95% of U.F.O. sightings can be explained???

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   

ImpactoR
For anyone new to the topic the UFOs are 1000% unexplained but for anyone who educates himself on the topic, knows that the unknowns or suggesting too high/alien technology would be 99.999% explainable


This is based on what?

Where's the scientific study that shows all of these cases are explainable?

I just don't see it and I've been studying these things for close to 20 years. I have never seen a 95% or better explanation rate of videos, pictures, trace evidence, close encounters or abduction cases.

So all I'm asking, is where's the scientific evidence that supports the conclusion that 95% or more of these cases can easily be explained.




posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   

neoholographic
I keep hearing this repeated over and over again and I want to know where this numbers come from. In my experience it's more like 95% can't be explained.

Was there a Scientific study that reached this number and how did the study reach this number?

I have been looking in these areas for close to 20 years and I've never seen an explanation rate of 95%. Since I've been on ATS, I haven't seen close to 50% of sighting, close encounters or abduction cases explained.

Is this just a made up number to make things sound more mysterious?


Read my UFO story that was explained. It was a real kick in the jewels lol.
My UFO story on another thread



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I see people are missing the point.

It's simple enough: how do they come up with this magical figure of 95%?

Why 95% and not 85 or 90?

I've wondered the same myself.

I wonder if it's just a figure plucked out of thin air for convenience?

A bit like the old wives' tale that we only use 10% of our brains (which has now been debunked by scientists).

It would be interesting to see if it bears experimental scrutiny.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
OP is far too forgiving. The reality is that more like 1% cannot be explained. 99% of reported UFO's can realistically be explained by natural phenomenon, misidentification, delusion/'mental illness, lies or hoaxes. specially, given the complete lack of evidence in the phenomenon. If the evidence presented cannot stand up to the scrutiny or scientific process it does not deserve to be considered proof of anything other than "unknown". Witness testimony is nothing more than someone saying they saw or experienced something. Human beings have poor vision, depth perception at far distances and too often seek approval from their fellow man to be trusted. Just because you do not accept that as reality, does not mean earth is an alien superhighway crawling with ET's.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
THIS is what you said, OP:


I keep hearing this repeated over and over again and I want to know where this numbers come from. In my experience it's more like 95% can't be explained.

Was there a Scientific study that reached this number and how did the study reach this number?

I have been looking in these areas for close to 20 years and I've never seen an explanation rate of 95%. Since I've been on ATS, I haven't seen close to 50% of sighting, close encounters or abduction cases explained.


It's pretty apparent. You don't need to explain it. You said you "keep hearing over and over again" that 95% CAN be explained (from your title. Then you said, "In my experience it's more like 95% can't be explained." After saying you "keep hearing this repeated over and over again" you then say, "I've never seen an explanation rate of 95%."

So WHICH is it, OP? Have you heard it "over and over" or have you "never seen an explanation rate of 95%"? You are contradicting yourself.

That's it, and you provide no sources for either figure. You don't like the 95% figure that says they CAN be explained, complaining that you want to know where the figures come from, then you turn right around and claim "in your experience it's more like 95% can't be explained" and provide no source for YOUR figure. Tell me, please, why we should reject the first 95% figure you don't like, but accept the 95% figure that you just made up from "your own experience."

I then proceeded to suggest why this was so, showing many examples and citing my own statistics while referring you to other sources. You then complained that I used "too many words," and complained further that I should accept "stories told to others" as evidence for, um, er, something, citing Edgar Mitchell as an example....

...which is a truly bad example. Why? because Mitchell never saw anything. He was TOLD stories by others. WHICH others? No one knows because they remain nameless and faceless, but we're supposed to accept this because, after all, Edgar Mitchell is a famous astronaut, therefore whatever he says must be good. This, as I stated previously, is an "argument from authority" that is invalid.

Now, if Mitchell were placed on a witness stand in a court of law, do you think his testimony would be considered valid because, after all, he is a famous astronaut and walked on the Moon? The answer is, "NO!" because his testimony is "hearsay." Since you have ignored this small fact, let me explain it to you. "Hearsay" is when someone repeats what they have been told by someone else, but not something that they witnessed themselves. And this sort of second-party testimony is INADMISSABLE as evidence.

I see no reason why we should loosen the laws of evidence for this phenomenon. If we do so, then we must accept hearsay testimony from anyone who heard from a guy (who heard from a guy who heard from a guy) that he saw aliens land, or whatever. It's not evidence we can accept, and it certainly does nothing to bolster your non-existent case.

Your case is non-existent primarily because you just made stuff up. You made up the 95% figure on both sides of the equation, then proceeded to argue the case. It's a straw man argument. You INVENTED the figure to argue against. That, just like the argument from authority, is invalid.

If you think "people" constantly say "95% of the cases are explainable" then please show where people have consistently said that. Who was it? Where did they say it? Show your sources.

