area on the evening of the sighting could have caused the shadows on the garage.[9] He also stated, in response to the 2013 IPACO photoanalysis that concluded the photos were a hoax, that "regarding [their] photogrammetric analysis, I showed that the sighting lines did not cross under the wires and they did not refute this...I still stand on my original work."[11]

 

Notice the ground effect under the object. 

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

I hear you on the dismissal out of hand, but my impression is that most investigators are simply evaluating evidence and sensibly applying Sagan's Law.  They aren't asserting a negative, just saying burden of proof isn't met.  I remain open minded, including to alternative hypotheses to the ET one, but like the old Jewish saying goes, your mind can't be so open your brain falls out on the floor.

The eternal question with evidence is what is it evidence of.   Especially when it's produced as evidence of something that millions of people really deeply want to believe.  Desire is a big fat ol' mind-clouder.  

I think the demand of what such evidence would be is unrealistic, what evidence of an extraterrestrial spacecraft would be sufficient?  I was once told that it had to be an actual piece of a spacecraft as though pieces of alien spacecraft would be falling off randomly. I once lived under the landing zone of an airport, large commercial airliners flew over head everyday and some were so low I could have thrown a rock and hit them but no pieces ever fell off. There have however been pieces of UFOs fallen to the ground and picked up, mostly molten metal drippings. 

https://www.thehistoricalsociety.org/h/ufo.html

Edited December 4, 2022 by Moontanman

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I once lived under the landing zone of an airport, large commercial airliners flew over head everyday and some were so low I could have thrown a rock and hit them but no pieces ever fell off.

But when you see a plane the make/model and livery of which you can’t immediately identify, you wouldn’t automatically assume it is of extraterrestrial origin just based on your inability to readily identify it, would you? That would be silly.

The existence of unidentified objects in the air (and also under water) isn’t controversial - what is controversial are all the assumptions that people jump to when encountering such a thing:

1. They cannot be natural phenomena, based on some perceived inability to explain their characteristics or behaviour

2. They must thus be engineered and constructed machines

3. The creators of these machines must be intelligent beings

4. The intelligent beings who built these machines cannot be human

5. The non-human builders cannot be of terrestrial origin

6. The extraterrestrial builders use these machines for interstellar travel

So far as I am concerned, the fact that there are numerous sightings (visual, radar,…) of objects in air and water that are difficult to identify, along with media such as photos and videos depicting such sightings, is not in contention. What is also not in contention is the possibility of life having arisen elsewhere (personally I would be very surprised if it hadn’t), and thus the - much smaller - possibility of some such life being intelligent. There may then also be a - very tiny - possibility of at least some such intelligent races engaging in interstellar travel. 

However, connecting sightings of hitherto unidentified aerial and marine objects with extraterrestrial spacefarers (robotic or in-person) is very much in contention, because this conclusion simply does not follow. The probability of unidentified objects (unidentified based on circumstance, current technology, and knowledge of the observer, mind you) actually being of extraterrestrial origin is in fact much, much smaller than the probability of extraterrestrial civilisations existing per se. Unidentified objects are simply just that - hitherto unidentified objects. “Unidentified” does not necessarily imply extraterrestrial - that’s a very extraordinary claim.

Thus, so far as I personally am concerned, the only admissible evidence that would allow me to actually make this connection is evidence that:

1. Is in the public domain, in the sense that independent groups of researches have ready access to it, which enables application of the scientific method

2. Explicitly excludes all more probable explanations, ie misidentification, natural phenomena, experimental (terrestrial) technologies etc etc

3. Provides an explicit example of technology or biology that is manifestly not terrestrial

This kind of evidence would thus have to be of the physical kind (photos, eyewitness accounts, leaked papers, radar sightings etc etc simply aren’t good enough here, and never will be, no matter how good the quality), and would at a minimum include all or part of one of those alleged machines. Ideally it would consist of a specimen of some form of extraterrestrial organism, but that’s not necessarily required - though it would make the evidence pretty much incontrovertible.

So yes, that’s a pretty high standard - but then, the original claim is extraordinary, so the evidence to support it will have to be likewise, especially if one considers the scientific, philosophical, cultural and religious implications of such a find. You simply cannot be lax and laisser-faire with such a pivotal issue.

