This is for all the `ufo skeptics` must read

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by Phage

 

You are truly difficult.

Ok lets try something else first. You stated "it doesnt change diection" as being on of the gentlemans reasons for the apparent confusion, right?

No, I didn't say it doesn't change direction. I agree it appears to change direction. The photographer, an amateur astronomer says that. After intensive analysis it was determined that it appears to change direction because of the the movement of the moon.

The object does not go behind anything at any point in the video.

It was a balloon.

This discussion is off topic so I'm going to drop it now.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Phage]

Phage,

Before you bail out on this thread, I would like you to try and debunk the balloon. Fair is fair correct? I'm by no means an expert so I'm going to keep this simple.

How could a balloon seen in the Earth's atmosphere stay in such sharp focus when the telescope is focused on the moon? It begs the question.

Originally posted by Gaderel
reply to post by spacebagel

 

Why stop there. If you want to be a skeptic, eat the whole enchilada!

Prove to me we are all real and not a computer simulation.

Lack of evidence, isnt evidence. Likewise theory exists in the vacuum of certain knowledge. Where humanity has vacuum, we fill with theory, assumption, conjecture, Gods, Aliens, the afterlife, American Idol predictions, science, archaeology, ufology whatever field you care to name. We fill the gaps in our existance, and I am sure you do it as well day to day just like the rest of us apes in making assumptions given the knowledge we have at hand.(If you dont you may well be an alien, its not under the beanie is it?)

Theorize, Research, Results, Review. Repeat. We are very early in this process, and we have competition from our governments, we have a stigma from the mainstream sheep and we have targets who are also intent on not leaving much in the way of tangible physical artifacts.

Don't you woo-woo believers of faith ever get it?

It is really the other way around. Science offers proof to its claims otherwise it cannot be considered as proof. It will be just a theory instead.

You really can't use an argument such as the universe doesn't exist when you can readily see, touch, feel, quantify and susbstantiate its existence.

That's the most absurd statement I've ever heard a person use as an argument.

You can't assume aliens are real without proof. These are obviously two different things. I must admit that there are some interesting things going on that we can't completely understand but to leap to conclusions without definite proof of of aliens visiting us is quite a step, for such a fantastic claim you need fantastical evidence, which is none! After more than 50 years of modern history!

Prove to me we are all real and not a computer simulation.

Wait you want me to prove the existance of something that can never be quantified and substantiated?

THAT'S RIDICULOUS!

Seriously have you ever peeked into a dictionary to comprehend the word 'Prove'? I guess not.

Oh just an advice, lay off the Matrix DVD and go out sometime. It's remarkable what you can learn by observing and feeling the REAL world instead of living in a fantasy world.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by spacebagel]

Originally posted by FlySolo
How could a balloon seen in the Earth's atmosphere stay in such sharp focus when the telescope is focused on the moon? It begs the question.

Nah, it doesn't. That's a characteristic of long focal length lenses. They have a very large "range" of focus when out to their maximum resolution.

reply to post by internos


Again I repect your position and the information given.

Im still in the same position. I recognise his choice to share that information with specialists but that doesnt neccessarily mean we can evaluate who those specilists were or whether the judgments they gave were true.

It is not to suggest the person is involved in an alien conspiracy. Things could be much simpler than that. Its very unlikely anyone at a low level in ANY kind of conspiracy would be acutely aware of the manipulation involved.

People suggest for example mainstream media is controlled. Id agree, but that does not mean they are involved or have any awareness of the motives or actions. Media is very easy to control, for example if you work for News Corp you wouldnt be able to run a stroy which is highly detrimental to a major advertiser who is paying News Corp or its subsidiaries millions for sustained advertising. The orders would come down from head office based around the fact that if New Corp proceeds with said story, the entity involved would take its business elsewhere, a corporate decision would be made that this isnt in News Corps interests to lose one and possible several more key revenue interests over the story and the story would be buried. Its something which happens on a daily basis in media. All media has some key players who have long term financial and advertising concerns with the company and the News company will not publish a story which is going to lose them that.

This I know because I studied journalism, any professional journalist will tell you the same. Wherever you work the angle that you have and the stories that you write need to be inline with the policy and position of the editorial, anything else will not get past your editor and you will not last long if you push the issue. That doesnt mean they know the exact nature of any bigger picture.