You have not done that.

If you think based on your "personal experience" that "95% of the cases have NOT been explained," then please show where you get that figure. What cases have you examined? What "personal experience" are you claiming here? How did you arrive at the 95% figure? Show your sources.

You have not done that.

So, once again, you don't have a case. Calling me names or accusing me of using "too many words" is not going to change that. I'm sorry to have provided evidence to show my case, something you have yet to do. As for using "too many words" I'm reminded of the King of Austria who accused Mozart of using "too many notes."

Meanwhile, unless you can come up with better arguments for whatever it is you are trying to say, I wouldn't expect overwhelming applause for your efforts.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
100% of UFO sightings can be explained. The clue is in the name.

UN-IDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS.


I think what you mean to say is that 95% of suspected extra-terrestrial / paranormal light anomalies in the sky currently have no rational explanation to them.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I am still waiting for 1 case not 1% of cases, but 1 singular case that has strong evidence of an Extra Terrestrial Flying Object.

I couldn't care less about a UFO that is most likely a duck or swan even if they haven't been identified and there are plenty of cases where that has happened. Well in a way they were identified "its a bird". The only type of UFO I am interested in would be one not of earth origin however I haven't seen strong evidence of any as of yet. I still have some hope though even though it has been diminished by reality.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Grimpachi
I am still waiting for 1 case not 1% of cases, but 1 singular case that has strong evidence of an Extra Terrestrial Flying Object.

I couldn't care less about a UFO that is most likely a duck or swan even if they haven't been identified and there are plenty of cases where that has happened. Well in a way they were identified "its a bird". The only type of UFO I am interested in would be one not of earth origin however I haven't seen strong evidence of any as of yet. I still have some hope though even though it has been diminished by reality.


Someone gets it.

I think most people would love to see actual evidence of alien craft or of an alien being. As of yet, no such evidence exists, other than in the minds of the hardcore believers (Who don't seem to need much more than hearsay, internet rumors, shoddy Youtube videos or anecdotal stories to believe.).



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   
The figure of 95 percent I have heard from three people I can think of, Nick Pope, Leslie Kean and Michio Kaku.

Nick Pope got the figure from his work at the UFO desk at the British MOD. All but about 5% of the reports that were submitted to that office were considered to be explained or explainable after investigation.

Leslie Kean has used it (I take it) based on her work with Nick Pope, who wrote one of the chapters of her impressive book UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record.

Pope also spoke at a press event coordinated in part by Kean in which he cites the figure:



Kean mentioned it in interviews when she was promoting her new book:



And Michio Kaku also cited it on the same show a day before while promoting Kean's book, to which he wrote the forward:



Another collection of reports, that of the official French UFO investigative body GEIPAN, yields a larger ratio of unknowns:



The number of unidentified cases after serious study (the "PAN D" category) is now estimated at 25 to 28 % (depending on the day of the interview, apparently). On the web site of GEIPAN, the percentage is, indeed, 28%.



Here is the repartition in the four key categories used by the project:

PAN A (perfectly identified phenomena): 9 %

PAN B (probably identified): 33 % (A + B = 42%)

PAN C (insufficient data): 30 %

PAN D (unidentified): 28 %

source



A study by the Battelle Memorial Institute back in the '50s came up with 21% "unknown":




posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by zazen
 


Finally, someone answered the question without a long winded, meaningless post that has nothing to do with the question that was asked.

Now, let's look at your post. I think it's clear evidence that the 5% unexplained and 95% explained is an urban myth. When you type 95% ufo on Google, you get this:

www.google.com...

There's no evidence to support the claim, it's just repeated over and over again.

Like CJCrawley said in an earlier post, it's just an old wives tale like we only use 10% of our brain.

I think the other study you quoted sounds closer to the truth.

If you look at this study, only 9% are IDENTIFIED. ONLY 9%!!


PAN A (perfectly identified phenomena): 9 %

PAN B (probably identified): 33 % (A + B = 42%)

PAN C (insufficient data): 30 %

PAN D (unidentified): 28 %


So according to this study, 91% are probable U.F.O.'s. The evidence is even more overwhelming when you add in:

Abduction cases:

www.ufocasebook.com...

Close encounters(these are of the third kind)

www.ufoevidence.org...

Trace evidence cases:

www.ufoevidence.org...

Thanks for the post!



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I happen to agree with you that its less that are explainable, less that are errors, not most. Thats their slur on it, their propaganda. When someone who enjoys stargazing has a craft or "something' show up and hover, is soundless, especially if its low enough to matter, (notwithstanding that even the best camera equipments will show lights and orbs) the person however could say its around 30 feet, around 50, or 200 feet up, and they've seen planes and choppers, they tend to know that this isn't one. Alot of people have seen ufo's , and more have had contact than they realize in their memory banks too. If everyone was regressed they'd need diapers.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Actually several reports released by governments around the world do indicate that there are unknowns flying in our skies, the strongest of the reports are often radar cases using multiple frequencies, well trained operators, AND visual sightings by pilots.