[mistermack]

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I have added two phtos to this post, both are considered real, what they are is unknown... hence UFO

I recognise those pictures. They're from the McMinnville episode. They are "considered real", by gullible people who want UFOs to be something out of this world. The claim "considered real" is meaningless in this context. The event has been debunked by interested people who were open minded enough to spend time on it. They found evidence of a wire in the pics, and solid evidence that the original story contained falsehoods.

Why on earth would you write "considered real" as if it meant something? The object is considered real. A real wing mirror cover off an old pickup truck.

Edited December 4, 2022 by mistermack

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I have added two phtos to this post, both are considered real, what they are is unknown... hence UFO

Yes, unknown. Unidentified. Not conclusive. Irresponsible to classify as alien.

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

How can evidence be given for something so extraordinary it has no way of being shown? 

I don’t know what this means.

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

And yet the current and past philosophy has been to assume the negative. Even though there have been sightings that were seen by multiple independent witnesses, and seen on multiple independent radars. 

And can one conclusively identify them as alien? i.e. to the exclusion of any other explanation (within the realm of physical possibility)?

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Yet when these leaks happen the very idea of them being impossible is used to dismiss them... seems a bit circular to me. 

Are these leaks of conclusive evidence?

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Secrets of aliens is leaked but it is this leak that is dismissed out of hand. 

The first photo is of a UFO taken in 1965 near Santa Ana Ca https://www.ocregister.com/2009/10/30/ocs-moment-in-ufo-history/

The second is A picture of a flying saucer photographed by farmer Paul Trent, over his farm in Minnville, Ore., on May 11, 1950. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinnville_UFO_photographs

While these photos aren't without some debunkers. Others disagree. 

What is the conclusive evidence that these objects are of alien origin?

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 

Notice the ground effect under the object. 

This would be a great example of how “evidence” is assessed. How do you know this is “ground effect” (whatever that means)? How do you know it’s actually under the object? (unless you just mean one is at a higher altitude, rather than ‘directly under’)

 

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I think the demand of what such evidence would be is unrealistic, what evidence of an extraterrestrial spacecraft would be sufficient?  I was once told that it had to be an actual piece of a spacecraft as though pieces of alien spacecraft would be falling off randomly. I once lived under the landing zone of an airport, large commercial airliners flew over head everyday and some were so low I could have thrown a rock and hit them but no pieces ever fell off. 

When I was in the navy, the plan of the week included the TFOA reports (Things Falling Off Aircraft). It happens quite a bit.

[Moontanman]

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

 

1. Is in the public domain, in the sense that independent groups of researches have ready access to it, which enables application of the scientific method

Done

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

2. Explicitly excludes all more probable explanations, ie misidentification, natural phenomena, experimental (terrestrial) technologies etc etc

done

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

3. Provides an explicit example of technology or biology that is manifestly not terrestrial

Done with some caveats, I am not sure how you would verify these things, the pictures I provided certainly show examples of unknown technology. While a terrestrial origin is improbable there is no way to prove it without actually having the objects in possession. 

24 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I recognise those pictures. They're from the McMinnville episode. They are "considered real", by gullible people who want UFOs to be something out of this world. The claim "considered real" is meaningless in this context. The event has been debunked by interested people who were open minded enough to spend time on it. They found evidence of a wire in the pics, and solid evidence that the original story contained falsehoods.

Why on earth would you write "considered real" as if it meant something? The object is considered real. A real wing mirror cover off an old pickup truck.

Please show some "evidence" the object was suspended by wires other than your assertion. Bruce Maccabee, an optical physicist for the U.S. Navy seems to disagree. No matter how good the evidence there will always be "debunkers" who only care about proving the sighting wrong no matter what, just like there are always true believers who think everything that cannot be readily identified must be an alien spacecraft. These extremes cannot be allowed to decide on the truth or lack thereof in the sightings. 

One arch debunker who worked for the military, his name escapes me at the moment but I haven't had my coffee yet and if you insist I'll look him up, but he claimed that the vast majority of UFO sighting could be shown to be slow moving meteors and comets. The statement is so ignorant it borders on the stupid and obtuse but it was claimed by a man who was so respected his opinion was seldom even questioned... Donald Howard Menzel was his name if my own memory serves me. 

