FAQ
It is currently Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:56 am


Author Message
jimmydasaint
Post  Post subject: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:48 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:53 pm
Posts: 380
Location: Farnham Royal, Bucks

Offline
MODNOTE: The first two posts below were split from another thread. The third post below was the original OP of this thread.
_________________________________________


Moontanman wrote:
I am convinced that at least some UFOs are alien space craft and I have a falsifiable hypothesis concerning this....


If that comment was tongue-in-cheek, I apologise. However, where did the aliens come from, and at which speed? And why come here when there was a choice of potentially hundreds, if not millions, of Earth-like planets?

_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum quia non intelligor illis (I am a barbarian to those who do not know me) Ovid


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: things you're convinced of but can't prove  |  Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:56 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
jimmydasaint wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
I am convinced that at least some UFOs are alien space craft and I have a falsifiable hypothesis concerning this....


If that comment was tongue-in-cheek, I apologise. However, where did the aliens come from, and at which speed? And why come here when there was a choice of potentially hundreds, if not millions, of Earth-like planets?



We should start a new thread but I can explain or support all of those things... No I'm not a UFO nut, but you know me Jimmy...


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:55 am
User avatar

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

Offline
Ok, this is not how i wanted to start out here but since Jimmy asked and I am used to getting my ass kicked, here goes my UFO hypothesis.

UFOs (or their pilots) are residents of our solar system not travelers directly from another star.

It can be asserted that with technology not much more advanced than we currently have (no magical Star Trek type stuff) our galaxy could be colonized in a few million years or so. This assertion has always considered planets to be the most likely destination of any advanced civilization, I am going to suggest that this is not the case.

It makes much more sense for civilizations to build artificial habitats from the materials found around stars as in asteroids, Ort cloud and Kuiper belt objects. This would start out in their own home planetary systems utilizing the raw materials found there. Gravity wells of planets would be avoided due to energy demands of boosting any significant amounts of raw materials into orbit. Once established these artificial habitats become potential slow boats to the stars.

Civilizations that are already living in artificial habitats would not have any use for planets and the biospheres of different planets could very well be incompatible anyway.

Such civilizations would slowly travel from star to star establishing many artificial habitats until a tipping point was reached and some decide to travel to the next star for what ever reason. The entire galaxy could be colonized like this but more importantly many different species could colonize, even the same stars, with very little competition due to the vastness of the resources available.

Our entire galaxy could be a thriving inter species amalgam of artificial habitats inhabiting the far reaches of a great many stars, in fact stars that have no planets but have large could of orbiting debris might be more desirable than stars with planets. The size of the star would be irrelevant, earth like planets would be irrelevant.

Such aliens might be very interested in an emerging species if they lived in the same star system, this would explain a small number of them wanting to study us.

it might also explain the whole idea of supernatural beings from the sky our ancestors believed in as the aliens might want to experiment to see how easily controlled we are and other psychological aspects pertaining to us.

The most important part of this is that such aliens would have to have real aspects we could detect with infrared telescopes. I had assumed that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-field_Infrared_Survey_Explorer telescope would show these habitats due to their infrared signature but I have been told it wasn't sensitive enough to do this.

A habitat should, no matter how well camouflaged it was, radiate waste heat, in fact waste heat would be a major problem for any habitat that generates energy, If they are there we should be able to detect them.

Contrary to popular belief there are many credible UFO reports that are inexplicable not due to lack of evidence but that have an embarrassing amount of data to support them. Things like multiple radar returns, multiple non associated eye witnesses and photos.

sadly in recent times hoaxing UFO pictures has almost become a world wide contest and most recent photos are in serious doubt even if they are genuine. but the US air force can be shown to have orchestrated a disinformation campaign that stifled any serious investigation into UFOs.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:40 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
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)

_________________
"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
Ophiolite
Post  Post subject: Re: things you're convinced of but can't prove  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:53 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:00 pm
Posts: 261

Offline
jimmydasaint wrote:
However, where did the aliens come from, and at which speed?

If intelligent life capable of interstellar travel is commonplace, then they likely came from an astronomically close system. If it is rare, then they would have sought out the most likely candidate planets with advanced life and visited them. Thus, your implication that there is some problem with their point of origin is easily refuted.

The speed of their travel appears to be an appeal to the notion that it would take them too long to get here, therefore they would not bother coming. This quite ignores the following possibilities:

1. Generation starships.
2. Hibernation.
3. Very long life spans.

jimmydasaint wrote:
And why come here when there was a choice of potentially hundreds, if not millions, of Earth-like planets?
Have you been at the top of Mount Everest recently?


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:29 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
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)

There are many sightings that are simply inexplicable despite huge amounts of data, independent highly qualified observers, radar contact and photos. This class of cases represent something worth investigating and short of them landing on the white house lawn or crashing what physical evidence would you expect to find?


