You want proof of flying saucers? This is it!

page: 25
205
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
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)


You're right. They do vary, often within recurring patterns:



Why does that variation on a few basic design themes bother you? If, for the sake of this conversation, we assume there were one or more intelligent species interacting with our planet on a rather large scale, why should we expect every one of their craft to be identical? After all, that's not how we operate.





































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




posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   


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.


In general, UFO sightings vary in superficial respects, but they for the most part exhibit a common set of properties such as attaining unheard of speeds, making seemingly impossible turns, disappearing and appearing in another position, hovering in mid-air, and doing all of that while making no discernible sound.

So to point out that UFO sightings vary in superficial respects does nothing to discredit their existence.

That would be like saying that birds do not exist because some birds are shaped differently than others.

I didn't construct the bluebird analogy to address that point because it is non-essential and irrelevant.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter


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.


In general, UFO sightings vary in superficial respects, but they for the most part exhibit a common set of properties such as attaining unheard of speeds, making seemingly impossible turns, disappearing and appearing in another position, hovering in mid-air, and doing all of that while making no discernible sound.

So to point out that UFO sightings vary in superficial respects does nothing to discredit their existence.

That would be like saying that birds do not exist because some birds are shaped differently than others.

I didn't construct the bluebird analogy to address that point because it is non-essential and irrelevant.



You created the Bluebird example to try and justify a belief in UFOs (and this particular case) as being rational and unbiased. But as I have shown the Bluebird example is a false analogy.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Can we please put a ban on the word "proof" being used on UFO and alien related threads. There is no proof here at all. Don't get me wrong, it is a great story and probably does hold some truth but there is absolutely no concrete proof listed anywhere in the thread.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

You're right. They do vary, often within recurring patterns:



Why does that variation on a few basic design themes bother you? If, for the sake of this conversation, we assume there were one or more intelligent species interacting with our planet on a rather large scale, why should we expect every one of their craft to be identical? After all, that's not how we operate.





































Should one believe in all of these, a few or perhaps just one?


The photographic evidence you provided can be verified to be existing (or renderings in some instances) objects so your analogy is also false. Saying that because 'this is how we do it then aliens (or whatever) operate the same way' is a hasty generalization. It's just an idea and it can not be verified with the evidence at hand. People see *stuff* in the sky that they can't explain, a few times *stuff* has been seen on radar too, but that's where it ends. For me anyway, believe what you want but don't try and pass judgement on the rest of us that don't. This is what bothers me.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

The photographic evidence you provided can be verified to be existing (or renderings in some instances) objects so your analogy is also false. Saying that because 'this is how we do it then aliens (or whatever) operate the same way' is a hasty generalization.


I totally agree that making a statement such as "because this is how we do it then aliens operate the same way" is a hasty generalization. I certainly wouldn't make that statement, and if you think I did then maybe that's my fault for not being clear in my meaning.

The photos I posted were merely meant to illustrate that "aircraft" as we know them come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, although they tend to represent variations on a few basic design themes, just like reported UFOs. You seem to imply - and please clarify if I'm misinterpreting your meaning - that the fact that the physical appearance of reported UFOs varies in some respects indicates that they are probably not real objects. I'm not sure I see the connection that you apparently see. Can you clarify your thoughts on this a bit?


People see *stuff* in the sky that they can't explain, a few times *stuff* has been seen on radar too, but that's where it ends.


When you say that people see "stuff", you seem to want to gloss over the fact that there are distinct similarities in the appearance and behavior of the objects that have been reported. Do you consider the patterns across reports to be an insignificant point, or do you deny that the patterns exist?


For me anyway, believe what you want but don't try and pass judgement on the rest of us that don't. This is what bothers me.


I don't mean to pass judgement on you, cripmeister. I'm just trying to figure out why we have such different takes on the same phenomenon. It seems to me that you may just not be very familiar with the literature on the subject that I consider to be the most significant. There's nothing wrong with that, though I would encourage you to look into it because it really is fascinating.

I created this YouTube channel to expose people who are unfamiliar with the topic to some interesting facts regarding UFOs and to hopefully steer them toward some reading material that will give them at least a basic familiarity the salient facts. It might be worth your while to read some of the suggested literature.
edit on 18-7-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

The photographic evidence you provided can be verified to be existing (or renderings in some instances) objects so your analogy is also false.