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes, unknown. Unidentified. Not conclusive. Irresponsible to classify as alien.

Yet the pictures are clear enough that mistaking them for anything other than extraordinary is impossible. 

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t know what this means.

Sadly neither do it, it was late and I don't remember my thought processes at that moment. 

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

And can one conclusively identify them as alien? i.e. to the exclusion of any other explanation (within the realm of physical possibility)?

It depends, do we accept the evidence as presented or do we pronounce it a hoax? No third possibility exists IMHO. 

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

Are these leaks of conclusive evidence?

I include them only because historically the idea that a secret like UFOs was claimed not possible to keep due to inevitable leaks and the lack thereof.

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

What is the conclusive evidence that these objects are of alien origin?

They are extraordinary, many would make the claim this means alien but they could be angels or demons, interdimensional travelers, time travelers, an unknown terrestrial technology or even an unknown terrestrial civilization or a complete hoax. One thing they cannot be is something mundane and misidentified. 

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

This would be a great example of how “evidence” is assessed. How do you know this is “ground effect” (whatever that means)? How do you know it’s actually under the object? (unless you just mean one is at a higher altitude, rather than ‘directly under’)

These pictures have been studied by better men than me, this ground effect was said be associated with the object by these researchers. 

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

When I was in the navy, the plan of the week included the TFOA reports (Things Falling Off Aircraft). It happens quite a bit.

I only have my own experience on this but the idea of random "things" falling off an advanced interplanetary vehicle seems improbable. 

[mistermack]

35 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Please show some "evidence" the object was suspended by wires other than your assertion.

My assertion was that some people who investigated claimed evidence of a string or wire. 

But look what the "alien" fans are postulating, off the claims of a couple of suspect country hicks, and a few fuzzy photos. Not only have aliens visited McMinnville (and then left without saying hello !) but they also have found a way to counteract gravity, but were too selfish to share it with us humans. 

Since proof of anything is not available, it seems to be a case of common sense vs gullibility. 

What kind of weird world would it be, if aliens travelled billions and squillions of kilometers to reach earth, just to float around McMinnville for a few minutes, and then clear off without saying hello? And in what realm of physics is there even the possibility of solid objects of that kind being able to float around unaffected by gravity? 

You seem to think that the burden of proof rests equally on sceptics, as it does on fantastical claimants. That flies in the face of common sense. We know that people make up stories. It's part of human nature, and the motives are as varied as the people making them. And some people are extremely convincing liars. 

So I'm happy to file this with crop circles and alien abductions. Rubbish, unless proved otherwise.

I was once keen on a girl from McMinnville. About fifty years ago. So I got a bit of the story while it was still fairly fresh. Wish I'd made notes.

[Externet]

Am sorry for the mental fart.  The title I wrote shows 'FBI' and seems it is 'CIA'   Do a correction if deserved.-

Edited December 4, 2022 by Externet

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

My assertion was that some people who investigated claimed evidence of a string or wire. 

But look what the "alien" fans are postulating, off the claims of a couple of suspect country hicks, and a few fuzzy photos. Not only have aliens visited McMinnville (and then left without saying hello !) but they also have found a way to counteract gravity, but were too selfish to share it with us humans. 

Since proof of anything is not available, it seems to be a case of common sense vs gullibility. 

What kind of weird world would it be, if aliens travelled billions and squillions of kilometers to reach earth, just to float around McMinnville for a few minutes, and then clear off without saying hello? And in what realm of physics is there even the possibility of solid objects of that kind being able to float around unaffected by gravity? 

You seem to think that the burden of proof rests equally on sceptics, as it does on fantastical claimants. That flies in the face of common sense. We know that people make up stories. It's part of human nature, and the motives are as varied as the people making them. And some people are extremely convincing liars. 

So I'm happy to file this with crop circles and alien abductions. Rubbish, unless proved otherwise.

I was once keen on a girl from McMinnville. About fifty years ago. So I got a bit of the story while it was still fairly fresh. Wish I'd made notes.

So you assume a conclusion before seeing the evidence? 