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:16 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
I'll state that I think it's possible there are visitors, but it's an extraordinary claim and IMO the current evidence isn't very extraordinary, yet.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:29 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
There are many sightings that are simply inexplicable despite huge amounts of data, independent highly qualified observers, radar contact and photos. This class of cases represent something worth investigating and short of them landing on the white house lawn or crashing what physical evidence would you expect to find?


nothing but a clear, unadulterated picture of what is undoubtedly a foreign craft or artefact, or even better, material evidence of such would satisfy me, it's true

even huge amounts of inexplicable data are nothing but an indication of our lack of knowledge of the world around us, and while they may be worth investigating, they are in our present state of knowledge NOT evidence for alien spacecraft or aliens visiting us

_________________
"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
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:02 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
There are many sightings that are simply inexplicable despite huge amounts of data, independent highly qualified observers, radar contact and photos. This class of cases represent something worth investigating and short of them landing on the white house lawn or crashing what physical evidence would you expect to find?


Quote:
nothing but a clear, unadulterated picture of what is undoubtedly a foreign craft or artefact,


This we have, in fact we have photos that are undoubtedly of something not of human origin. Experts in the fields of photographic analysis say the photos are what they appear to but of course a photo is not real evidence...

Quote:
or even better, material evidence of such would satisfy me, it's true


I think that is a bit unreasonable to expect.

Quote:
even huge amounts of inexplicable data are nothing but an indication of our lack of knowledge of the world around us, and while they may be worth investigating, they are in our present state of knowledge NOT evidence for alien spacecraft or aliens visiting us


How about this?

http://www.nicap.org/coyne.htm


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:05 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
This photo has been subjected to intense analysis and has been deemed a real photo of a real object in the sky, no plausible explanation exists...

Image


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:06 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
But as i said before my hypothesis is falsifiable, we can check and see if they are in our solar system...


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:52 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
But if the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer telescope didn't find anything, and neither have any of our thousands of other ground based systems used for reviewing visual light, infrared, and other sections of the spectrum in our sky, then what do you think could?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:10 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
This photo has been subjected to intense analysis and has been deemed a real photo of a real object in the sky, no plausible explanation exists...

Image


were the negatives available, to see if there were several attempts to throw a discus in such a way that it looked like a flying saucer ?

(it's been done before, you know)

_________________
"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
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:36 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
This photo has been subjected to intense analysis and has been deemed a real photo of a real object in the sky, no plausible explanation exists...

Image


were the negatives available, to see if there were several attempts to throw a discus in such a way that it looked like a flying saucer ?

(it's been done before, you know)



No, in this particular case that was ruled out. here is the wiki page concerning the photos, they have had their detractors but the debunking has been shown to be false and the photos still stand. Dr Bruce Maccabee an optical physicist for the Navy who has debunked many UFO sightings, in the spirit of full disclosure he is an UFOlogist but has been instrumental in showing many sightings to be false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinnvill ... hotographs


Last edited by Moontanman on Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:39 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
iNow wrote:
But if the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer telescope didn't find anything, and neither have any of our thousands of other ground based systems used for reviewing visual light, infrared, and other sections of the spectrum in our sky, then what do you think could?



I actually thought WISE would either confirm or deny this but WISE wasn't capable of the precision needed to find such small objects so far away... Earth bound telescopes cannot see into the infrared well enough to falsify this either...


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:58 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
you see, that's my issue with UFO photos, even the ones that haven't been disproved conclusively : they're so maddeningly, tantalisingly vague, and in the same vague way, unsatisfactory - they may be evidence, but evidence for what ? it could be extraterrestrial crafts, but equally it could be something different altogether (including a fake)

_________________
"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
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
marnixR wrote:
you see, that's my issue with UFO photos, even the ones that haven't been disproved conclusively : they're so maddeningly, tantalisingly vague, and in the same vague way, unsatisfactory - they may be evidence, but evidence for what ? it could be extraterrestrial crafts, but equally it could be something different altogether (including a fake)



yes, they could be fakes and the vast majority were fakes but some photos have withstood all scrutiny and some sightings are simply inexplicable.

here are some more pictures

http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures.html

Older pictures from the 50's and before hold more weight with me due to difficulty in faking them at that time. that doesn't make them all real but some are inexplicable for sure...

but we are ignoring the reported sightings that included radar contact and multiple unrelated witnesses...

Again, let me stress, i am not asserting these necessarily as alien space craft but i think the phenomena deserves more than the brush off it receives currently.

the US air Force managed to make sure the subject was ridiculed to the point of anyone who took it seriously was a fool, that is not how science should work...


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:31 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
I would like to add that when i was a young man I got caught up in the whole crazy circus surrounding UFOs, my natural curiosity got the better of me for a while but my skepticism eventually took over and I became an extreme skeptic along the line of "if most of them are demonstrably fakes the rest must be as well" but subsequent research into the available data convinced me that something odd was going on, possibly something to do with the human psyche but some reports by extremely qualified observers as well as radar contacts convinced me it was possible that some of them were real not this earth nuts and bolts craft.

the wall of ridicule you run into at the mention of UFOs is undeserved...


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:19 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
I am going to recommend a video, normally i think UFO docudramas are shite, they are almost always biased to the point of the ridiculous. This show points out the ridiculous as well as the puzzling, i recommend it highly, it is also available on net flicks...



Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:56 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Moontanman, is that the reason you joined this forum ? post a number of times on a favourite hobby horse + when no-one says "hey that's great!", you just leave ?

surely there's other things that could be discussed - apart from UFOs, that is

_________________
"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
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 7:09 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
I need to stick up for moontanman here. I invited him to TSF having interacted with him on multiple other boards. He has a lot to offer. UFOs are just one of his many focus areas, but it's one he's passionate about... and one that probably gets blown off and brushed aside nearly every time he brings it up. IIRC, he only opened this thread to begin with b/c he was challenged in his introduction post.

He probably would be more active here if there were more posters, and I don't think his inactivity is because people disagreed with him on the UFO idea. He's perfectly fine with people disagreeing with him from what I've experienced.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:46 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Moontanman, is that the reason you joined this forum ? post a number of times on a favourite hobby horse + when no-one says "hey that's great!", you just leave ?

surely there's other things that could be discussed - apart from UFOs, that is



I apologize, I have been busy with real world problems and failed to check back on this thread, i am well aware that i am defending a virtually indefensible position but I do conform to empirical evidence not hype and showmanship...

My main assertion is that UFOs are a phenomena that deserves better than you tube fakery contests and automatic derision...


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:48 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
My main assertion is that UFOs are a phenomena that deserves better than you tube fakery contests and automatic derision...


i'm sure you're right, provided you can convince me that there's a case to answer
in any branch of knowledge that purely depends on observational evidence there will always be items that can't be explained to everybody's satisfaction - the problem is that the available evidence is no longer open for more in-depth investigation, which this type of investigation a bit of a dead end

_________________
"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
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 11:08 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
My main assertion is that UFOs are a phenomena that deserves better than you tube fakery contests and automatic derision...


i'm sure you're right, provided you can convince me that there's a case to answer
in any branch of knowledge that purely depends on observational evidence there will always be items that can't be explained to everybody's satisfaction - the problem is that the available evidence is no longer open for more in-depth investigation, which this type of investigation a bit of a dead end


Obviously and yet making an attempt to seriously look for evidence is so automatically derided no one can afford to make the effort and keep their respect in the science community. Leaves the field wide open for crack pots which further denigrates any efforts to find evidence. Couple that with government cover ups of sightings and evidence such as radar traces and an intense effort by hoaxers and you have the perfect storm for pseudo science.

I suspect religion has a connection to the phenomena as well...

The subject has not been scientifically investigated, J. Allen Hynek who first worked for the government to help them cover up was adamant about that.

As for convincing you.. well how much time do you have? What would it seriously take? As i said before expecting a piece of a UFO to fall from the sky and have properties that no earthly object could possibly have is a bit much to expect...

It reminds me very much of meteorites, at one time it was crazy to say meteorites fell from the sky, all evidence was ignored or assumed to be hoaxes and some was hoaxes. I think we are at that stage with the study of UFOs.

There is quite a bit more to it than misidentified lights in the sky...


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:41 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
i'm sure there's enough in this world that we don't yet understand, hence the concept of UFOs i'm OK with, just not the insistence that it must automatically mean alien spacecraft

_________________
"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
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:33 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
marnixR wrote:
i'm sure there's enough in this world that we don't yet understand, hence the concept of UFOs i'm OK with, just not the insistence that it must automatically mean alien spacecraft



That is of course the $64,000 question. First of all, like many things, you have to make sure you are using the same definition to have a fruitful discussion. UFO in common usage can mean anything you see in the sky you don't for sure what it is. But the original military definition had to do with something observed moving in the sky that defied explanation after it had been studied, something that had plenty of data but no reasonable explanation.

Something glimpsed but could have been any number of things was not a UFO.

So technically an unknown light in the sky would not be a UFO... however it's also important to remember that the first government study of the UFO phenomena asserted that the estimate of the situation was the unexplained craft were interplanetary vehicles of an unknown source... they were not called UFOs at that time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimate_of_the_Situation

One of the main influences of the estimate of the situation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiles-Whi ... _Encounter


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:55 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
A few more terms the military has coined to describe the phenomena

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastwalkers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fireballs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter

and a wiki link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO

Quote:
USAF Regulation 200-2
Air Force Regulation 200-2,[33] issued in 1953 and 1954, defined an Unidentified Flying Object ("UFOB") as "any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object." The regulation also said UFOBs were to be investigated as a "possible threat to the security of the United States" and "to determine technical aspects involved." The regulation went on to say that "it is permissible to inform news media representatives on UFOB's when the object is positively identified as a familiar object," but added: "For those objects which are not explainable, only the fact that ATIC [Air Technical Intelligence Center] will analyze the data is worthy of release, due to many unknowns involved."[34][35]


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:38 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimate_of_the_Situation


i don't know : articles like this fill me with something that triggers my pseudo-sensors

the conjunction of a so-called suppressed report with that of a so-called repressed UFO crash screams out "conspiracy theory", and i'm sorry but the probability of the truthfulness of most conspiracy theories is extremely low

_________________
"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
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:00 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimate_of_the_Situation


i don't know : articles like this fill me with something that triggers my pseudo-sensors

the conjunction of a so-called suppressed report with that of a so-called repressed UFO crash screams out "conspiracy theory", and i'm sorry but the probability of the truthfulness of most conspiracy theories is extremely low



I agree, inmost cases you would be correct but this is not really a conspiracy several high ranking officers have come forward admitting the document was real but derided the authors of it... It's really not proof but it is part of the puzzle...

