FAQ
It is currently Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:12 am


Author Message
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:26 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
Dywyddyr wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
1952 washington DC sighting!
There is at east one sighting that was seen on multiple independent radar, multiple independent eye witnesses, both military and civilian, photographs, interaction with commercial and military aircraft.

Neither answers my question nor provides any actual point with regard to that question.



There is no smoking gun when I comes to UFOs, only degrees of strangeness, I'm not sure where you are going with that question so I'll answer to find out...

No, I would not say radar is infallible, a single radar can be broken in some way to produce blips, multiple independent radar detection of the same "object" is interesting, considering we use radar to detect nuclear attack I would hope that radar is more reliable than Joe Blow saying he say a light in the sky.


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:42 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Seeing as this thread appears to have been revived, I feel obliged to resurrect the following post of mine :

marnixR wrote:
it's a long time since i had a look at potential evidence for UFOs on the web, the most interesting being the french CNES site : A history of UAP research at CNES, with 22% unidentified + 41% unidentifiable

the crux is that, amongst all the observations, there's not a single one positively identified as being an extraterrestrial artefact

not exactly much to go on to start building a theory why IFOs are here

(btw, let's stop pretending we're talking about UFOs here - if they're really unidentified, that amounts to very little evidence until some degree of success can be made in identifying them)


First of all, officially, at least at the beginning of the UFO phenomena, UFO was not applied to anything seen in the sky that you didn't know what it was, UFO was only applied when they ran out of possible explanations, now days anything some jack ass can photoshop is called a UFO. I prefer the more exact definition but then again I wasn't consulted.

While is is indeed true no positive identification of alien technology have been found (I personally wonder what it would take to for an artifact to be confirmed as extraterrestrial) , most sightings lack enough information to really know what the sighting was but there are sightings with an embarrassment of data but still no explanation.

There are sighting that have lots of data but no conventional explanation can explain them, some are either something from someplace else or hallucinations or bald faced lies.

I rate things on my own scale #1 is "let me saddle my unicorn and I'll come over and take a look" #10 is this thing is crawling up my leg right now something has to be done. Most sightings are in the bottom three numbers, very few UFO sightings come close to #10.

In this thread I proposed a reasonable hypothesis as to their source and how to falsify that hypothesis. :shock:

But as I have said the Washington, DC 1952 sightings are very strange and difficult to simply dismiss honestly...


Top
Dywyddyr
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:23 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:53 pm
Posts: 82

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
No, I would not say radar is infallible, a single radar can be broken in some way to produce blips, multiple independent radar detection of the same "object" is interesting, considering we use radar to detect nuclear attack I would hope that radar is more reliable than Joe Blow saying he say a light in the sky.

Basically - and crudely - the only "advantage" that radar has is that it can be recorded and that multiple people can look at the screen at the same time.
But, then again, most people aren't aware that radars have a false signal rate (i.e. by their very nature they generate false "returns") - one which is usually classified or, at best, not talked about and, equally, most people think that radars track an object[1,2].

1 "Object" may not be the word - they're quite capable of picking up temperature inversions (i.e. where air density changes sharply) and other meteorological phenomena (which is why the current "buzz word" is UAP - Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon, rather than UFO[3]).
2 Military target-designating radars aside of course - most simply pick up the "object" on each sweep and assume that the same thing is being seen: the "path" is an interpolation but not necessarily true, especially if the returns are actually multiple, short-lived "whatevers" that just happen to give a return on that particular sweep i.e. not one object moving to different locations over time but multiple "objects" AT differing locations over time.
3 Because UFO presupposes that the "whatever" that is seen is a physical object and that it's flying, whereas aerial simply means it's in the sky.


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:01 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
Dywyddyr wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
No, I would not say radar is infallible, a single radar can be broken in some way to produce blips, multiple independent radar detection of the same "object" is interesting, considering we use radar to detect nuclear attack I would hope that radar is more reliable than Joe Blow saying he say a light in the sky.

Basically - and crudely - the only "advantage" that radar has is that it can be recorded and that multiple people can look at the screen at the same time.
But, then again, most people aren't aware that radars have a false signal rate (i.e. by their very nature they generate false "returns") - one which is usually classified or, at best, not talked about and, equally, most people think that radars track an object[1,2].