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

My assertion was that some people who investigated claimed evidence of a string or wire. 

My assertion is that researchers have claimed no evidence of a string or wire. I can produce the work of the researchers who said no wire. Can you not produce the work of the researchers who said it was suspended from a wire? 

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

But look what the "alien" fans are postulating, off the claims of a couple of suspect country hicks, and a few fuzzy photos. Not only have aliens visited McMinnville (and then left without saying hello !) but they also have found a way to counteract gravity, but were too selfish to share it with us humans.

I hate to put it this way but this statement is misleading to say the least. I have demonstrated that photos exist that are not "fuzzy" and the motivations of aliens is not something we can really expect to understand. The idea that only country hicks make these claims is insulting to us country hicks. 

 

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Since proof of anything is not available, it seems to be a case of common sense vs gullibility. 

Again what would constitute proof? 

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What kind of weird world would it be, if aliens travelled billions and squillions of kilometers to reach earth, just to float around McMinnville for a few minutes, and then clear off without saying hello? And in what realm of physics is there even the possibility of solid objects of that kind being able to float around unaffected by gravity? 

Any sufficiently advanced technology would appear as magic to us.  

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You seem to think that the burden of proof rests equally on sceptics, as it does on fantastical claimants. That flies in the face of common sense. We know that people make up stories. It's part of human nature, and the motives are as varied as the people making them. And some people are extremely convincing liars. 

So all of the sighing are made by liars? 

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

So I'm happy to file this with crop circles and alien abductions. Rubbish, unless proved otherwise.

Dismissing the evidence as rubbish without showing why is rubbish.

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I was once keen on a girl from McMinnville. About fifty years ago. So I got a bit of the story while it was still fairly fresh. Wish I'd made notes.

Why did she see it? 

[exchemist]

16 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

So you assume a conclusion before seeing the evidence? 

No we don't assume a conclusion, we accept one. That's what we all do, all the time, when we don't have ready access to the data in question. We rely on the findings of others who have looked at it, ideally people with some relevant expertise in the field.

The basic problem with these claims is the lack of reproducible evidence. Thy are just aerial Bigfoot stories, basically: anecdotes from individuals that have not been corroborated by anyone with a record of competence or objectivity, mixed up with photography that may well be bogus and can't be verified. When you also take into account the lack of a credible hypothesis for why any of this stuff might be what its proponents claim, (e.g. why would aliens visit some obscure place in the US Midwest, carry out a couple of anal probes and then bugger off, without attempting to communicate or leave a forwarding address?), one is entitled to be sceptical. 

These photos you have produced are famous old flying saucer pics from the 1950s. That's very disappointing. Is that really the best you have? 

Edited December 4, 2022 by exchemist

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No we don't assume a conclusion, we accept one. That's what we all do, all the time, when we don't have ready access to the data in question. We rely on the findings of others who have looked at it, ideally people with some relevant expertise in the field.

The basic problem with these claims is the lack of reproducible evidence. Thy are just aerial Bigfoot stories, basically: anecdotes from individuals that have not been corroborated by anyone with a record of competence or objectivity, mixed up with photography that may well be bogus and can't be verified. These photos you have produced are famous old flying saucer pics from the 1950s. Is that really the best you have? 

Such photos avoid the blanket idea that they are all photoshopped but a huge number of modern photos exist and the number grows by leaps and bounds everyday but are easily dismissed by simply saying it could have been photoshopped. This idea of photoshop has pretty much destroyed the idea of photos being evidence of anything not just UFOs. If you want a more modern approach then feel free to watch this video in your spare time.  This is an interview of Garry Nolan where he talks about his research into the physical effects of UFOs on humans. It's long but very interesting and based in science not some redneck talking about anal probes. 

https://youtu.be/ShX-WM5TiXc

 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Such photos avoid the blanket idea that they are all photoshopped but a huge number of modern photos exist and the number grows by leaps and bounds everyday but are easily dismissed by simply saying it could have been photoshopped. This idea of photoshop has pretty much destroyed the idea of photos being evidence of anything not just UFOs. If you want a more modern approach then feel free to watch this video in your spare time.  This is an interview of Garry Nolan where he talks about his research into the physical effects of UFOs on humans. It's long but very interesting and based in science not some redneck talking about anal probes. 

https://youtu.be/ShX-WM5TiXc

 

OK the crack about anal probes was a bit below the belt -  as it were - I admit.