The case that caused to estimate of the situation to be written was impossible to explain conventionally, another case that rates high in my estimate... physical evidence was found...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora_incident


Top
SkinWalker
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:26 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:57 pm
Posts: 432

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
I suspect religion has a connection to the phenomena as well...


I wrote something about this years ago... it's probably on my blog somewhere. I'll link it later if I find it.

Moontanman wrote:
The subject has not been scientifically investigated, J. Allen Hynek who first worked for the government to help them cover up was adamant about that.


The subject actually *has* been scientifically investigated. More than once. You might look for a book that Carl Sagan co-authored that details ufology from a scientific perspective. It was a good read.

Moontanman wrote:
As for convincing you.. well how much time do you have? What would it seriously take? As i said before expecting a piece of a UFO to fall from the sky and have properties that no earthly object could possibly have is a bit much to expect...
DNA traces from it's occupants would be quite sufficient

Moontanman wrote:
It reminds me very much of meteorites, at one time it was crazy to say meteorites fell from the sky, all evidence was ignored or assumed to be hoaxes and some was hoaxes. I think we are at that stage with the study of UFOs.
Interestingly enough, the mineral composition of meteorites is evidence of extraterrestrial origin.

Moontanman wrote:
There is quite a bit more to it than misidentified lights in the sky...


Agreed. I think there is a large human element that is overlooked which includes the innate need to find patterns and associations. Essentially, our way of thinking which is more and more appearing to be something hard-wired in the human brain (vis-à-vis writers like Ramachandran, Shermer, et al).

As far as "government coverups," there are undoubtedly some "sightings" that are UFO by the public that are kept quite by the government, but these are when new aerospace technologies are being tested or employed, such as when the Stealth Bomber was developed. There are no coverups of space aliens. Such a conspiracy in a government that can't keep a blow job secret would not be possible. But "Loose Change" followers would likely disagree...


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:39 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
SkinWalker wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
I suspect religion has a connection to the phenomena as well...

I wrote something about this years ago... it's probably on my blog somewhere. I'll link it later if I find it.

I'd like to read it.

SkinWalker wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
The subject has not been scientifically investigated, J. Allen Hynek who first worked for the government to help them cover up was adamant about that.

The subject actually *has* been scientifically investigated. More than once. You might look for a book that Carl Sagan co-authored that details ufology from a scientific perspective. It was a good read.

I read the book, it was mostly a debunking of easily ridiculed reports. There are a number of reports that are simply inexplicable and not due to lack of data.

SkinWalker wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
As for convincing you.. well how much time do you have? What would it seriously take? As i said before expecting a piece of a UFO to fall from the sky and have properties that no earthly object could possibly have is a bit much to expect...

DNA traces from it's occupants would be quite sufficient

That would assume both physical contact and the assumption they use the same nucleotides we do.

SkinWalker wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
It reminds me very much of meteorites, at one time it was crazy to say meteorites fell from the sky, all evidence was ignored or assumed to be hoaxes and some was hoaxes. I think we are at that stage with the study of UFOs.

Interestingly enough, the mineral composition of meteorites is evidence of extraterrestrial origin.

At the time there was no way to know what extraterrestrial minerals were and in fact the extraterrestrial origin was confirmed before we knew what to look for.

SkinWalker wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
There is quite a bit more to it than misidentified lights in the sky...

Agreed. I think there is a large human element that is overlooked which includes the innate need to find patterns and associations. Essentially, our way of thinking which is more and more appearing to be something hard-wired in the human brain (vis-à-vis writers like Ramachandran, Shermer, et al).


I think you are ignoring reports that are not subject to interpretation. a moving light in the sky is one thing but the cases I sighted so far could not be explained in that manner.

SkinWalker wrote:
As far as "government coverups," there are undoubtedly some "sightings" that are UFO by the public that are kept quite by the government, but these are when new aerospace technologies are being tested or employed, such as when the Stealth Bomber was developed. There are no coverups of space aliens. Such a conspiracy in a government that can't keep a blow job secret would not be possible. But "Loose Change" followers would likely disagree...
[/quote]

J. Allen Hynek who for a while was a government debunker and was privy to the cover up efforts states quite clearly there was a cover up, what they were covering up can be debated but there was a cover up.


Last edited by iNow on Tue Mar 19, 2013 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fixed busted quotes


Top
SkinWalker
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:32 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:57 pm
Posts: 432

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
SkinWalker wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
I suspect religion has a connection to the phenomena as well...

I wrote something about this years ago... it's probably on my blog somewhere. I'll link it later if I find it.

I'd like to read it.


You can find it at http://uta.academia.edu/CarlFeagans/Papers

Moontanman wrote:
SkinWalker wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
The subject has not been scientifically investigated, J. Allen Hynek who first worked for the government to help them cover up was adamant about that.

