Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UFOs: Lets cut the crap already

page: 8
111
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


We're thinking along the same lines then, I knew I had a good reason for adding you to my friends list, I didn't take any offense at your remarks and hope you didn't at mine either.

My point about the UAP/UFO definition isn't that I expect anyone to start adopting the UAP terminology more broadly anytime soon, I don't. The UFO usage is too deeply entrenched to abandon it in favor of a little known term.

However, I was just pointing out that you can give UFO any definition you want, but you're still stuck with the "O" in either UFO or UO standing for "object", which isn't a very technically compatible description for some of the items your definition includes. I think "phenomena" is more generic and is better suited to the definitions you provided.

Here is the NARCAP explanation:

www.narcap.org...


The term "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" or UAP is an attempt to address the fact that not all UAP are described as UFO. Many are simply described as unusual lights. NARCAP feels the term "UAP" more accurately reflects the broad scope of descriptions in aviation reports as well as the possibility that these unusual phenomena may arise from several different sources.


So, I tend to agree with NARCAP. However I accept your definition and usage of the term "UFO" not because it's better, it's not, but because it's a legacy term that we're stuck with. If we could erase the past and create a new term from scratch, I think I'd have to go with UAP.

On the RB-47 case, thanks for clarifying you're not sure it's alien either. I don't know what happened there, but it's definitely got a high level of strangeness.




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Xtraeme
 

We're thinking along the same lines then, I knew I had a good reason for adding you to my friends list, I didn't take any offense at your remarks and hope you didn't at mine either.


Ditto.



So, I tend to agree with NARCAP. However I accept your definition and usage of the term "UFO" not because it's better, it's not, but because it's a legacy term that we're stuck with. If we could erase the past and create a new term from scratch, I think I'd have to go with UAP.


I completely agree with you on this one. I abhor the phrase "UFO." However trying to do away with it is a fool's errand. Which is why if we can't get rid of it, modify it.


Though I'd say I tend to prefer UO over UAP. UAP has more of a relationship to a spatial proximity which causes confusion with upper-atmospheric anomalies and transients entering/leaving bodies of water.

What can I say, I'm a reductionist.


On the RB-47 case, thanks for clarifying you're not sure it's alien either. I don't know what happened there, but it's definitely got a high level of strangeness.


I only wish the USAF would cough up the magnetic tape recordings.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Hello Extreme,

I am interested to read more of your writings. Do you have a published work that I can read?

May I know your full name and direct contact details for a potential speaking engagement in the Philippines?

I look forward to hearing your reply. [snip]

Thank you.


 
Mod Edit: Personal details removed. Jak

[edit on 9/8/10 by JAK]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 



The analogy with dark matter is disingenuous, there is overwhelming scientific evidence about huge gravitational effects that are not explained yet.


So... Our Theoretical framework for gravity is not producing models that accurately reflect the observable universe...

So, it must be Dark Matter.


Einstein did this with his early work on relativity, where he added a "Cosmological Constant" to make his False equation True.

So.... "Dark Matter" is science's way of saying "Where is that pesky Higgs Boson?"


We still don't know what causes gravity... I think that this should be a dead giveaway as to the "Authenticity" of this "Dark" "Matter"

And don't even get me started on dark energy.

-Edrick



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by gormly
 





I'd bet the best way to open true conversation about this subject is if believers started to cull the herd a bit. There are so many "crazies" that the message gets lost amount their illogical shouting.


No it's not our job to "cull the herd." I can't make someone do the research and sort fact from fiction. I suppose in that regard it lumps the "crazies" and misinformed skeptics into their own herd.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
how do you know the scientist have not investigate much into the UFOs? maybe they have they just playing tricks with us, they probably know more than we thought they knew.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Just because it's relevant (from here) ...
____________________________________


Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


the problem for transient phenomenon is you cant repeat the same incident over & over like you can with exoplanet evidence.

Haven't we gone over this already? Any observation that's picked up independently by numerous modes of detection is considered a tangible objective repeated observation. This is a type of six sigma variance. Again if we were to contrast this against the "Wow Signal!" or Dr. Ragbir Bhathal's Gliese 581g OSETI detection, all that's required are 3 or 4 independent observations for academia to sit-up and take notice (scrape to 1:58),



This changes whatever's being observed to a "candidate" for being an objective something. Assuming you have a hypothesis, the object becomes a candidate for that hypothetical something. The question of what the object represents remains an open and unanswered line of inquiry.

In exoplanetary research the hypothesis of the objective candidate involves waiting for a full circuit of the object. If this occurs there's good cause to think it represents a planet (i.e. the subject of the hypothesis). If not that doesn't invalidate that there was something provably observed. So, irregardless if it fits the hypothesis or not, there are still positive attributes that can be used to describe this something. The first and most obvious being that the object more than likely wasn't a planet. Also details from spectrographic tracks might give a hint of the objects composition.

The difference with UFOs is that rather than have a positive hypothesis (like an exo-planet), what's sought after is determining if the candidate represents a genuine unknown (or TRUFO) that given perfect information wouldn't turn out to be a misidentification of an already known phenomena (i.e. a negative hypothesis).