And this is an example of another logical fallacy known as a non sequitur.


Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

You seem to imply - and please clarify if I'm misinterpreting your meaning - that the fact that the physical appearance of reported UFOs varies in some respects indicates that they are probably not real objects. I'm not sure I see the connection that you apparently see. Can you clarify your thoughts on this a bit?


Guess I was not being too clear. I was referring to the Bluebird example posted earlier by Brighter. See this post.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by Orkojoker

You seem to imply - and please clarify if I'm misinterpreting your meaning - that the fact that the physical appearance of reported UFOs varies in some respects indicates that they are probably not real objects. I'm not sure I see the connection that you apparently see. Can you clarify your thoughts on this a bit?


Guess I was not being too clear. I was referring to the Bluebird example posted earlier by Brighter. See this post.


So you don't think that those variations in appearance that you cited earlier really have much bearing on whether or not the reports are describing actual objects. Is that accurate?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

So you don't think that those variations in appearance that you cited earlier really have much bearing on whether or not the reports are describing actual objects. Is that accurate?


That's not important in this context. Brighter raised the question of belief and claimed that believing that the kids and teachers saw flying saucers is justified based on the anecdotal evidence alone. Not believing is basically hypocrisy. He then went on and try and show this by using two examples, the exotic car and the bluebird. He substituted UFOs for a car and a type of bird. In my opinion his reasoning is disingenuous because his examples are false analogies, propaganda tactics really. Who would question someone who claimed they saw something mundane as a car or a bird? Extraordinary claims on the other hand, require extraordinary evidence for a reason. Belief can be a dangerous thing and there are more than enough examples of that.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

You created the Bluebird example to try and justify a belief in UFOs (and this particular case) as being rational and unbiased. But as I have shown the Bluebird example is a false analogy.


Your claim is that the bluebird analogy fails for the following reason:

“In his Bluebird example everyone describes the same type of bird, across UFO cases descriptions vary. “

Yet it has been made quite clear from both my own and Orkojoker’s responses that it is not necessary for all witnesses to describe the same exact object in order to provide sufficient evidence that an object with certain properties exist. For example, the bird watchers might all report blue-colored birds, yet each bird varies in some non-essential respects. And this is of course what we see in reality: classes of objects exist that all share certain essential properties that make them members of that class, while varying in secondary properties. The fact that the objects in that class vary in their secondary properties certainly does not imply that those objects with those essential properties do not exist.

Would you say that humans do not exist because some humans are tall and some humans are short?

To answer “yes” to this is to commit the basic logical fallacy of a non-sequitur (as Orkojoker pointed out).

Would you say that UFOs do not exist because some UFOs are disc-shaped and some UFOs are triangle-shaped?

To answer “yes” to this is also a non-sequitur.

So to restate what I posted earlier: The reason that the bluebird analogy did not address that point is that it is irrelevant. Variations among non-essential properties are irrelevant to the argument of the existence of a class of objects that share certain primary properties.

Furthermore, to claim that the bluebird analogy is a false analogy on the basis that the bluebird analogy does not contain an irrelevant point is to fail to understand that an argument by analogy only needs to match up one-to-one with respect to essential points.
edit on 18-7-2012 by Brighter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 



Would you say that UFOs do not exist because some UFOs are disc-shaped and some UFOs are triangle-shaped?


ufos exist because people see things in the sky they can't identify. It does not mean they are seeing anything new to science. If you want to claim they are seeing something new that's fine. But don't expect anyone to believe you unless you prove it.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Brighter
 



Would you say that UFOs do not exist because some UFOs are disc-shaped and some UFOs are triangle-shaped?


ufos exist because people see things in the sky they can't identify. It does not mean they are seeing anything new to science. If you want to claim they are seeing something new that's fine. But don't expect anyone to believe you unless you prove it.