The subject actually *has* been scientifically investigated. More than once. You might look for a book that Carl Sagan co-authored that details ufology from a scientific perspective. It was a good read.

I read the book, it was mostly a debunking of easily ridiculed reports. There are a number of reports that are simply inexplicable and not due to lack of data.


I'm not sure we're talking about the same text. I was referring to UFO's: A Scientific Debate, edited by Carl Sagan and Thornton Page (1972: Cornell University Press). The table of contents is:

Part I: Background
1 Education and the UFO Phenomenon
2 Historical Perspectives: Photos of UFOs
3 Astronomers' Views on UFO's

Part II: Observations
4 Twenty-one Years of UFO Reports
5 Science in Default: Twenty-two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations
6 UFO's - The Modern Myth
7 Unusual Radar Echoes
8 Motion Pictures of UFO's

Part III: Social and Psychological Aspects
9 Sociological Perspectives on UFO Reports
10 Psychology and Epistemology of UFO Interpretations
11 Psychiatry and UFO Reports
12 On the Abilities and Limitations of Witnesses of UFO's and Similar Phenomena
13 Influence of the Press and Other Mass Media

Part IV: Retrospective and Perspective
14 UFO's: The Extraterrestrial and Other Hypotheses
15 The Nature of Scientific Evidence: A Summary

This seemed quite a bit more than a "debunking of easily ridiculed reports."

Moontanman wrote:
SkinWalker wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
As for convincing you.. well how much time do you have? What would it seriously take? As i said before expecting a piece of a UFO to fall from the sky and have properties that no earthly object could possibly have is a bit much to expect...

DNA traces from it's occupants would be quite sufficient

That would assume both physical contact and the assumption they use the same nucleotides we do.


And yet you get my meaning. At a cellular level, an extraterrestrial life form would have some analog to DNA that could be examined. If we can extract DNA from our Neandethal cousins from over 30 kya, surely we could swab an alien comb, tootbrush, washcloth, (or some analogous object to which organic material clings). If not replicating protein strings, then something else. Something that would clearly be alien origin. To date, nothing is available. The only assumptions being made is that extraterrestrial lifeforms are sufficiently different from terrestrial that they would stand out under examination.

Moontanman wrote:
SkinWalker wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
It reminds me very much of meteorites, at one time it was crazy to say meteorites fell from the sky, all evidence was ignored or assumed to be hoaxes and some was hoaxes. I think we are at that stage with the study of UFOs.

Interestingly enough, the mineral composition of meteorites is evidence of extraterrestrial origin.

At the time there was no way to know what extraterrestrial minerals were and in fact the extraterrestrial origin was confirmed before we knew what to look for.


Who cares? We're no longer in that time. Indeed, the very methods of science developed since then may be all that's needed.

Moontanman wrote:
SkinWalker wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
There is quite a bit more to it than misidentified lights in the sky...

Agreed. I think there is a large human element that is overlooked which includes the innate need to find patterns and associations. Essentially, our way of thinking which is more and more appearing to be something hard-wired in the human brain (vis-à-vis writers like Ramachandran, Shermer, et al).


I think you are ignoring reports that are not subject to interpretation. a moving light in the sky is one thing but the cases I sighted so far could not be explained in that manner.


This is truly an argument from ignorance (it cannot be explained, therefore...). Honestly, I haven't read the entire thread that includes case you may have cited. I have, however, looked at many, many UFO reports over the years and I've yet to see one that cannot be explained by far more parsimonious and often relatively mundane explanations that are alternative to "space aliens." If time permits, I'll take a look at your cases in this thread, but to save time, which do you find the most compelling?

Moontanman wrote:
SkinWalker wrote:
As far as "government coverups," there are undoubtedly some "sightings" that are UFO by the public that are kept quite by the government, but these are when new aerospace technologies are being tested or employed, such as when the Stealth Bomber was developed. There are no coverups of space aliens. Such a conspiracy in a government that can't keep a blow job secret would not be possible. But "Loose Change" followers would likely disagree...


J. Allen Hynek who for a while was a government debunker and was privy to the cover up efforts states quite clearly there was a cover up, what they were covering up can be debated but there was a cover up.


Why should I take Hynek's word for it? I'd rather see the evidence of a coverup, and there's been none that presented that has withstood even moderate scrutiny that I'm aware of.

I have to say, however, that many of the arguments above that lean in favor of a UFO-space alien connection are nearly identical in structure to the arguments theists posit for their particular brands of religion/deities.


Top
SkinWalker
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:49 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:57 pm
Posts: 432

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
This photo has been subjected to intense analysis and has been deemed a real photo of a real object in the sky, no plausible explanation exists...

Image


A thread suspending a hubcap from the power line above or a disk-shaped object the size of a hubcap or hat thrown in the air and photographed are both very plausible explanations. So to say, "no plausible explanation exists..." is really disingenuous. Moreover, these are far, far more parsimonious explanations than space aliens.

I'm now highly suspicious of any other "reports that are simply inexplicable and not due to lack of data" that you might suggest.