But look, photographs have been faked long before Photoshop was born or thought of, and I don't really want to watch a long video on a subject I am highly sceptical about. Bigfoot, ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster and similar stories show that people dream up all sorts of weird explanations for things they think they have observed. Nobody has yet produced any coherent, corroborated evidence for any of this, in spite of stories having been around for decades, let alone any kind of explanatory hypothesis that can be tested.  

In the case of the 1950s flying saucer craze, what is known is that there was widespread worry - hysteria even - about communism at the time, in the US. There were lots of movies about aliens landing and taking over, as a metaphor for fear of the communists. I ask myself why did these stories almost exclusively relate to the USA? Why not other countries? It seems to me the most credible explanations for those UFO stories are in the realm of social psychology, rather than hard science.   

Edited December 4, 2022 by exchemist

[Moontanman]

6 minutes ago, exchemist said:

OK the crack about anal probes was a bit below the belt -  as it were - I admit.

No problem, my hillbilly roots were showing a bit. 

6 minutes ago, exchemist said:

But look, photographs have been faked long before Photoshop was born or thought of, and I don't really want to watch a long video on a subject I am highly sceptical about. Bigfoot, ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster and similar stories show that people dream up all sorts of weird explanations for things they think they have observed. Nobody has yet produced any coherent, corroborated evidence for any of this, in spite of stories having been around for decades, let alone any kind of explanatory hypothesis that can be tested.

Yes you are of course correct that is why I posted two photos that many would say rise above faking. Of course hater gonna hate but believers are gonna believe no matter what. The key is to find a middle ground where you can judge the evidence apart from the extremes. 

6 minutes ago, exchemist said:

 

In the case of the 1950s flying saucer craze, what is known is that there was widespread worry - hysteria even - about communism at the time, in the US. There were lots of movies about aliens landing and taking over, as a metaphor for fear of the communists. I ask myself why did these stories almost exclusively relate to the USA? Why not other countries? It seems to me the most credible explanations for those UFO stories are in the realm of social psychology, rather than hard science.   

The UFO phenomena is world wide, the idea it only occurs in the US is not just wrong but it speaks to the provinciality of the US. Seriously, some of the best sightings come from places as diverse as Australia, Africa, Middle East, Asia, Indonesia, and South America  

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 

Yet the pictures are clear enough that mistaking them for anything other than extraordinary is impossible. 

What is the shape of the object in the 2nd photo.

 

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

It depends, do we accept the evidence as presented or do we pronounce it a hoax? No third possibility exists IMHO. 

Unidentified is a third option.

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I include them only because historically the idea that a secret like UFOs was claimed not possible to keep due to inevitable leaks and the lack thereof.

You still haven’t presented links of any leaks of conclusive evidence.

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

They are extraordinary, many would make the claim this means alien but they could be angels or demons, interdimensional travelers, time travelers, an unknown terrestrial technology or even an unknown terrestrial civilization or a complete hoax. One thing they cannot be is something mundane and misidentified. 

They can’t be mundane? What is the evidence that they can’t be? How do you conclusively rule out a pie tin thrown like a frisbee?

 

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

These pictures have been studied by better men than me, this ground effect was said be associated with the object by these researchers. 

Which you have apparently accepted without critical analysis, and no link so that anyone else could make comments

We can tell the light patch on the ground is close; if that’s standard road it’s no more than ~10 meters away. If the object is above it then it’s as wide as one lane of road. 2 meters. Containing all of the propulsion systems, fuel, life support, etc.

But you can’t really tell it’s directly above. It could be bigger and further away, or it could be smaller and closer. IIRC these were alleged to be tens of meters in diameter.

 

 

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What is the shape of the object in the 2nd photo.

Oblong from the perspective of the photo. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

Unidentified is a third option.