As I pointed out a few posts ago, to claim that the essence of the UFO problem is that "people see things in the sky they can't identify" is to make a gross oversimplification, and it suggests that you might be unaware of the scope and nature of the body of reports that resist conventional explanation. If we are going to have a meaningful conversation about this topic, it would be best if we all had at least a basic familiarity with the facts. Your repeated mischaracterization of the phenomenon indicates that you probably haven't taken the time to look into the subject in any depth. You shouldn't expect people who have familiarized themselves with the topic to "prove" anything to you when you refuse to do any serious checking on your own. We all have access to the same information. You should read that information yourself rather than demand that other people spoon feed it to you until you are convinced.
edit on 19-7-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



You shouldn't expect people who have familiarized themselves with the topic to "prove" anything to you when you refuse to do any serious checking on your own


i've done plenty research thanks. The evidence is weak and its up to the believers to get better evidence and prove it. I wont hold my breath



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


No matter how you try and spin it Brighter UFO sightings aren't analogous to bird sightings, kids and teachers aren't analogous to birdwatchers. Also as yeti said earlier, to scientifically prove the existence of a new species you need more than anectdotal evidence. I agree that in science anecdotal evidence is important because it's basically the starting point of new discoveries but in UFOlogy it has never gone beyond this stage. UFOs remain UFOs because there isn't sufficient information to move beyond this description.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Orkojoker
 



You shouldn't expect people who have familiarized themselves with the topic to "prove" anything to you when you refuse to do any serious checking on your own


i've done plenty research thanks. The evidence is weak and its up to the believers to get better evidence and prove it. I wont hold my breath


I'd be interested to know what you've read and what you consider to be good quality information on the subject. Some of the statements you make seem to come from someone who has only a passing familiarity with the topic, if that, and is acquainted only with the evidence and arguments presented in popular documentaries, maybe some YouTube videos and the like. Admittedly, I may be completely wrong, and you might be quite familiar with the serious literature, but your reasoning and arguments strongly suggest that you aren't.

Can you name five books that you've read on the topic that you would consider "serious literature" - not necessarily that prove anything, but which are representative of the known facts on the subject?
edit on 19-7-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by Brighter
 


No matter how you try and spin it Brighter UFO sightings aren't analogous to bird sightings, kids and teachers aren't analogous to birdwatchers. Also as yeti said earlier, to scientifically prove the existence of a new species you need more than anectdotal evidence. I agree that in science anecdotal evidence is important because it's basically the starting point of new discoveries but in UFOlogy it has never gone beyond this stage. UFOs remain UFOs because there isn't sufficient information to move beyond this description.


I appreciate your involvement in the conversation, but I'm having a difficult time working through a series of connected points with you. A pattern seems to be arising where you state a rebuttal, then I provide a logical explanation of how it is inadequate, and then you change the subject. I would kindly ask that if you want to continue to have an intelligent conversation that you please address my actual responses to your rebuttals. I would also greatly appreciate abstaining from the logical fallacies.

"No matter how you try and spin it Brighter UFO sightings aren't analogous to bird sightings, kids and teachers aren't analogous to birdwatchers."

My last post explains how the analogy does work, and also how your particular rebuttal to it is invalid, as it rests on a misunderstanding of how arguments by analogy work. Yet in this post, you don't address the details of my counterargument. In fact, you've committed yet another logical fallacy, that of assuming the consequent - in your statement, you've simply assumed the truth of your conclusion, without providing an argument.

"Also as yeti said earlier, to scientifically prove the existence of a new species you need more than anecdotal evidence."

Yet, as has been abundantly clear from my posts, I have been explaining how there are different kinds of proof. It is superficial and uninformed to think that the only kind of proof is scientific proof. Scientific proof is only one kind. Other tiers of proof can be supported by, for instance, anecdotal evidence. This is especially the case when all you are trying to prove is the existence of a class of objects with some broadly defined properties. UFOs are such a class of objects.

"I agree that in science anecdotal evidence is important because it's basically the starting point of new discoveries but in UFOlogy it has never gone beyond this stage."

This is also incorrect. Not only is there a wealth of anecdotal evidence to support the existence of a class of objects exhibiting certain properties, the anecdotal evidence involves cases that involve direct perceptual evidence that is simultaneously corroborated by evidence gleaned from scientific radar instruments. This is actually why the UFO hypothesis is so interesting - the existence of a class of objects exhibiting tremendous capabilities is supported by numerous multiple-witness sightings by trained observers that also involve radar corroboration. It also involves many more cases of multiple-witness sightings made by non-trained observers who report seeing the same class of objects exhibiting those same tremendous properties.

It is difficult to accept on the face of it, which is why it is necessary to look at the data for oneself. The data combined with a non-prejudiced mindset and some basic critical thinking skills points undeniably to a single conclusion, and that is that UFOs, broadly defined as a set of aerial craft exhibiting almost unbelievable capabilities, do in fact exist. Actually, even if one does has a prejudiced mindset, by looking at the data and letting the data dictate the conclusions rather than the other way around, the conclusion will be clear.

