It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Critical Thinking and the UFO Hypothesis I: Confusing the Issues

page: 3
22
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by humphreysjim
As for your initial statement that UFO's display "almost unbelievable" properties, that is completely vague and subjective - essentially meaningless drivel.


Here's a brief sampling of the kind of thing the OP is talking about, taken from investigated reports:


VIOLENT AND ERRATIC MANEUVERS

-"tacking and veering"
-"streaked...series of violent maneuvers."
-high speed, "zigzagged"
-hovered, bobbed around arcing back and forth, up and down
-climbed rapidly, stopped 10 seconds, dived, leveled off, moved away horizontally
-dove, leveled off, sharp left turn, climbed steeply and shot away
-erratic darting side to side, undulating course, circled.
-hovered, violent jerks up & down, rocked back & forth, darted away
-hovered 8 minutes, arced back & forth about 15º, returning to orignal position, slowly dropped out of sight
-two spun around each other rapidly, joined by two others, moved jerkily when moving slowly
-bobbed up & down, back & forth, maintained 3º separation
-one swooped down, hovered, zigzagged & shot away; second hovered, tilted up & shot away
-moved with regular jerks, visible one hour, satellite objects visible at one point
-discs moved in pairs, zigzagged
-hovered, darted erratically in various directions, up & down...
-rapid pulsation, square turns, sudden stops & bursts of speed
-moved erratically up & down, hovered 10 minutes...
-sped into area, hovered, bobbed around sky for several hours; tracked by radar, seen visually
-steady course, sudden reversal, violent zigzagging...
-hovered, vibrated up & down, side to side
-hovered 2 minutes, split into 2 parts which moved jerkily in opposite directions at high speed, came back together several times, then 3 parts...


source


And the assumption that this is a craft is based on what?


I didn't make the assumption that they are craft. I prefer the term "object". Using the term "craft" implies that we know more about the objects than we actually do. The more generic "object" - or "phenomenon" or even "thing" - appeals to me much more and seems more accurate, but that's just my preference. If I did use the word craft, then it was a mistake, and I apologize.
edit on 2-8-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by humphreysjim
As for your initial statement that UFO's display "almost unbelievable" properties, that is completely vague and subjective - essentially meaningless drivel.


Here's a brief sampling of the kind of thing the OP is talking about, taken from investigated reports:


VIOLENT AND ERRATIC MANEUVERS

-"tacking and veering"
-"streaked...series of violent maneuvers."
-high speed, "zigzagged"
-hovered, bobbed around arcing back and forth, up and down
-climbed rapidly, stopped 10 seconds, dived, leveled off, moved away horizontally
-dove, leveled off, sharp left turn, climbed steeply and shot away
-erratic darting side to side, undulating course, circled.
-hovered, violent jerks up & down, rocked back & forth, darted away
-hovered 8 minutes, arced back & forth about 15º, returning to orignal position, slowly dropped out of sight
-two spun around each other rapidly, joined by two others, moved jerkily when moving slowly
-bobbed up & down, back & forth, maintained 3º separation
-one swooped down, hovered, zigzagged & shot away; second hovered, tilted up & shot away
-moved with regular jerks, visible one hour, satellite objects visible at one point
-discs moved in pairs, zigzagged
-hovered, darted erratically in various directions, up & down...
-rapid pulsation, square turns, sudden stops & bursts of speed
-moved erratically up & down, hovered 10 minutes...
-sped into area, hovered, bobbed around sky for several hours; tracked by radar, seen visually
-steady course, sudden reversal, violent zigzagging...
-hovered, vibrated up & down, side to side
-hovered 2 minutes, split into 2 parts which moved jerkily in opposite directions at high speed, came back together several times, then 3 parts...


source


And the assumption that this is a craft is based on what?


I didn't make the assumption that they are craft. I prefer the term "object". Using the term "craft" implies that we know more about the objects than we actually do. The more generic "object" - or "phenomenon" or even "thing" - appeals to me much more and seems more accurate, but that's just my preference. If I did use the word craft, then it was a mistake, and I apologize.
edit on 2-8-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)


The OP updated the definition of "The UFO Hypothesis" to describe a "craft" not merely an object, I believe.