No, unidentified is the conclusion presented by the other options. Either it is a real photo of something unidentified and extraordinary or it is a hoax.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You still haven’t presented links of any leaks of conclusive evidence.

https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/former-air-force-chief-claims-he-once-saw-ufo-firing-at-nuke-missiles-launched-from-secret-base/

1 hour ago, swansont said:

They can’t be mundane? What is the evidence that they can’t be? How do you conclusively rule out a pie tin thrown like a frisbee?

The optics of the photos would rule this out but it would be covered by the Hoax option. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

Which you have apparently accepted without critical analysis, and no link so that anyone else could make comments

No i do not accept it, I simply bow to others who have studied this Bruce Maccabee who was named in the link. 

Quote

A detailed analysis:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.6587&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Bruce Maccabee also analyzed the photos some time ago, iirc.
All that said, the possibility remains that it is a hoax, though I very much doubt it.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

We can tell the light patch on the ground is close; if that’s standard road it’s no more than ~10 meters away. If the object is above it then it’s as wide as one lane of road. 2 meters. Containing all of the propulsion systems, fuel, life support, etc.

Why is it's size important? 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But you can’t really tell it’s directly above. It could be bigger and further away, or it could be smaller and closer. IIRC these were alleged to be tens of meters in diameter.

I cannot say exactly what the object was and I will not try to deceive you that I do. I am just bringing up things that have been photographed. I have my doubts that any photograph could be shown not be a hoax, proving a negative and all that but just because a hoax cannot be ruled out doesn't mean it is a hoax anymore than not being able to prove a hoax proves it is an alien spacecraft. That is why i try to say extraordinary object or even rather than concluding it is an alien spacecraft. 

The point of all of this is show that the idea that no evidence exists other than "lights in the sky" or "unsupported claims" exist. They do exist and just because they cannot be proven not to be a hoax doesn't mean they are, nor does the possibility of a hoax mean it is a hoax. All sightings must be judged on an individual basis and not simply an all encompassing proclamation. 

I know you are kicking my ass here but i will keep trying to get across my idea that something extraordinary has happened and our inability to explain it cannot be used as evidence against it. I know I come across as a conspiracy theorist but I honestly think it's quite probable that these sighting have been suppressed for some unknown reason for a very long time. The reason this has been suppressed could very well be quite mundane.

Ridicule is a powerful tool and using it to suppress an idea is wrong IMHO. To be fair and honest I do not accuse you personally of being part of a conspiracy. In fact I am quite sure that if actual proof was submitted you just might be at the front of the line to examine it but until it happens all we have, in many respects, is a trial and all we can do at this point is to the evidence as presented and argue for the validity of that evidence. Some of the evidence is good and some of it is bad but all of it, to me at least, the preponderance of the evidence so far presented points to something extraordinary going on. 

We have many scientists who are coming out, at the very least, as supporters of the idea that something exists that can be studied. From  Abraham (Avi) Loeb to other researchers like Garry Nolan studies are being done, finally real scientific investigations. What they will reveal is unknown and might open doors to ideas about everything from alien life to how the human brain is fooled into thinking it has seen the extraordinary. I think these studies are justified and are likely to yield results that might surprise everyone involved.   

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

They can’t be mundane? What is the evidence that they can’t be? How do you conclusively rule out a pie tin thrown like a frisbee?

I'd also suggest that citing one expert, Bruce Maccabee, as ruling out small objects, begs the question of how other photo analysis experts would interpret the pics.  If this is like global warming, there could be thousands of experts, a vast majority, who would offer compelling reasons to reject Maccabee's analysis.  I have no way to tell if Maccabee is a fringey guy on a similar footing with the GW is Myth crew.  (plenty of them have PhDs, too, and serve as shining examples that credentials do not guarantee an unbiased and competent data analysis)

I'm also unpersuaded of anything by sketchy reports of things falling off unidentified craft.  There was a case near Omaha, when I lived in that area, of some sort of molten material dripping from a UFO that hovered near a reservoir.  When recovered and analyzed, it was indistinguishable from terrestrial foundry slag.  A case where both Ockham's razor and Sagan's Law seemed applicable.

 

[mistermack]

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I have demonstrated that photos exist that are not "fuzzy"

I don't know what planet you are operating from. I have clipped the relevant bits from those photos you posted. See below : 

( I actually have higher definition versions somewhere, from when I looked at this a few years ago. They were just as vague )