Again for me without knowing what data was used and whether or not it was based on the original data which was available or whether a second set of corrected figures was produced and used as the basis for calculation, I cant bring myself to accept that, its taking too much on faith and thats something in this particular field of interest I dont do as a rule.

For me its simple IF (and I am sayign IF) there was some kind of known alien contact or technology which had been covered up, there would also exist a group of people with a lot of power and access and a vested interest in making sure it stays covered up.

There would likely be campaigns and tactics to discredit, disinformation, manipulation of facts and a million other techniques being used.

So unless a person remains acutely aware of those possibilities and stays from day one unwilling to take anything at face value, you could never avoid the pitfalls. The truth is you just cant trust anyone on this subject and hope to remain objective.

Unless I see it, can verify it, can see the methodology and the evidence for myself and interpret it then I just wont allow myself to move from a position of "unkown".

You may be 100% right, this may be 100% normal, im not trying to say its absolutely not the case. For this moment my own position is that I cant accept based on what I can verify and know that the balloon explanation is valid.

Truthfully I will most likely never know, thats how it goes. In this case at least I feel I can keep inline with the position I have always sought to maintain, not to take things at face value and to remain objective in both directions. I stay firmly on middle ground until such time as I am convinced enough to move in either direction. Thats just how I feel on this.

If there were any manipulations and coverups in play, I would like to think I can do a decent job of not letting it taint my views. I just dont accept anything as being fact until it passes my own personal criteria for being acceptable to me.

Thats just my personal choice.

Originally posted by GrayFox
Though we don't know for 100% certain that there are aliens out there, we do know that there COULD be aliens out there. We know that it's possible for aliens to be out there. I'm just saying that maybe less unknown factors makes alien visitation at least somewhat slightly more likely than time travel....? Or maybe.... you can never truly calculate something's likelihood when unknown factors are involved?

Anyone that knows more about statistics/probability able to clear this up?

There are too many unknown factors. That's the whole point. It's impossible make any sort of realistic calculation of probabilities about this stuff at this time. Since we exist, we know life on at least one planet is possible. But since we don't have a clue how we came to be, we can't be sure if life is common or we are just a tremendously incredible fluke.

Aliens? Maybe. Demons? Well, if you want to define a demon as a malevolent non-corporeal entity that can influence our minds and directly manipulate energy/matter in some way we don't know about, then we have to say "maybe" to those things, too.

But just saying what something "could" be isn't any kind of proof. It's just conjecture, not actual knowledge. So the only reasonable approach to the subject is to remain as skeptical as possible to weed out the billion hoaxes, and to avoid jumping to any conclusions about the "real" stuff until we find more data. I've never seen anybody who makes a grand pronouncement that they know for sure that the whole thing can be explained as aliens from space produce any tiny little shred of evidence that would definitively prove what they say is true. Nobody.

And I don't care if they're a garbage man or an astronaut, unless they're able to back up what they say with verifiable evidence, then all they're doing is offering an opinion based on a lot of second- or third-hand information (aka bullcrap).

As far as I'm concerned, in UFO Town, you're either a skeptic, or you're a sucker.

S&F my Friend! EXCELLENT POST!

Guys, they are out there, the uni is too big to have us being the only souls in the universe. they have existed LONG before we existed and they have their own reasons for not making contact.

Once again, i say EXCELLENT POST!!! i hope this fixes some of the arrogance out there, then maybe we can have an adult to adult discussion instead of being arrogant and stubbornly stating everything is a fake all the dang time.

that was my two cents...

reply to post by spacebagel


You should be cautious on that judgment. Actually physics itself is based in many respects on assumptions which have no more empirical proof than god andits important not to forget that.

I am very cautious about physics people and astro physics people making claims about the universe, theorising on whats possible. Those fields have conclusively failed to prove the theory of gravity over all the years it has been around and with unlimited access to the studies. If they cannot prove or disprove one of the key canons of their own science, you have to be cautious about how much they can actually "prove" or be accurately believed about in far more theoretical claims which have very limited possibilities for study.

If Gravity for example turns out to be wrong, physics itself will be turned on its head. Its just something people should not forget.

Some science theories themselves have been accepted and incorporated into the devlopment of super theories WITHOUT being proven or correctly established. Physics is quite willing to accept unprovable theory as fact when it suits, which begs the question who decides what unprovable fact is acceptable and what isnt?

The interesting thing I find about many people who claim to be purely reasonable and in need of proof is that they all accept gravity without question. That in itself proves a simply fact, such people have no purity of position much as they would like to claim otherwise because a position based on proof without exception would NOT accept the theory of gravity as a given fact, it is not.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by silver6ix]

I wont disclose what I know but the answer if they do exist or not is very simple:

They do, simply because we do. Look around your house, look at your family members, look at your buildings and cities. What makes you think for one second that this can only happen once? The simple fact that we exist proves that they do too.

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by FlySolo
How could a balloon seen in the Earth's atmosphere stay in such sharp focus when the telescope is focused on the moon? It begs the question.

Nah, it doesn't. That's a characteristic of long focal length lenses. They have a very large "range" of focus when out to their maximum resolution.

Fair enough. However, the movement is highly irregular. I think a true skeptic must stay unbiased an open to discrediting their own point of view as well. Can it be proven to show that it simply can not be a balloon?

reply to post by weneedtoknow


While I like the gist of what you are stating (there are some excellent cases out there with plenty of physical evidence), you shoot yourself in the foot by citing Billy Meier and cases such as that. The biggest reason skeptics treat us like the tin foil hat crowd is because we tend to believe every claim thrown at us without question. There is a reason for skeptics, and it is to keep us on our toes. We should embrace their questions and look for better evidence.

The 1952 UFO sightings are some of the best, with radar confirmations and films of the objects. Unfortunately, Billy Meier is a hoaxer. What do the skeptics see? They see the name Billy Meier and won't give the good case the time of day. I don't blame them one bit. It is time to look at where we are and assign the blame not to the skeptics, but to ourselves.

Again, the rant is well meaning, but with the problems the whole UFO community is having, it is time to look solely at us, not them.

Originally posted by FlySolo
Can it be proven to show that it simply can not be a balloon?

I suppose you would need to offer some ideas of what it could be in that case. It's definitely not a 1968 Mercury. Or a hideaway bed. Maybe it could be a.......

Occam's Razor really doesn't mean "the simplest answer is the best"....it actually translates to advice to "not add unnecessary information to a problem"....and "what it could be" is doing exactly that.

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by FlySolo
Can it be proven to show that it simply can not be a balloon?

I suppose you would need to offer some ideas of what it could be in that case. It's definitely not a 1968 Mercury. Or a hideaway bed. Maybe it could be a.......

Occam's Razor really doesn't mean "the simplest answer is the best"....it actually translates to advice to "not add unnecessary information to a problem"....and "what it could be" is doing exactly that.

I disagree, the position is that one unproven is better than another.

Alien Spaceship and Balloon are the same to me, two cases of proven object which are both unproven. In that case I retain my position as being unproven and I will only move to proven when I feel comfortable with the evidence im able to see and understand.

This isnt a poistion of "adding" anything to the equation, its a position of only ruling something out based on something acceptable. For me I have no predisposition to want every film to be an alien space craft, all I want is a conclusive answer, if its a bird or a bee or a balloon it makes no difference, the point is simply the answer being conclusive.

For example someone claims to see a ghost:

A skeptic says it wasnt a ghost it was "probably" a trick of the light.

My answer would be that it wasnt a trick of the light, it was "probably" a ghost is an answer which has exactly the same proven significance: none.

Someone telling me something was "probably" something based on what they guessed, or what someone told them is NOT going to move me to a proven case for or against.

Originally posted by silver6ix
I disagree, the position is that one unproven is better than another.

Alien Spaceship and Balloon are the same to me, two cases of proven object which are both unproven. In that case I retain my position as being unproven and I will only move to proven when I feel comfortable with the evidence im able to see and understand.

The issue here isn't whether one is better than the other, it's which unproven position is more likely.

Remember, the more extraordinary the claim, the more burden of proof that claim carries. So while you have such wonderful folks like zorgon who pour over hundreds of moon and Mars images in search of a holy grail, it's far more likely all those lovely shadows we see are rock formations than docking bays, service stations, the local Martian roller rink, etc.

So in your example of an alien spacecraft versus a balloon, the balloon wins in terms of probability. Why? Because we know balloons exist. Because many, many UFO sightings have been proven to be balloons. Can you say the same for alien spacecraft? Think of the implications and contained claims for each scenario: balloons require craftsmanship from lightweight materials by man. Alien spacecraft require extraterrestrial life that is capable of traveling vast distances and tremendous resources for an unknown motive.



[edit on 19-10-2008 by thrashee]

im sad to see that you listed billy meier's photos as evidence for skeptics to look at....billy meier has been proven a hoax he runs a cult down in switzerland and his miniature ufo models were found on his property...every single one of his photos were faked using miniature models that he made using all kinds of things like trash can lids, wedding cake trays, plates, and then dangled in front of the camera using a pole and string. In his videos the ufos sway from side to side EXACTLY behaving like it would if it was on a string...please stop using billy meier as evidence he is a complete hoax/fraudster his ex-wife exposed him as well. People can say she just outed him cause she left him but i think she probably left him because she found out he was a fraud. His photos and videos have been replicated exactly quite easily and all his stuff has been proven to be fake.

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by FlySolo
Can it be proven to show that it simply can not be a balloon?

I suppose you would need to offer some ideas of what it could be in that case. It's definitely not a 1968 Mercury. Or a hideaway bed. Maybe it could be a.......

Occam's Razor really doesn't mean "the simplest answer is the best"....it actually translates to advice to "not add unnecessary information to a problem"....and "what it could be" is doing exactly that.

A quick search of what happens to a balloon at high altitude reveals:

"They raise until the pressure inside the balloon is greater than the pressure outside. At Sea Level, atmospheric pressure is 14.7 PSI. At higher altitudes, that pressure lowers. The pressure outside the balloon lowers but the pressure inside remains the same. This happens until the extent of strength the balloon has to maintain that pressure is broken and it pops. At that point, it drifts back down to the ground blowing around in the wind."

Now, review the balloon clip again and notice @ 1:42 the balloon doesn't actually continue in a straight line towards the moon's horizon. It rises. It raises up and slightly to the left giving the illusion that it is still traveling forward.

This contradicts the above statement and shows that the 'balloon' simply can not be rising any further because the pressure inside is greater than that outside. Otherwise it would be rising constantly throughout the clip. Therefore, I don't feel this is a balloon.

Balloon theory as I call it for me is one of the worst used debunking positions in the history of UFOs (although CGI and Photoshop are catching up in the modern age.

Most situation where "probably a Balloon" is used generally involved a balloon which behves unlike a balloon, survives conditions a balloon would only survive in exceptionally freak circumstances, and is in a place a balloon would only likely be under freak circumstances.

What I find hard to believe considering all the incidences of Balloon Theory being applied is that balloons arent the most mazing technology known to man becuase if you go back through so many of the things claimed to be balloons you actually find that balloons seem able to defy all logic and reason, defy physcis, defy rationality and generally time again are able to perform wonders of the balloon world.

If balloon theory is to be believed then id be inclined to suggest that military organisations havent been building UFOs, they have in fact spent all these years and billions of pounds developing fleets of super balloons

We dont then need to fear aliens we need to fear balloons

The problem with trying to discuss the physics of balloons here is that there are too many unknowns. Do you know how high this object was? Do you know at what precise altitude a balloon would pop? Do you know if this is true with any balloon, or wouldn't it depend on the materials of the balloon?

Again, you are left with far too many unknowns to either prove or disprove it. The point still stands: one explanation is inherently more probable than the other.

Originally posted by thrashee
The problem with trying to discuss the physics of balloons here is that there are too many unknowns. Do you know how high this object was? Do you know at what precise altitude a balloon would pop? Do you know if this is true with any balloon, or wouldn't it depend on the materials of the balloon?

Again, you are left with far too many unknowns to either prove or disprove it. The point still stands: one explanation is inherently more probable than the other.

My original point to this thread is, if your going to be a true skeptic and pull out answers disproving alien craft, then you must also debunk your own answer. I haven't seen that attempt from any skeptics at this site. Therefore, the skeptics here are biased and their data is flawed.

The physics of a balloon is the same regardless of what it is made of. There are not too may unknowns. Keeping the simple explanation of how the PSI works it doesn't matter how high it is, the process is the same.

I really belive that it's time for people go on on this type of storys with out talking about any kind of balloons any more! It's realy starts to be quite insane that "all" is a baloon!! And waste pages and pages of topics debating if it is a baloon or not....What a "Baloony"!!

[edit on 19/10/08 by Umbra Sideralis]

Originally posted by FlySolo
The physics of a balloon is the same regardless of what it is made of.

That's nonsense, and only worthy of a one line response.