So we have a hypothesis that there are objects we haven't yet identified that display "almost unbelievable" characteristics ("almost unbelievable" depends on what you think it is. What is unbelievable for a craft may not be for a weather phenomena, for instance, like ball lightning, or a shooting star). The first part is a fact that is not up-for-debate, we do not need a hypothesis for that, and the second part is vague. Instances of ball lightning and other mundane things may match the definition of "almost unbelievable" characteristics, and may appear in a video as unidentified.

Does that mean the UFO hypothesis would be proven, even though the object may well be something we know already exists?

The hypothesis is in need of much work. If we don't have a clear, unambiguous description of what the UFO hypothesis is, we can hardly blame skeptics for not debating it properly.
edit on 2-8-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I think what the UFO enthusiasts are really trying to say is that the UFO Hypothesis is:

"There are aerial phenomena that cannot possibly be explained within our existing framework of knowledge".

Or something like that. Basically, that these "things" can not be explained by what we know, and must be investigated as possible new things we do not already know about, whether that be aliens, new weather phenomena, demons, etc, primarily because of the way they are described to act (unnatural speed and maneuvers, and so on).

I don't think the case has been sufficiently proven, but I would be surprised if at least a few of these cases were not the result of some until-now-undiscovered mundane natural phenomena, related to weather or something else. But not aliens, or inter-dimensional beings, or anything else I would class as outlandish and highly unlikely.
edit on 2-8-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

The OP updated the definition of "The UFO Hypothesis" to describe a "craft" not merely an object, I believe.


You believe correctly. I wouldn't have done so, but it's clear to me that the OP's "craft" and my "objects" refer to the same phenomenon.


So we have a hypothesis that there are objects we haven't yet identified that display "almost unbelievable" characteristics ("almost unbelievable" depends on what you think it is. What is unbelievable for a craft may not be for a weather phenomena, for instance, like ball lightning, or a shooting star).


Again I have to differ with the OP's choice of phrasing, although I can understand why he would use the shorthand "almost unbelievable" rather than taking the time to list all the specific and recurring behaviors reportedly exhibited by these objects - behaviors which he seems to assume we are all familiar with. When the reported appearances and behaviors of the objects are taken into account, it becomes fairly clear that they do not fit the pattern of known weather or astronomical phenomena, including ball lightning and shooting stars.


The first part is a fact that is not up-for-debate, we do not need a hypothesis for that, and the second part is vague. Instances of ball lightning and other mundane things may match the definition of "almost unbelievable" characteristics, and may appear in a video as unidentified.

Does that mean the UFO hypothesis would be proven, even though the object may well be something we know already exists?

The hypothesis is in need of much work. If we don't have a clear, unambiguous description of what the UFO hypothesis is, we can hardly blame skeptics for not debating it properly.


I agree with your last statement, and in these two previous posts I've tried to clarify the "UFO Hypothesis" as I understand it. The OP subsequently noted that my take on his meaning is essentially accurate:




I think "UFO Hypothesis" is meant to denote the proposition that UFOs - objects bearing the characteristics described in the "unidentified" set of UFO reports - actually exist. In other words, people don't just claim they see 100-foot diameter disc-shaped objects hovering and silently taking off at incredible speeds; they actually do see them in some cases. The object is objectively there and actually exhibits the features attributed to it by the witness.

It would be contrasted, I guess, with the hypothesis that, whatever the witness (in this hypothetical scenario) thinks he saw, it must have been something other than what it appeared to be, and the 100-foot disc had no objective reality as a 100-foot disc.





The 'UFO Hypothesis' as it is being used in this thread specifically does not deal with "what" UFOs are, but rather "that" they are. Their actual nature and origin are not the salient points here, only their existence as real objects having certain characteristics. Neither a bird, a balloon nor a reflection is a UFO in this sense, even if it is unidentified. In a way, the UFOs the OP is talking about are identified - as members of a particular class of objects that exhibit certain characteristics. We don't know what, specifically, they are, other than to say they are objects that share a set of traits with other members of this class.