If the object doesn't belong to the category of "known phenomena" then it represents a question mark worth further investigation. Put another way True UFOs (TRUFOs) represent problems for all scientists to attack. Very much the same way "unsolvable math problems" or "dark energy" represent goal-posts for mathematicians and physicists. The study of the unknown allows us to categorize things that are outside current understanding so people in specific fields of research can attempt to bring their specialty to bear against "true unknowns."

Unfortunately the phrase "unidentified flying object" has become bastardized to mean "alien spacecraft." This sort of a priori bias presupposes all unknowns seen in the sky must represent a singular phenomena when in all likelihood it represents many unique and different anomalies.

Through careful categorization and an exhaustive ruling out process this mechanism for finding TRUFOs would reduce the amount of time between anecdotal observation and objective confirmation using rigorous scientific processes (e.g. TLEs sighted in late 1880s that were only officially recognized in 1989).

That's what a UFO should represent. A crowd-sourcing technology that informs people of what they're seeing, and to keep scientists up-to-date on bizarre observations. This creates a nice feedback loop educating the public (reducing superstition) and provides helpful tips to research facilities looking for new lines of scientific inquiry.

To be extremely anal H(x) → y represents a function that tests a hypothesis against a given x_n candidate by giving a true or false y_n result. The falsification of an x_n candidate does not mean the given x_n is false, rather it simply means that x_n is not a part of the domain of H(x) → true. Then since all things are something, for any given six-sigma objectively provable x_n ∃ a hypothesis H_n(x_n) → y_n, where y_n is true. So all we have to do is create an application that tests x_n against all probable Σ(H_i())'s. This then will allow us to empirically determine if the x_n is a true unknown.


why arn't ufologists raising money to conduct such experiments that you think they should be doing. Just like seti do instead of making money selling books & dvds?

Because most "ufologists" (skeptic or otherwise) have no science backgrounds ‒ and this is to say nothing of the frauds. Those who write books on the subject in a legitimate and serious manner do so because it's a way to attract public interest through simple anecdotal stories (no different than a "A Brief History of Time" vs. arXiv:hep-th/0507171v2). Often times the money from those books gets placed in to research programs like FUFOR. As for academic funding, well, today's climate isn't exactly salubrious for finding research dollars.


ufo community needs to look at themselves instead of whining at everyone else.

What needs to change is the culture of dismissal because the "crazys" may in fact turn out to be right.
edit on 11-12-2010 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
For people who were following this thread. A new discussion detailing the evolution of the concept can found below,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Enjoy!
edit on 15-12-2011 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by nablator
 



The analogy with dark matter is disingenuous, there is overwhelming scientific evidence about huge gravitational effects that are not explained yet.


So... Our Theoretical framework for gravity is not producing models that accurately reflect the observable universe...

So, it must be Dark Matter.


Einstein did this with his early work on relativity, where he added a "Cosmological Constant" to make his False equation True.

So.... "Dark Matter" is science's way of saying "Where is that pesky Higgs Boson?"


We still don't know what causes gravity... I think that this should be a dead giveaway as to the "Authenticity" of this "Dark" "Matter"

And don't even get me started on dark energy.

-Edrick


GRAVITY....is most likely exactly what Einstein said it was....or at the very least....if not....then it behaves exactly as his model dictates. It is when you get to the Quantum World that it breaks down....but not really since the Quantum world is looking at Sub-atomic particles that exist not only in this Universal reality....but many.

I get around and on some happy occasions....I get invited to a party that has a Physicist that is in the same buisness I am in....Entertainment. They are guys that are on the Science Channel or one of the others and a few times I talked with them as we were the only two in the room that had any real idea....or interest in Universal Realities and the Physics.

The majority of the other people there are either in marketing, media, entertainment development...A and R....or worse....Social Climbers with lots of money but not a pennies worth of sense....who's sole drive in life is to compare parties and caterers. So I get a chance to talk to these guys....one who has grey hair and is of Asian decent.

The consensus we came to is NOBODY....has the vaguest of ideas what it is that makes Mass warp space/time and anyone who say's they do know is full of it! Plus we agreed that the quest for the UFT....is most likely beyond current Human ability to understand as it is not something that is a nature of just one system but rather the end result of efect of many interconnected Universal Systems.

Plus...we both hate expensive wine that tastes like crap but everyone ohhs and ahhhs at the year and vinyard family name. Plus we both hate Sauternes! YUCK! Like sipping on a melted cotton candy! Split Infinity



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by The Killah29
 


It's pseudoscience because of its methodology, not its subject matter.



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Congratulations to OP!

Your post is well writen.
I believe it shows that you have an higher academic background than the average joe.

I have a question for you, if you dont mind to answer (please, feel free not to):

- What made you come out of the dark into ATS?

Or, put on other terms, why did you choose this subject - UFO´s (whatever the definition you choose to approach this subject).

Thanks in advance.



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


your post is very good, and well presented, and I agree with your logic, it would be so good if only we could trust those that have the final say....



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by meaningless333
 



I have a question for you, if you dont mind to answer (please, feel free not to):

- What made you come out of the dark into ATS?

Or, put on other terms, why did you choose this subject - UFO´s (whatever the definition you choose to approach this subject).

Thanks in advance.


I think this post might answer your question ...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The problem is monumental and it horrifies me to think how stupid we've been.





new topics

top topics



 
111
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join