You want proof of flying saucers? This is it!

page: 24
214
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


UFO making 90 degree turn or CGI ?




posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


UFO making 90 degree turn or CGI ?


Theres a very odd jump in direction on the top change of direction that tells me this MAY be cgi. However if it is cgi then its very poor.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk
Ever since I discovered this case I have wondered - why there? why land next to a school?

Fact
There were two identical objects.
They both landed in a controled manner.
They floated up and moved to another location a few yards away and landed again.
Many children (and adults) were able to get close to them.
They took off and left at great speed when the cessna's and the uniformed people arrived.
The uniformed people removed all evidence and threatened people who might talk.

Also we've heard of the event that happened at another school in africa where again two objects landed. On this occasion the school children saw the occupants who got out and watched the children. The children describe what we all refer to as the Grays.

I've said many times throughout this thread that my belief would be that they were man made. Now I'm begining to think they may have been alien, its the only answer that fits all the evidence.

What do you all think, alien or man made?


I like your summary. It makes it more difficult to mischaracterize the event and create a straw-man argument.

I actually think that many (if not most) of these craft are not man-made, that they are in fact of another species. If that is the case, then they would seem to be studying us, just like we study non-human species. Perhaps they are landing in school yards for multiple reasons: 1) because it is relatively safe, and 2) in order to gradually desensitize our new generations to the idea of their existence.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter

If you take a rational, unbiased person, and present them with this case (and they study it carefully), it alone should be sufficient to prove the existence of UFOs. And if there is any uncertainty, simply research the untold other reports of multiple-witness sightings, and, if that is not sufficient to convince you, then I would strongly suspect some sort of cognitive or (belief-based) emotional defect, or an ulterior motive.


This rational and unbiased person you keep mentioning doesn't exist, depending on the situation we are all irrational and biased. The eye witnesses in this case included. Your Bluebird example also fails as reports of multiple-witness sightings tend to vary in their descriptions.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by Brighter

If you take a rational, unbiased person, and present them with this case (and they study it carefully), it alone should be sufficient to prove the existence of UFOs. And if there is any uncertainty, simply research the untold other reports of multiple-witness sightings, and, if that is not sufficient to convince you, then I would strongly suspect some sort of cognitive or (belief-based) emotional defect, or an ulterior motive.


This rational and unbiased person you keep mentioning doesn't exist, depending on the situation we are all irrational and biased. The eye witnesses in this case included. Your Bluebird example also fails as reports of multiple-witness sightings tend to vary in their descriptions.


Hate to belabor the point, but as someone with a lot of experience interviewing witnesses once said:


So also when you deal with multiple-witness cases in UFO sightings. There is an impressive core of consistency; everybody is talking about an object that has no wings, all of 10 people may say it was dome shaped or something like that, and then there are minor differences as to how big they thought it was, how far away, and so on. Those latter variations do pose a very real problem. It stands as a negative factor with respect to the anecdotal data, but it does not mean we are not dealing with real sightings of real objects.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Brighter

it depends what you mean by UFO? nobody denies people see things in the sky they can't identify but that doesn't mean anything. It just means they cant identify it.

If your saying "UFO" as in a craft of unknown origin then yes ultimately you need repeatable testable evidence for it to be proven to be a craft.
edit on 17-7-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


You're mischaracterizing the phenomenon, yeti. The UFO problem isn't simply about "things people see in the sky that they can't identify", as though there were nothing more to say. The objects have definite, identifiable characteristics such as geometric shape and metallic appearance, and they display seemingly intelligent behavior.

As far as terminology, we can probably dispense with the word "craft" altogether and just go with "object", although it wouldn't be a tremendous stretch to infer that an object with the above characteristics might be a craft.



i disagree. Practically the only hypothesis proposed by the ufo community is aliens in spaceships - this forums name is an example Aliens & UFOs

The ufo mythology is built on it from roswell to "fire in the sky" to close encounters. Also it doesnt seem to matter what is described everything is aliens in spaceships. No matter what colour, shape or other characteristics its always the same - aliens. Those who propose alternatives are generally shunned by the ufo community.
edit on 17-7-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


I meant across cases not within a single case. In his Bluebird example everyone describes the same type of bird, across UFO cases descriptions vary.