What would you call the most compelling example (please don't say the hubcap photo)?


Top
tridimity
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 6:52 am

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:55 pm
Posts: 1117

Offline
Moontanman - the object in the photo could well be a bit of grit on the camera lens. Of thectwo possibilities, which is the most probable according to all available evidence: the object is a bit of grit on the camera lens; the object is intelligent extraterrestrial life? You arecwasting your time and, come to think of it, so am I :(

_________________
gone also


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:15 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
tridimity wrote:
Moontanman - the object in the photo could well be a bit of grit on the camera lens. Of thectwo possibilities, which is the most probable according to all available evidence: the object is a bit of grit on the camera lens; the object is intelligent extraterrestrial life? You arecwasting your time and, come to think of it, so am I :(



So you would assume the people who took the picture are lying rather than consider the possibility they took a picture of a real object? BTW extensive tests by experts have several times come to the conclusion this was a real object not a flaw in the film. If this was the only picture or sighting ever made then you might be able to justify this and while I'm not screaming aliens the idea they all must be lies or hoaxes doesn't sit well with me, some obviously are hoaxes some obviously are not. Can you really dismiss multiple independent witnesses, photos, radar contacts, physical traces and even pieces?

What would convince you the subject needed to be studied? We at this time have the technology to detect anomalous objects entering to the earths area (and we do detect these anomalies) and maybe even the solar system as a whole. Should we continue to say "nah, can't be real, ignore it?"

So what would constitute evidence worthy of further investigation for you?


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 6:49 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
So you would assume the people who took the picture are lying rather than consider the possibility they took a picture of a real object?

Not necessarily. They could be sincere in their thoughts, but simply mistaken about what that object actually is. However, fraud is not uncommon among humanity, and I know that you know this given your interactions with religious nutters all these years. Sometimes people are full on lying, and other times they just believe something that is false or unsupported. If it's so common there, there is no reason it might not be similarly common on this subject, too.

For me, I suspect there are definitely aliens out there. In parallel with that, though, I also don't find any of the evidence or similar things presented to me thus far compelling enough to think visitations to Earth are occurring / have occurred.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:41 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
iNow wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
So you would assume the people who took the picture are lying rather than consider the possibility they took a picture of a real object?

Not necessarily. They could be sincere in their thoughts, but simply mistaken about what that object actually is. However, fraud is not uncommon among humanity, and I know that you know this given your interactions with religious nutters all these years. Sometimes people are full on lying, and other times they just believe something that is false or unsupported. If it's so common there, there is no reason it might not be similarly common on this subject, too.

For me, I suspect there are definitely aliens out there. In parallel with that, though, I also don't find any of the evidence or similar things presented to me thus far compelling enough to think visitations to Earth are occurring / have occurred.



On this particular case the disconnect I see is that the picture is of something real , this is one of the most investigated pictures/sightings ever, experts, even modern ones have concluded it is not a fake, it was a picture of an actual object. If I remember correctly it was thought to have been in the neighborhood of 30 feet across the only flaw ever suggested was the time the object was photographed and this has been disputed by modern analysis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinnvill ... hotographs

Quote:
In 1967 the negatives were found in the files of the United Press International (UPI), a news service which had merged with INS years earlier. (Clark, 374) The negatives were then loaned to William Hartmann, an astronomer who was working as an investigator for the Condon Committee, a government-funded UFO research project based at the University of Colorado at Boulder. (Clark, 374) The Trents were not immediately informed that their "lost" negatives had been found. Hartmann interviewed the Trents and was impressed by their sincerity; the Trents never received any money for their photos, and he could find no evidence that they had sought any fame or fortune from them. (Clark, 375) In Hartmann's analysis, he wrote to the Condon Committee that "This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical, appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses." (Clark, 375)


Quote:
In the 1980s two UFO skeptics, Philip Klass and Robert Sheaffer, would argue that the photos were faked, and that the entire event was a hoax. Their primary argument was that shadows on a garage in the left-hand side of the photos proved that the photos were taken in the morning rather than in the early evening, as the Trents had claimed. Klass and Sheaffer argued that since the Trents had apparently lied about the time the photos were taken, their entire story was thus suspect. (Clark, 375) They believed that the Trents had suspended the "UFO" from power lines visible at the top of the photos; and that the object may have been the detached rear-view mirror of a vehicle. When Sheaffer sent his studies on the case to William Hartmann, Hartmann withdrew the positive assessment of the case he had sent to the Condon Committee. However, Dr. Maccabee offered a rebuttal to the Klass-Sheaffer theory by arguing that cloud conditions in the McMinnville area on the evening of the sighting could have caused the shadows, and that a close analysis of the UFO indicated that it was not suspended from the power lines and was in fact located some distance above the Trent's farm; thus, in his opinion, the Klass-Sheaffer theory was flawed. (Clark, 375)


http://brumac.8k.com/trent1.html

Another not often cited part of this is that many photographs of a similar if not identical object have been taken all over the world...

Phillip J. Klass one of the most respected UFO debunkers was so emotional about UFOs having to be hoaxes or natural objects he actually suggested some sightings were of slow comets... both sides seem to be willing to go to any length to show their side is correct.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:47 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
So, assuming the photo is of a real object that is approximately 30ft in diameter, it could still very well be some sort of experimental plane with military origin.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:30 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
iNow wrote:
So, assuming the photo is of a real object that is approximately 30ft in diameter, it could still very well be some sort of experimental plane with military origin.



In 1950 that seems unlikely, did you read the summery bu Dr. Bruce Maccabee? He goes into great scientific detail of his investegation.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:20 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
In 1950 that seems unlikely, did you read the summery bu Dr. Bruce Maccabee? He goes into great scientific detail of his investegation.

Unlikely, maybe. Not impossible, and much less unlikely than visitors from several galaxies away, IMO. I'm not saying I'm certain, it's just more likely from my perspective. Also, just because it was 1950 doesn't mean there weren't some crazy amazing aircraft being tested and tried to beat those darned rooskies. ;)

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
SkinWalker
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:28 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:57 pm
Posts: 432

Offline
I see no reason to think that it's anything more significant than a hubcap-sized object. If memory serves, there were two of these photos, taken at slightly differing angles. A bit of physics and understanding of photography reveals that these are photos of a small object in the foreground rather than the back ground.

And I believe the photographer(s) new very well what it was and that it's a complete and utter hoax.


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:35 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
SkinWalker wrote:
I see no reason to think that it's anything more significant than a hubcap-sized object. If memory serves, there were two of these photos, taken at slightly differing angles. A bit of physics and understanding of photography reveals that these are photos of a small object in the foreground rather than the back ground.

And I believe the photographer(s) new very well what it was and that it's a complete and utter hoax.



Did you read the link i provided?

http://brumac.8k.com/trent1.html


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:37 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
SkinWalker wrote:
I see no reason to think that it's anything more significant than a hubcap-sized object. If memory serves, there were two of these photos, taken at slightly differing angles. A bit of physics and understanding of photography reveals that these are photos of a small object in the foreground rather than the back ground.

And I believe the photographer(s) new very well what it was and that it's a complete and utter hoax.



What you believe is not meaningful any more than i believe the moon is made of green cheese...


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:09 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Perhaps you've seen this before, but it seems relevant here. It was posted this morning by swansont on his blog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=NSJElZwEI8o



http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/13365
Quote:
This may be a tad long for some people, but I think it’s worth it. Neil DeGrasse Tyson patiently explaining many of the reasons the so-called evidence for UFOs is rejected. It also couples nicely with why you should think like a scientist over at Uncertain Principles, because the UFO crowd could use a good dose.

Specifically,
Quote:
Stripped to its essentials, science is a four-step process: you look at something interesting in the world, you think about why it might work that way, you test your idea with further observations and experiments, and you tell everybody you know what you found.

Any group falling into the argument-from-ignorance pit that Tyson describes are skimping on step 2, when they leap to the conclusion that, e.g. what they saw is an alien, rather than thoroughly thinking about/investigating other possibilities, and then they completely omit step 3, proceeding straight to 4. (5, of course, is right out)

Tyson gives one example of step 3 — grabbing some physical object if you’re ever abducted. There are other possibilities, but they have to better than blurry pictures or videos. There’s really no excuse, either, because there are plenty of amateur/citizen scientists out there, doing quality, rigorous work. The UFO crowd refuses to live up to that standard, and they will continue to be marginalized as a result. (They’ll be marginalized if/when they come up empty-handed, of course, but that shouldn’t stop someone who is convinced they will find the crucial evidence)

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:36 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
iNow wrote:
Perhaps you've seen this before, but it seems relevant here. It was posted this morning by swansont on his blog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=NSJElZwEI8o



http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/13365
Quote:
This may be a tad long for some people, but I think it’s worth it. Neil DeGrasse Tyson patiently explaining many of the reasons the so-called evidence for UFOs is rejected. It also couples nicely with why you should think like a scientist over at Uncertain Principles, because the UFO crowd could use a good dose.

Specifically,
Quote:
Stripped to its essentials, science is a four-step process: you look at something interesting in the world, you think about why it might work that way, you test your idea with further observations and experiments, and you tell everybody you know what you found.

Any group falling into the argument-from-ignorance pit that Tyson describes are skimping on step 2, when they leap to the conclusion that, e.g. what they saw is an alien, rather than thoroughly thinking about/investigating other possibilities, and then they completely omit step 3, proceeding straight to 4. (5, of course, is right out)

Tyson gives one example of step 3 — grabbing some physical object if you’re ever abducted. There are other possibilities, but they have to better than blurry pictures or videos. There’s really no excuse, either, because there are plenty of amateur/citizen scientists out there, doing quality, rigorous work. The UFO crowd refuses to live up to that standard, and they will continue to be marginalized as a result. (They’ll be marginalized if/when they come up empty-handed, of course, but that shouldn’t stop someone who is convinced they will find the crucial evidence)



I've seen it, i thought Tyson hit the kid with a cheep shot, he went to the least likely scenario, one that has pretty much been shown to be not associated with UFOs and then ridiculed it as though that was definitive in some way about UFOs, I think he tore down a straw man.