1 "Object" may not be the word - they're quite capable of picking up temperature inversions (i.e. where air density changes sharply) and other meteorological phenomena (which is why the current "buzz word" is UAP - Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon, rather than UFO[3]).
2 Military target-designating radars aside of course - most simply pick up the "object" on each sweep and assume that the same thing is being seen: the "path" is an interpolation but not necessarily true, especially if the returns are actually multiple, short-lived "whatevers" that just happen to give a return on that particular sweep i.e. not one object moving to different locations over time but multiple "objects" AT differing locations over time.
3 Because UFO presupposes that the "whatever" that is seen is a physical object and that it's flying, whereas aerial simply means it's in the sky.



Let's cut to the chase, I am BTW familiar with how radar works, what ever you call the phenomena, UFO UAO we both know that what is being implied is an alien space craft of some sort.

A sighting with multiple independent radars, one military, visual sightings of UFO in the area where the UFO was sighted, they even interacted with both a military jet and a passenger airliner. How much such evidence is needed?

Are you aware that meteorites were denied by the scientists of the time as rock blasted out of the earth by lightning or by volcanoes. Even when the meteorites fell on a small town by the hundred in just a few minutes time.

My point is that dismissing anything usual out of hand because common sense tells you it cannot be real is sad.


Top
Strange
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:11 pm
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 6:34 pm
Posts: 5

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
My point is that dismissing anything usual out of hand because common sense tells you it cannot be real is sad.


There are any number of ideas one could come up with based on things that are known to exist so resorting to things that are not known to exist is sadder.

Going from "we have absolutely no clue what it was or even if it was a thing" to "therefore aliens" is just delusional. (I'm not saying you are doing that, but plenty of people seem to.)


Top
Dywyddyr
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 1:31 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:53 pm
Posts: 82

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
A sighting with multiple independent radars, one military, visual sightings of UFO in the area where the UFO was sighted, they even interacted with both a military jet and a passenger airliner. How much such evidence is needed?

Yeah... again you avoid the point.
Your original remark was "Visual sightings are interesting, in fact the some of most high strangeness are often visual but visual alone is not reliable, Eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of evidence..." - as soon as there are multiple sources then the picture changes.
What I was pointing out is that, essentially, radar - on its own - is no more reliable than an eyewitness.

Quote:
My point is that dismissing anything usual out of hand because common sense tells you it cannot be real is sad.

Agreed.
On the other hand, what's "common sense" varies. As do the reasons for "dismissing out of hand" (and the latter may not actually be "out of hand").


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:26 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4758
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
My point is that dismissing anything usual out of hand because common sense tells you it cannot be real is sad.


I think you're missing what science is all about: since science can't prove anything in the mathematical sense, it tends to work with probabilities, and one of the consequences of that approach is that if you have the choice between an ordinary explanation and an extra-ordinary explanation, you have to prefer the ordinary one unless you have pretty good evidence that there is a case to answer for accepting the extra-ordinary explanation

When it comes to UFOs the evidence is just not solid enough to support an extra-ordinary claim
Hence probability makes me favour the ordinary explanation (i.e. it's all misidentification or lack of identifiable features), even though it's not enough for me to totally exclude the extra-ordinary option

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:35 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1895

Offline
marnix, why are you using uppercase letters? Are you okay?

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:55 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4758
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
it's when i type on my iPad - it tries to normalise what i type
+ since i try to minimise key strokes that means i let it

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:46 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1895

Offline
No, don't let it. You're not you when you write in uppercase.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 3:39 am
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
Strange wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
My point is that dismissing anything usual out of hand because common sense tells you it cannot be real is sad.


There are any number of ideas one could come up with based on things that are known to exist so resorting to things that are not known to exist is sadder.

Going from "we have absolutely no clue what it was or even if it was a thing" to "therefore aliens" is just delusional. (I'm not saying you are doing that, but plenty of people seem to.)


First of all I agree, idle speculation for no reason is pointless in a science context but you seem to be asserting there is no evidence when in fact there is. The evidence might not be good enough to assert aliens are visiting the earth but I think there is enough evidence to suggest an unknown phenomena is at work in at least some of these sightings.

Not more than a couple centuries ago anyone who claimed rocks fell from the sky was treated about the same way someone who claims to see a UFO.