But what if there are many thousands of group-sightings of blue birds of a period of over 70 years? Even without irrefutable evidence of an actual physical specimen, there would still be more than sufficient evidence to justify a belief in bluebirds.




Should one believe in all of them, a few or perhaps just one?
edit on 17/7/2012 by cripmeister because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by Brighter

If you take a rational, unbiased person, and present them with this case (and they study it carefully), it alone should be sufficient to prove the existence of UFOs. And if there is any uncertainty, simply research the untold other reports of multiple-witness sightings, and, if that is not sufficient to convince you, then I would strongly suspect some sort of cognitive or (belief-based) emotional defect, or an ulterior motive.


This rational and unbiased person you keep mentioning doesn't exist, depending on the situation we are all irrational and biased. The eye witnesses in this case included. Your Bluebird example also fails as reports of multiple-witness sightings tend to vary in their descriptions.


"This rational and unbiased person you keep mentioning doesn't exist, depending on the situation we are all irrational and biased."

This is to engage in an elementary logical fallacy that, oddly enough, I just explained in an above post. It is called a false dichotomy. It can also be thought of as general black-and-white thinking. You are making the false assumption that because any individual has at least one bias, or is irrational in some idiosyncratic sense, that they are automatically unreliable witnesses.

"Your Bluebird example also fails as reports of multiple-witness sightings tend to vary in their descriptions."

This is a second example of a false dichotomy. It is to assume that either all witnesses' stories corroborate 100%, or that their descriptions as a whole are unreliable. But of course we know that there will always be minor discrepancies between multiple witnesses, but that does not mean that the object that they are all describing does not in general fit that description.

I actually find it fascinating how almost every skeptical reply is an example of a basic logical fallacy.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Well the UK just realesed their info : UK Governemnt releases xfiles UFO docuemnts

news.yahoo.com...
edit on 17-7-2012 by tluna1 because: forget the tag line



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Brighter

it depends what you mean by UFO? nobody denies people see things in the sky they can't identify but that doesn't mean anything. It just means they cant identify it.

If your saying "UFO" as in a craft of unknown origin then yes ultimately you need repeatable testable evidence for it to be proven to be a craft.
edit on 17-7-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


You're mischaracterizing the phenomenon, yeti. The UFO problem isn't simply about "things people see in the sky that they can't identify", as though there were nothing more to say. The objects have definite, identifiable characteristics such as geometric shape and metallic appearance, and they display seemingly intelligent behavior.

As far as terminology, we can probably dispense with the word "craft" altogether and just go with "object", although it wouldn't be a tremendous stretch to infer that an object with the above characteristics might be a craft.



i disagree. Practically the only hypothesis proposed by the ufo community is aliens in spaceships - this forums name is an example Aliens & UFOs

The ufo mythology is built on it from roswell to "fire in the sky" to close encounters. Also it doesnt seem to matter what is described everything is aliens in spaceships. No matter what colour, shape or other characteristics its always the same - aliens. Those who propose alternatives are generally shunned by the ufo community.
edit on 17-7-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


"Practically the only hypothesis proposed by the ufo community is aliens in spaceships..."

This is a perfect example of yet another elementary logical fallacy:

The Straw Man Argument: This is basically to mischaracterize a position, and then to argue against that position. The mischaracterized position is generally very weak and easily invalidated.

The UFO hypothesis, with all of its data, is actually astoundingly strong. It will only appear to be weak by the under- and misinformed.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101

i disagree. Practically the only hypothesis proposed by the ufo community is aliens in spaceships - this forums name is an example Aliens & UFOs

The ufo mythology is built on it from roswell to "fire in the sky" to close encounters. Also it doesnt seem to matter what is described everything is aliens in spaceships. No matter what colour, shape or other characteristics its always the same - aliens. Those who propose alternatives are generally shunned by the ufo community.
edit on 17-7-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


What exactly is it that you disagree with? I agree with your entire post.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


say what


do you mean the ET hypothesis?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



The objects have definite, identifiable characteristics such as geometric shape and metallic appearance, and they display seemingly intelligent behavior.