This thread started because i feel like i have a falsifiable hypothesis concerning UFOs and because I think they deserve something more than automatic ridicule. I do agree the subject is so full of crack pots it's difficult to have a meaningful discussion about it but automatic ridicule of anyone who wants to discuss it instead of showing their argument to be false is wrong...

The Trent photo I gave a link to is a case in point, no matter how many experts conceded the photo is of a real distant object it never fails that most would rather assume the experts wrong and the people who were there hoaxers than just admit this is an unknown, admitting it is an unknown suggests that there might be something to the extra terrestrial hypothesis and of course everyone knows "stones can't fall from the sky"...

As i have said I do not know what UFOs are, i do know that when UFO is part of a real discussion we are not talking about lights in the sky, a UFO is something inexplicable, something that cannot be explained as an ordinary object, lights in the sky can be anything, a structured object that cannot be identified as belonging to any technology we know of is a UFO, saying other wise is like saying a theory is anything some one thinks is correct...


Top
SkinWalker
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:34 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:57 pm
Posts: 432

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
SkinWalker wrote:
I see no reason to think that it's anything more significant than a hubcap-sized object. If memory serves, there were two of these photos, taken at slightly differing angles. A bit of physics and understanding of photography reveals that these are photos of a small object in the foreground rather than the back ground.

And I believe the photographer(s) new very well what it was and that it's a complete and utter hoax.



Did you read the link i provided?

http://brumac.8k.com/trent1.html


I did. And that link demonstrates fairly well that the object claimed to be space aliens by some, is a small object relatively close to the camera rather than a large object far away. In the two photos that show the building, power lines, and object: to the right of the building is a small shrub/tree and a pole. In the first photo (left to right) the pole is slightly to the left of the shrub/tree. In the second, it's slightly to the right. The power lines are not precisely parallel. They diverge a bit with the object roughly below the point of divergence. In the second photo, the object and the point of divergence have moved left in the frame such that they are above the shrub/tree and pole. If the power lines and object were closer to the photographer than the shrub/tree and the shrub/tree closer than the pole, then this is precisely what one would expect with regard to perspective in the frame. Moreover, if I cast a thin enough line (silk, monofiliment, thread, etc.) to a hubcap and over the power line, I could easily render it invisible in the resultant photograph even in the negative.

This is my expert assessment as a photographer experienced with film photography and development.

That Maccabee arrives at a different conclusion is probably due to his bias as a proponent of space aliens among us (he has long been involved with MUFON and other pseudoscientific organizations and individuals) and reason enough to discredit him as a valid expert. I, on the other hand, am very hopeful that space aliens are visiting us and would love to see incontrovertible evidence of it, so have no pre-conceived conclusions to create confirmation bias.


Top
SkinWalker
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:35 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:57 pm
Posts: 432

Offline
And, again, I'm hoping that wasn't the most compelling case you're aware of.

Lets discuss that one.


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:41 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
SkinWalker wrote:
And, again, I'm hoping that wasn't the most compelling case you're aware of.

Lets discuss that one.


Quote:
That Maccabee arrives at a different conclusion is probably due to his bias as a proponent of space aliens among us (he has long been involved with MUFON and other pseudoscientific organizations and individuals) and reason enough to discredit him as a valid expert. I, on the other hand, am very hopeful that space aliens are visiting us and would love to see incontrovertible evidence of it, so have no pre-conceived conclusions to create confirmation bias.


So anyone who investigates the phenomena and associates with other people who do has to biased? Dr Maccabee has been instrumental in debunking many UFO pictures, he is an expert that works for the US Navy, many true believers think this disqualifies anything he says due to a negative bias, heads you win tails I lose?

Lets discuss what the OT was about to begin with...


Top
SkinWalker
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:36 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:57 pm
Posts: 432

Offline
Maccabbee aside, do you see the perspective attributes of the photographs I pointed out? The photo's are consistent with a hubcap-sized object suspended from the telephone/power lines in the foreground, as photographed by a photographer who changes his/her position laterally to the objects in the frame.

Would you agree that this is a far more parsimonious explanation than many alternatives (including space aliens)?


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: UFO hypothesis  |  Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:51 pm
User avatar

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

Offline
SkinWalker wrote:
Maccabbee aside, do you see the perspective attributes of the photographs I pointed out? The photo's are consistent with a hubcap-sized object suspended from the telephone/power lines in the foreground, as photographed by a photographer who changes his/her position laterally to the objects in the frame.

Would you agree that this is a far more parsimonious explanation than many alternatives (including space aliens)?



Not if the evidence does not support a thrown object, According to the link i provided the object was not symmetrical, if had been a thrown object it would have had to been symmetrical. To be honest when i first saw the photo i assumed it was either a thrown object or a suspended object, both assertions have been ruled out. It might have been a balloon but the kicker is that the three witnesses involved did not go after fame or recognition the way a hoaxer would do, it's remotely possible it was an unknown military craft of some sort but in 1950 that seems almost as unlikely as aliens... I have to ask, do you have access to the negatives? Maccabbee did...


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
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