"UFOs remain UFOs because there isn't sufficient information to move beyond this description."

Yet there is sufficient information to prove the existence of UFOs understood as a class of aerial objects exhibiting almost unbelievable capabilities. There is, in my opinion, not as much information to pin down what UFOs are in any more specific sense (e.g., how they work, who made them, who is controlling them). But not knowing the specific properties of an object does nothing to discredit their *existence*. So in a sense, the term UFO is a misnomer and ambiguous: UFOs are identified in one sense (as a class of aerial objects exhibiting almost unbelievable capabilities), yet they are unidentified in another sense (it is not clear how they work, who made them, etc.).
edit on 19-7-2012 by Brighter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
One of my favorite UFO cases but, there is nothing in the way of actual evidence or "proof", as the title of this thread incorrectly claims. There is only circumstantial evidence and anecdotal proof. Stories and fuzzy recollections...of which the source are children.

Despite the lack of real evidence, the fact that there seems to have been an attempt at a cover up, is indeed interesting. It falls short in the way of proof though.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
ufos exist because people see things in the sky they can't identify. It does not mean they are seeing anything new to science. If you want to claim they are seeing something new that's fine. But don't expect anyone to believe you unless you prove it.


Are some people still stuck on the idea that all UFOs are just hoaxes or mis-identifications of ordinary phenomena? If so, it shows either an alarming (though no longer shocking) unfamiliarity with the UFO topic, or willful ignorance.


From the primary scientific consultant to USAF Project Blue Book:

"No scientist who examines the subject objectively can claim for long that UFOs are solely the products of simple misidentification of normal objects and events."
-- p.22 of "The UFO Experience", by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, the original and most skeptical of all UFO skeptics, more familiar with the topic than most anyone else ever has been, and who finally concluded that some UFOs simply cannot be conventionally explained.


From a former head of USAF Project Blue Book:

"The identification of known objects was routine, and caused no excitement. The excitement and serious interest occurred when we received UFO reports in which the observer was reliable and the stimuli could not be identified.... Of the several thousand UFO reports that the Air Force has received since 1947 [through ~1957], some 15 to 20 percent fall into this category called unknown. This means that the observer was not affected by any determinable psychological quirks and that after exhaustive investigation the object that was reported could not be identified. To be classed as an unknown, a UFO report also had to be "good," meaning that it had to come from a competent observer and had to contain a reasonable amount of data.... [Any report lacking sufficient data, like the stereotypical distant-light-in-the-sky report], if it was received by Project Blue Book, was stamped "Insufficient Data for Evaluation" and dropped into the dead file, where it became a mere statistic."
-- USAF Captain Edward J. Ruppelt's "Report on Unidentified Flying Objects", pp.9-10 (emphasis added)


How many times must this misunderstanding over what "unknown" and "unidentified" really meant in practice be cleared up? The historical "unknowns" were not unknown due to lack of information. They were 'unknown' because there was plenty of information from competent and reliable observers, and often radar, and yet the object's behavior or appearance made it clear that it very likely could not have been natural or man-made. All natural and man-made phenomena were excluded as possible explanations one by one.

What this means is that there does exist a certain core set of UFO unknowns which should really be thought of not merely as "unknown", but as basically "unidentifiable."

As to proof, here's another point that Ruppelt has made as well as anyone:


"The hassle over the word “proof” boils down to one question: What constitutes proof? Does a UFO have to land at the River Entrance to the Pentagon, near the Joint Chiefs of Staff offices? Or is it proof when a ground radar station detects a UFO, sends a jet to intercept it, the jet pilot sees it, and locks on with his radar, only to have the UFO streak away at a phenomenal speed? Is it proof when a jet pilot fires at a UFO and sticks to his story even under the threat of court-martial? Does this constitute proof?"


Who knows? Not me. But I personally think it would be very foolish to scoff at decades of compelling, cumulative UFO evidence simply because no single case on its own has yet earned the label of "proof" in the mainstream.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Where is the high definition video and photos?

no one of the deluded had a mobile phone camera?

or thought of it?

seriously.

more likely they were smoking magic mushrooms.





top topics
 
205
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join