Now what grabs people's and government's attention is when they are sighted visually, on radar, they also sometimes have laser range finding, confirmed to be solid objects, and chased by airplanes and they often can't be caught.

The reason why people believe they MAY be ET UFOs is because they are solid objects, make sharp 90 degree turns without slowing down, can accelerate from 0 to 1000's of mph in under a second with no sonic boom. The problem is that solid objects under the influence of natural forces cannot perform Any of the manuvers described above, not even our best jets or rockets can perform those manuvers.

Not to mention that some of the best reports by fighter pilots and confirmed by well functioning radar units, also report that the UFOs exhibit intelligent behavior, meaning they respond to actions taken by the pilot.
edit on 6-3-2014 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-3-2014 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   
A number of studies and organizations from the 1950s-1990s have come up with similar figures (Blue Book, NICAP, CUFOS, MUFON, GEPAN/SEPRA, Condon, COMETA, Sturrock et. al) As low as 80% and as high as 98%.

The 95 percent figure is an average. A well established one.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   
I've heard the same statistic used about ghost/paranormal events.

As most (allegedly true) ghost stories are purely anecdotal in nature...how on earth can you explain away 95% of them?

A story is a story and you have to take it on face value - or not.

As a scientist, I would say the jury is most definitely out when it comes to ghosts for lack of evidence either way.

The best a would-be debunker can do is point to all the studies that show you can't trust eye-witness testimonies.

But 95% of ghost stories explained away?

Impossible to arrive at that figure.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 





In my experience it's more like 95% can't be explained.


Sorry for you experience then.





Was there a Scientific study that reached this number and how did the study reach this number?



No its what most serious researchers conclude after sifting through 1000s of cases.

They do so by leaving beliefs at the door when they research.




I have been looking in these areas for close to 20 years and I've never seen an explanation rate of 95%. Since I've been on ATS, I haven't seen close to 50% of sighting, close encounters or abduction cases explained.


To your satisfaction? or any explanations offered at all?




Is this just a made up number to make things sound more mysterious?


Its a rough estimate made by those that researched many cases.

Its actually one of the similarities many if not most Ufologists and researchers actually agree on.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 





That's just a lie.


No its an opinion,

very similar to yours being the opposite.


Or is yours a lie as well?



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   

CJCrawley
I've heard the same statistic used about ghost/paranormal events.

As most (allegedly true) ghost stories are purely anecdotal in nature...how on earth can you explain away 95% of them?

A story is a story and you have to take it on face value - or not.

As a scientist, I would say the jury is most definitely out when it comes to ghosts for lack of evidence either way.

The best a would-be debunker can do is point to all the studies that show you can't trust eye-witness testimonies.

But 95% of ghost stories explained away?

Impossible to arrive at that figure.


Exactly, like you said earlier, it's just an old wives tale. It's just something to say that's not true but has made it's way into the verbiage surrounding talk of U.F.O.'s.

The other study showed 9% were Identifiable, but you will never hear that study quoted just the myth that 95% can be explained.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 05:29 AM
link   
This thread is really frustrating. The skeptics all buckled in and the believers ridin commando with no helmet.

Tell me this. What about all the sightings that are made by credible observers who know how useless and fruitless it is to report such things. You know there is also a wise minority of folks out there who are happy enough knowing to themselves what they saw, ie. unmistakeably a large glowing or metallic noiseless disk defying our laws of gravity, and are happy enough keeping it to themselves; knowing the river of sh!t that exists in reporting it.

Why is it so hard to beleive there are visitors here? As the science world discovers more and more systems and suns with class M planets we all should be loosening up to or acclimatizing to the idea that we really are not that special to completely deny the possibility that there is galactic interest in our little blue pearl. And simply keeping it from our limited senses and understanding of science would be rudimentary stuff to them.

As well there is tons of evidence that points to the Orion's belt constellation. Tons of archaeo-astronomy stuff. Primitive maps of the star system and mathematical connections between many large ruins and pyramids. Seems like the time would have been ripe to get involved with our bid-ness. And there seems there are some good indications that this may be happening.

Shpuldn't be so presumptuous to think if they were here they would leave advanced evidence lying around for us to muck with. Of course they are going to hide from us.
edit on 7-3-2014 by sparrowstail because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


The biggest flaw that Ufology has is that people believe a liar and do not believe an ordinary person who tells a story for no gain (witness). Then the liars are laughing in their face because they knew that people would believe them over an ordinary person who tells a story for no gain (witness). How stupid is the world? For a liar to know that the world is so stupid it will believe them over a truthful person? ENTIRELY STUPID.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join