In trying to determine whether or not UFOs - as defined in this thread - actually exist, not merely by virtue of their being misidentified conventional objects, but as real objects actually possessing the physical characteristics attributed to them by witnesses, the question of their nature and origin (whether they are alien spacecraft, secret military craft or something else entirely) is a secondary consideration that is altogether irrelevant to the question of their existence or non-existence.

...The UFO Hypothesis says that some people make these reports because they actually did see an object that exhibited these characteristics and that the object they saw has an objective existence independent of their having seen it.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I don't approve of the use of the words 'craft' or 'object'. They both seem to beg the question. What if some UFOs are a living plasma? Or manifestations of collective consciousness in symbolic forms?



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
I think what the UFO enthusiasts are really trying to say is that the UFO Hypothesis is:

"There are aerial phenomena that cannot possibly be explained within our existing framework of knowledge".

Or something like that. Basically, that these "things" can not be explained by what we know, and must be investigated as possible new things we do not already know about, whether that be aliens, new weather phenomena, demons, etc, primarily because of the way they are described to act (unnatural speed and maneuvers, and so on).


I wouldn't say that they cannot possibly be explained, only that nobody has yet been able to come up with an explanation that fits the reported characteristics of appearance and behavior of the objects. The default assumption then seems to be that the things reported cannot be, therefore they aren't.


I don't think the case has been sufficiently proven, but I would be surprised if at least a few of these cases were not the result of some until-now-undiscovered mundane natural phenomena, related to weather or something else. But not aliens, or inter-dimensional beings, or anything else I would class as outlandish and highly unlikely.


You may be right about them being natural phenomena, but I don't think the adjective "mundane" can be reasonably applied. We would at least have to say that it is a natural phenomenon that consistently creates the illusion of seemingly manufactured objects that appear to be under intelligent control. Regardless, as the OP noted - as his main point - demonstrating that the objects exist is a separate matter from determining what they are.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


"So we have a hypothesis that there are objects we haven't yet identified that display "almost unbelievable" characteristics ("almost unbelievable" depends on what you think it is. What is unbelievable for a craft may not be for a weather phenomena, for instance, like ball lightning, or a shooting star). The first part is a fact that is not up-for-debate, we do not need a hypothesis for that, and the second part is vague. Instances of ball lightning and other mundane things may match the definition of "almost unbelievable" characteristics, and may appear in a video as unidentified."

I'm getting the distinct feeling that either you (still) don't understand the point of the original post, or you're intentionally trying to misunderstand it. You mention that UFOs "are objects that we haven't yet identified". This statement is remarkably ambiguous, because in one sense (who pilots them, how they are constructed) this is true, yet in another very important sense (the sense directly relevant to the UFO Hypothesis), that statement is false, with respect to the fact that UFOs demonstrate a specific set of flight characteristics. See Orkojoker's list of descriptions for a small sample.

"'almost unbelievable' depends on what you think it is."

This is patently false. It does not at all depend simply on what you think it is. It depends on the normal human reaction to the well-documented set of flight characteristics described by many thousands of individuals. See Orkojoker's list of descriptions above for a small sample. I am of course assuming a certain understanding of and exposure to the stronger historical cases for the UFO Hypothesis, but this clearly can't be satisfied in many instances, and I'm getting the distinct feeling that it isn't being satisfied in this instance.

"What is unbelievable for a craft may not be for a weather phenomena, for instance, like ball lightning, or a shooting star"

If this is your conclusion after assessing the best arguments for the strongest UFO cases, then this sounds like a form of denial, not skepticism. Please see this thread: Critical Thinking and The UFO Hypothesis II: Ignoring the Evidence

"Does that mean the UFO hypothesis would be proven, even though the object may well be something we know already exists?"

Again, I refer you to this discussion here: Critical Thinking and The UFO Hypothesis II: Ignoring the Evidence

"The hypothesis is in need of much work. If we don't have a clear, unambiguous description of what the UFO hypothesis is, we can hardly blame skeptics for not debating it properly."

