First I'd like to say I didn't include every UFO hypothesis / position in The State of
thread, simply because I didn't have the space. That's why I linked to the full list. Furthemore the
do fall outside atmospheric, astrononmic, photographic, misidentification,
and hoax-based explanations. So I excluded those from The State of Ufology
to conserve space and focus on relevant hypotheses for the true
unknowns. That DOES NOT
imply these prosaic arguments are auto-ruled out for all future cases.
Originally posted by nablator
reply to post by Xtraeme
You left out the most obvious explanations in your "what are UFOs" page. You need a list of facts before the speculations:
- misidentification of atmospheric phenomena, well known (clouds, smoke rings, refractions, contrails, ...) and more mysterious (plasma),
I think you may have skipped some of the entries. Atmospheric phenomenon is S.2
for this notation is here).
Hoaxes are represented by O.3.2
. I lumped prank and the idea of "Blue Beam" together
because they represent the same concept. They're both illusionary, false, and for the purpose of misleading a person to believe they're seeing
something they're not. The only real difference between a hoax and a government project like "Blue Beam" (I'm not stating such a project exists -
just using it as an example) is that one is state-sponsored the other is done by an individual or a group of individuals (ie/ crop circles, solar
- misidentification of man made objects (suspended lights, aircrafts, missiles, balloons, satellites, falling debris, ...),
Aircrafts are covered by P.c.1-3.o.2.1
. Satellites are partially included in P.c.1.3.o.1
Though I think you're right in the sense that I need to duplicate some of these concepts from Pro to Skeptic. For instance a person can believe an
unmanned drone (a UAV) is man-made and another person can believe we're seeing alien UAVs. So therefore there should be a P.c.184.108.40.206
However I'm trying to limit overlap in the taxonomy. What's interesting is a persons
doesn't necessarily 1:1 reflect a hypothesis
. I may attempt to further
divorce skeptic, pro, & other from "what are UFOs" altogether to better allow mixing of observational characteristics.
- misidentification of astronomic objects (meteors, planets, moon, ...),
I was lumping this in to atmospheric phenomenon (S.2
) primarily because we observe stars /
planets through the atmosphere (ie/ twinkling of stars, changing color of stars, planets not twinkling, etc). Meteors pass through the atmosphere and
when they do they're considered part atmospheric / astronomic science (meteoritics). Since people usually don't observe meteors in space (at least
as far as UFOs are concerned) I didn't think to subdivide it in to astronomy.
Maybe I'll relabel that category atmospheric / astronomic phenomenon?
Though this might cause problems for space-borne UFO observations. I'll think on this.
- photographic artifacts ("orbs", "rods", lens flares, emulsion defects, ...),
Now you're getting in to a subject that's, at the moment anyways, near and dear to my heart.
If you think about it a person can observe a UFO directly, indirectly through an optical device (telescope, night vision, etc), indirectly on a
recorded medium (video camera film, photographic film, stone tablets, cave walls), or as an interpretation via an automated system (radar filtering,
satellite, security camera, project Hessdalen, etc)
I've been giving a lot of time and thought to figure out how to include these means of observation as hypotheses.
These cover most UFO cases.
Your pro/con UFO view is a caricature.
If I was going to engage in subterfuge and pretend to mask my actual position I wouldn't hide it from people I hardly know on a conspiracy
board. I'll be straight with you. I'm an NM-UFOP with a QM-UFOP / non-human D-UFOP lean and I have
a very good reason for this position
My subdivision could have been better. You're right. Thanks to your input I'll improve it.
Actually Nab, would you mind helping me with this project? I need people that are willing to speak their mind.
As a skeptic I do not rule out ANY hypothesis in general. The skeptics' methodology is to looks for prosaic explanations, because they are far
more likely, and because their properties are known, which makes objective verifications possible.
I wouldn't call that a skeptical stand-point. I would call it a scientific one. There's no reason to reach for an extreme theory when there's one
that's already down-to-earth that just as easily explains the observation.
That's why in this post
... Confirmation bias is very common. Sooner or later, in desperation, most investigators develop a strong attachment to one hypothesis
I answered your question thusly:
There are steps that can be taken to limit personal investment.
For example it's beneficial to go through a list of all possibilities ruling them out one by one for every incident. When you explicitly enumerate
the list it makes it harder for a logical person to ignore that they're artificially ruling out other legitimate possibilities.
I'm not perfect.
I don't pretend I'm completely unbiased, but I do try extremely hard to prevent myself from expressing that bias in such a way that it prevents me
from seeing the truth as it actually is rather than how I expect it to look. I use my bias to try to formulate hypotheses not to color all
[edit on 7-4-2009 by Xtraeme]