this is what i disagree with. Although it would be better if it were just these characteristics basically anything in the sky that cant be identified is shoe horned into the ETH. e.g foo fighters , chinese lanterns, light refelctions. None have the characteristics you mentioned but are often thrown on the ufo evidence pile
edit on 17-7-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



The objects have definite, identifiable characteristics such as geometric shape and metallic appearance, and they display seemingly intelligent behavior.


this is what i disagree with. Although it would be better if it were just these characteristics basically anything in the sky that cant be identified is shoe horned into the ETH. e.g foo fighters


If you disagree that there is a sizable body of reports - a subset of the unexplained UFO reports - that fit the above description, then it would appear you are unfamiliar with the evidence, because the existence of those reports is a demonstrable fact.

Here are a few hundred.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


Proof . Yes . Normal response from a Normal Human . There is a Great deal of Proof in the mix. Just as a Normal human cook cannot identify each ingredient in a recipe merely by taste or by glancing at the dish on their plate. It would take a True Chef to tell you every spice and ingredient in a dish presented to him with merely his sense of taste, smell, and sight. A skilled photographer can tell you a million stories about a person with just one snapshot. But the average human looks at the same photo and sees nothing but the ordinary 2 second glimpse . no story.
Proof. No. not to the average. Some tales are only for the smaller numbers.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


ok lets take your description of a genuine ufo. The classic metallic saucer yes? recently they seem to have been replaced by triangles but lets ignore that for the moment.

eye witness testimony is a good place to start but ultimately we need better evidence mainly because the human senses can be fooled and also people like to tell tall stories. A good clear photo would be fab or even better a clear video with good provenance of a flying saucer doing incredible manoeuvres. Its a real shame we don't have that.

we can also try the null hypothesis technique. Falsify the following statement- " all ufos are of mundane origin". All you need to do is prove 1 case is not mundane and your theory is a winner. Still hasn't happened though


edit on 17-7-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by Brighter

If you take a rational, unbiased person, and present them with this case (and they study it carefully), it alone should be sufficient to prove the existence of UFOs. And if there is any uncertainty, simply research the untold other reports of multiple-witness sightings, and, if that is not sufficient to convince you, then I would strongly suspect some sort of cognitive or (belief-based) emotional defect, or an ulterior motive.


This rational and unbiased person you keep mentioning doesn't exist, depending on the situation we are all irrational and biased. The eye witnesses in this case included. Your Bluebird example also fails as reports of multiple-witness sightings tend to vary in their descriptions.


"This rational and unbiased person you keep mentioning doesn't exist, depending on the situation we are all irrational and biased."

This is to engage in an elementary logical fallacy that, oddly enough, I just explained in an above post. It is called a false dichotomy. It can also be thought of as general black-and-white thinking. You are making the false assumption that because any individual has at least one bias, or is irrational in some idiosyncratic sense, that they are automatically unreliable witnesses.


So you disagree? There are rational and unbiased people? Are they rational and unbiased in every situation they encounter?


"Your Bluebird example also fails as reports of multiple-witness sightings tend to vary in their descriptions."

This is a second example of a false dichotomy. It is to assume that either all witnesses' stories corroborate 100%, or that their descriptions as a whole are unreliable. But of course we know that there will always be minor discrepancies between multiple witnesses, but that does not mean that the object that they are all describing does not in general fit that description.

I actually find it fascinating how almost every skeptical reply is an example of a basic logical fallacy.


In your Bluebird post you said


But what if there are many thousands of group-sightings of blue birds of a period of over 70 years? Even without irrefutable evidence of an actual physical specimen, there would still be more than sufficient evidence to justify a belief in bluebirds.


The descriptions across multiple-witness UFO cases over the past 70 years vary greatly. Your argument as they say, is invalid.








posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Anyone hear of Flying Saucers/UFOs stealing electricity ? I have seen this before.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomato
Anyone hear of Flying Saucers/UFOs stealing electricity ? I have seen this before.


So thats why my cars always got a flat battery


Actualy a lot of the space footage shows ufo's hovering around thunder storms so there may actualy be something to that idea.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
From Power Lines or Electrical storms, I also will say that abduction case in 1967 of a police officer he mentioned that the beings told him they took electricity from the Power Lines to power their craft.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Tomato because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
214
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join