The UFO Hypothesis, as I originally defined it, was as a working definition entirely sufficient to prove the original point that I wished to make. It would of course not be sufficient if one were to take it out of context and try to make it do more work than it was intended to do. It may not have been as detailed as I would have liked it to have been, but it suited the purpose. And it certainly was not "ambiguous," as you say. I've already shown above how your perceived ambiguity was the result of a basic conceptual confusion regarding the notion of "unidentified" in the term "UFO".

But just so I'm confident that you grasped the point of the original post, could you explain what my overall point was? This could help clear things up immensely. You seem to be consistently focusing on points that aren't directly relevant to it.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
This sort of philosophical argumentation is just so much cotton candy -- take a bite and it just melts away.

Let's climb off the ceiling and get back to terra firma.

A vehicle is speeding down the street. It looks like an opaque bubble set inside a single fat tire. A cop clocks it going over the limit and running a stop sign. A traffic camera snaps a picture. A motorist also sees it as do a couple pedestrians. The cop gives chase. The craft zig-zags all over the place, ducks through a skinny alley and disappears. The cop can't follow in his car.

Ok, so no one's ever seen a motorized unicycle (actually, I have). That doesn't change the facts:

1) an unusual craft was seen zooming by.
2) a cop's radar clocked it speeding and he saw it running a stop sign.
3) A traffic camera took a picture.
4) a motorist saw it.
5) pedestrians also saw it.
6) the craft takes intelligent evasive action and splits.
7) no one could see the pilot

Now, your UFO hypothesis says ufos exist.
So far, so good.
Since no one saw a pilot, it can't be assumed that there was one even though it reacted intelligently to subsequent pursuit.

Really?

The fact is there are many reports just like this one. Also, the fact is, that there are many reports of creatures associated with such craft.

If, however, all we ever had were craft flying around and landing, a possible hypothesis might be that they are a kind of living space creature indigenous to the outer space environment itself, perhaps on their periodic migratory journey through the galaxy, just stopping in to wet their whistles.

So, in reviewing the above 'sighting', shall we say since no pilot apparently exists; motorized unicycles don't exist; and the witnesses therefore saw the planet Venus, or a hair ball, or marsh gas?

How's this: The cop had dust in his eyes, his radar gun clocked a grasshopper, the traffic camera picture is blurry, the motorist had a smudge on his windshield, and the pedestrians were probably texting or sexting -- or whatever they do when they're not falling into a public fountain or slamming into telephone poles -- and thus could not have seen anything anyway.

Do you really think the judge and/or jury is going to buy that?

/
The UFO Hypothesis: There exists a class of aerial objects exhibiting almost unbelievable
flight characteristics.

The Alien Hypothesis: There exists on this planet an alien presence.
/

Ok, Let's see now, if they're alien, and they've been here awhile and are flitting about, they must also have arrived here by some means.

If not, then they aren't alien, but part of the planet's lifeforms.

Since there is a rather voluminous body of data where craft are closely associated with creatures, i. e.; coming out of, taking samples, going back in, and taking off again, leaving trace evidence, it seems reasonable to link craft with creatures.

/
It should be clear the UFO Hypothesis and the Alien Hypothesis are distinct. In other words, the existence of UFOs has nothing necessarily to do with the existence of aliens.
/

How do you figure that? But have it your way; however, I don't buy it.

Yes, there can be UFOs in the skies and even have landings (as long as they stay unseen in their crafts) WITHOUT there being an abiding alien presence. But the existence of aliens on the planet OF NECESSITY, DOES have something to do with UFOs. To put it simply, there can be UFOs without an alien presence. But there cannot be resident aliens flying around without UFOs having brought them here.

/
Skeptics will often deride any evidence put forth for the existence of UFOs by invoking the idea of aliens. The argument often goes something like:
/

Real skeptics retain an open mind; you are describing debunkers. Debunkers are a low order of life who deride everything as a matter of course -- including their own improbable existence: "I am, therefore I debunk!" Some are merely 'useful idiots' to be used and then unceremoniously thrown under the bus by their handlers.