Quote:
Yeah... again you avoid the point.
Your original remark was "Visual sightings are interesting, in fact the some of most high strangeness are often visual but visual alone is not reliable, Eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of evidence..." - as soon as there are multiple sources then the picture changes.
What I was pointing out is that, essentially, radar - on its own - is no more reliable than an eyewitness.


I agree, although i would like to think that radars which would be the first indication of a missile strike would be reliable.

Quote:
When it comes to UFOs the evidence is just not solid enough to support an extra-ordinary claim
Hence probability makes me favour the ordinary explanation (i.e. it's all misidentification or lack of identifiable features), even though it's not enough for me to totally exclude the extra-ordinary option


In the sighting I I listed earlier you had two radars reporting the same thing, one military and one civilian, hundreds if not thousands of people saw them, they interacted with both civilian and military airplanes and they were photographed as well. I know this is not proof but it is evidence that something happened in Washington, DC in 1952.


Now I will say upfront that I am not a UFO believer, I think it's an interesting phenomena, probably has several causes that are mistakenly lumped together.

For some reason many people think there is only two possibilities, witnesses are mistaken or witnesses are lying.

I would like to ask what would make up evidence of alien space craft visiting the Earth? What do you think is the best reason they are not visiting the Earth?

At no time have I asserted that aliens are visiting the Earth, all I am saying is there is one or more unknown phenomena that are being asserted as evidence of aliens in one context or another. When I quote sightings it's not to convert anyone but to show the phenomena isn't quite as ridiculous as some would have you believe.

Even if the UFO phenomena turns out to have nothing to do with aliens I think it is still interesting due to the effect it has on our citizens, at the very least UFOs represent a factor in the human mind that causes us to have similar hallucinations.

I think we are lucky enough to live when an actual mythology is forming, we get to watch how and why people started believing in things like gods, or aliens, or fairies and elves. The connection with the supernatural, at least on peoples minds, is obvious. The contactee movement of the 1950s is so like religion it's easy to see things like angels and demons coming from the people who asserted these things. It's just that in modern society we tend to see technology when our ancestors saw the supernatural in the unknown...

There is a good UFO video that makes it fairly easy to see that not everything being associated with UFOs belongs in the same category and both the ridiculous and things that make you scratch your head and wonder just what was that.

Now at the risk of being accused of argument from authority J. Allen Hynek, an Astronomer that was hired by the USAF to debunk UFOs started out as a staunch skeptic and didn't think there was anything to UFOs but years later he came away believing that UFOs were not of this Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek

Quote:
When Project Sign hired Hynek, he was skeptical of UFO reports. Hynek suspected that they were made by unreliable witnesses, or by persons who had misidentified man-made or natural objects. In 1948, Hynek said that "the whole subject seems utterly ridiculous," and described it as a fad that would soon pass.[4]For the first few years of his UFO studies, Hynek could safely be described as a debunker. He thought that a great many UFOs could be explained as prosaic phenomena misidentified by an observer. In his 1977 book, Hynek admitted that he enjoyed his role as a debunker for the Air Force. He also noted that debunking was what the Air Force expected of him.


Quote:
Hynek's opinions about UFOs began a slow and gradual shift. After examining hundreds of UFO reports over the decades (including some made by credible witnesses, including astronomers, pilots, police officers, and military personnel), Hynek concluded that some reports represented genuine empirical evidence.
Another shift in Hynek's opinions came after conducting an informal poll of his astronomer colleagues in the early 1950s. Among those he queried was Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the dwarf planet Pluto. Of 44 astronomers, five (over 11 percent) had seen aerial objects that they could not account for with established, mainstream science.[citation needed] Most of these astronomers had not widely shared their accounts for fear of ridicule or of damage to their reputations or careers (Tombaugh was an exception, having openly discussed his own UFO sightings[citation needed]). Hynek also noted that this 11% figure was, according to most polls, greater than those in the general public who claimed to have seen UFOs.[citation needed] Furthermore, the astronomers were presumably more knowledgeable about observing and evaluating the skies than the general public, so their observations were arguably more impressive. Hynek was also distressed by what he regarded as the dismissive or arrogant attitude of many mainstream scientists towards UFO reports and witnesses.


Now if we are going to discuss UFOs lets not make assumptions about ones intelligence based on nothing but beliefs... I think it would be interesting to break down sightings we have records of and discuss them in detail, some really are incidents of high strangeness.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy