It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by lawman27
I don't know what UFO's are, but i am pretty sure they are not ALL weather balloons or mass hysteria.
"The reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."
The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1972, p. 10.
Myth: Very few people have really seen a UFO...
Fact: According to a Roper poll conducted in 2002 for the SciFi channel, one in seven Americans say they or someone they know has had an experience involving a UFO...
Myth: Airline pilots never see UFOs, so they must not be real...
Fact: There have been many cases of pilot sightings ever since the 1940s...
Myth: UFOs are only reported by uneducated farmers in places you've never heard of...
Fact: A study by the U.S. Air Force showed that the most puzzling UFO reports came from people who had the best technical backgrounds. They are reported from everyplace where there are people, though fewer are seen from big cities because less of the sky is visible.
Myth:The U. S. Air Force investigated UFOs and concluded there was nothing to them...
Fact: The Air Force had an official UFO investigation from 1948 to 1969 (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book), and collected more than 12,500 reports. It claims to have explained all but about 701 of them, but the facts of most of those reports strongly suggest that something important was seen.
Myth:UFOs are only seen by Americans...
Fact: UFOs have been seen wherever there are people. Every continent has had its share, as has almost every country, though local interest plays a role in the apparent level of activity. Wherever there is someone interested in searching out UFO reports, they will be found, but that doesn't mean the investigator lives in a center of activity.
Myth:UFOs have only been seen since 1947...
Fact: There are UFO reports in newspapers and literature dating back to 1865 and even earlier...
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The idea that our physical aircraft are only capable of a limited set of speeds and motions is not unknow to us right.? Correct? Therefore, if we have evidence a physical aircraft that defies our speeds and motions, one can only conclude that it is NOT our aircraf. The next inference is it must be using a different kind of technology.
b]First part: they're not ours.
You are assuming UFO sighting reports correctly and accurately describe a physical reality. This is wrong in almost all cases, because subjective eyewitness reports is all we have in most cases. In a few cases there may be some impressive speeds recorded with reasonable accuracy (MUFON's report about the UFOs in Stephensville for example, even though I'm not a radar expert and cannot comment). How do you deduce they are not ours? Do you have access to Black Projects? Are you certain that no disinformation campaign exists to prepare for a mass fake UFO invasion as some ATS members claim?
Second part: a different technology
We can't put a UFO on a workbench and take it apart to see what makes it tick. We can only speculate about plausible physical phenomena like glowing plasma, or fantasies like anti-gravity. A possibility that no one ever mentions is that none of the usual hypothesis are correct. The complete lack of knowledge does not even justify the assumption that they are craft piloted by sentient creatures. They could be automated probes, or critters, or ... I could list a dozen sci-fi ideas. As every simple explanation fails to explain their inherent randomness and absurdity, they may be physical manifestation in our reality of something impossible to imagine. It is highly likely IMO that UFOs are shadows in Plato's cave.
Just a remark on your point about not accepting the evidence as it has been reported. This is really what separates the skeptics from the pseudoskeptics. A pseudoskeptic will argue against the evidence actually being what it is at all e.g., "I saw a UFO the size of several football fields hover over me, it was metallic - "How do you know you saw it" It's a silly question. The pseudoskeptic then ends up either trying to assassinate the character of the witness or to adjust their evidence just so it can fit their explanation. A genuine skeptic will work with the evidence that is available and produce a hypothesis.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I aware of all alternative hypothesis. As I was saying to the other guy, the best explanation for some cases is ETH.
All that we need to know is that they are not ours, they do not work using our sciece and technology, and thus the most likely explanation is they are ET. All of these are valid inferences and not a single quantity has been multiplied.
A pseudoskeptic will argue against the evidence actually being what it is at all e.g., "I saw a UFO the size of several football fields hover over me, it was metallic - "How do you know you saw it" It's a silly question.
Originally posted by nablator
We can only speculate about plausible physical phenomena like glowing plasma, or fantasies like anti-gravity. A possibility that no one ever mentions is that none of the usual hypothesis are correct. The complete lack of knowledge does not even justify the assumption that they are craft piloted by sentient creatures. They could be automated probes, or critters, or ... I could list a dozen sci-fi ideas. As every simple explanation fails to explain their inherent randomness and absurdity, they may be physical manifestation in our reality of something impossible to imagine. It is highly likely IMO that UFOs are shadows in Plato's cave.
If youou start your argument by dismissing any other hypothesis, yes. Objectively other hypothesis are just as good.
Wrong premise, no logic, wrong conclusion. Did you read what I wrote?
No. To not ask questions and believe everything without critical analysis is a silly attitude. Even believing your own eyes is stupid. (You've never heard of an optical illusion I suppose.) A football field size and metallic shine mean nothing without a careful examination. Birds & bugs look metallic too. Size and distance are nearly impossible to estimate with unknown objects. This uncritical attitude is what separates gullible people from the rest. If you want to believe blindly, go ahead, but don't say it's logical.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I am not rejecting any hypthesis. One should not begin any investigation with any prejudices, so I leave all hypothesis and possibilities open.
There is nothing irrational about ET, because the the probability of life occuring in the universe is 100%. There is life on Earth, loads of it, and it appeared immediately on Earth. This means life on planets is a known phenomenon of the universe. To say life on planets exists is not an argument from possibility, but an empirical observation. Yes, you could turn around and say to me, "But how do you know life on other planets exist, all you have is one sample, and you cannot generalise from one sample" This is as silly as asking, "Well how can I know that others have minds, all I have is one sample of mind" its stupid skepticism and pointless.
These tactics are all fallacies and rhetoric, but regularly used by pseudoskeptics to dismiss everything they don't like. Pilot testimonies - "It is possible that the pilot was dreaming", Radar reports - "It is possible the equipment malfunctioned" Ancient UFO paintings, "Post-hoc reading"
Each of the three radarscopes in the room displayed a different height level in the atmosphere. At approximately 0315 hours, Preston recalled, a stationary "bleep" appeared abruptly on the highest-level scope.
The target's vertical height was approximately 35,000 feet, and it was located somewhat west of the zenith (overhead point) at perhaps 70° elevation. The bleep indicated a seemingly hard, solid object giving off a strong reflection; the size of the target on the screen, according to the witness's best recollection, implied an actual diameter or length for the object of between that of a jet fighter and a 707-- in other words, said Preston, roughly 100 to 120 feet across.
As the target descended, the two sonar operators aimed their pulses in the general direction of the dropping object. Almost immediately in a matter of seconds following loss of radar contact, both sonar operators received audible pings, indicating a strong echo from a fast-moving submerged target at a range of probably 20,000 yards roughly 10 miles.
The underwater target appeared to be traveling in the same general azimuth and at the same descent angle (at least initially) as the airborne object, implying that the two unknowns were one and the same! The target's speed was considerably reduced, "down to hundreds of miles per hour" but "still moving damn fast," remarked Preston, and it was now moving along a zigzag path away from the ship. Sonar first picked up the target at its upward horizon, perhaps 50 feet below the ocean surface, and continued to register an echo from the object as it dropped rapidly into deep water
Originally posted by karl 12
Just writing off all radar/sonar evidence as 'false echoes' seems a little irresponsible (and unscientific).