Debunkers deride the very existence of UFOs and ascribe to those who detect them the most assinine, non-sensical, ridiculous, mind-numbingly preposterous explanations imaginable. They unflinchingly insult the intelligence and integrity of military and civilian pilots, ATC technicians, radar operators, astronomers, and even security personnel at nuclear missile sites, not to mention the average person.

/
(1) If UFOs exist, then aliens exist.
(2) Aliens do not exist.
Therefore, UFOs do not exist.
/

However, that's not what your original hypotheses state. Your second, original (Alien) hypothesis is joined at the hip with your first (UFO) one.

/
(1) is a prime example of sloppy, uncritical thinking, where one combines two issues that are actually distinct. It is an attempt to capitalize on a cultural bias regarding the assumed fictitiousness of aliens.
/

This is what debunkers do best; make a snarky, hairy ass out of themselves. Remember Friedman's cogent analysis of the debunker mind-set:

1. Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

2. What the public doesn't know, I won't tell them.

3. If one can't attack the data, attack the people.

4. Do one's research by proclamation rather than investigation.


So why would anyone waste their time talking to such?

guyx

edit on 2-8-2012 by gguyx because: spelling...



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by gguyx
 


Wow, really unique post. Nicely done. One thing to point out: I don't think that the OP is saying that aliens are necessarily unrelated to UFOs, only that it's unnecessary to invoke the idea of aliens - or of any other specific cause - in an argument for the existence of UFOs. Once it's been agreed upon that they exist, then we can all move on to the question of what they are - and of course ET is toward the top of any reasonable list of candidates.

I'd also like to put forward the idea that there could be an alien presence on the planet without it necessarily having to be related to UFOs at all. Suppose it has been here all along, before us, and has been completely earthbound for, say, fifty million years, living undetected, perhaps at the bottom of the ocean, having not surfaced since before the dawn of humankind. In other words, it's not necessary to invoke the actual existence of UFOs in order to posit the existence of an alien presence on Earth.
edit on 2-8-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by gguyx
 


Hey gguyx,

Orkojoker beat me to it, and he's correct again with regard to my position.



"Now, your UFO hypothesis says ufos exist.
So far, so good.
Since no one saw a pilot, it can't be assumed that there was one even though it reacted intelligently to subsequent pursuit.

Really?


I'm not at all making that inference. The thing is that I'm starting with something really basic - the idea that UFOs, as a class of aerial craft exhibiting certain characteristics, exist. And in order to prove their existence, which I think is a really important first step, one not need refer to aliens at all, as the historical observational data alone is sufficient to at least justify a belief in the existence of these craft. In the same way, you could prove the existence of cars without ever referring to who is driving them, even though it should be pretty clear that they are being intelligently controlled.

The reason why I even started this thread is because the automatic combination of the alien and UFO concepts is so perfunctory and so widespread, that I felt as though I needed to point out that they are not necessarily connected with respect to proving the existence of UFOs. Now, if you're comfortable with the evidence for the existence of UFOs, then you could speculate on who or what is controlling them, or even how they function. But your speculation wouldn't really be based on anything if you hadn't set the foundation first.

So what I am trying to do is to at least bring to people's attention the fact that, even if you don't believe in aliens, or think aliens are a completely absurd and ridiculous idea (which is understandable), there is still an enormous body of evidence supporting the existence of these craft.

And, for what it's worth, and for independent reasons, I don't think that all of these craft are man-made.

But thanks again for your interesting post.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Fellows,

Here we arrive at the crux of the issue, namely, the inevitable slippery slope. IF it is admitted that UFOs exist then the Pandora's box of questions immediately arises. Who's piloting them? Where are they from? Are they butt-ugly? What are they doing here? How many types are there? Are they friendly or not? Are some psychic? Are they interested in trade?

Imagine a reporter's take; who, what, when, where, how and why. Can we video them? Can we have an interview? How many did we shoot down? Are we at war with some of them? Is it true that they have bases here? What kind of 'deals' did our governments make with them to extract technology and what did we have to give up to them to get it? If so, under what authority? (Heads will roll !) Is our government getting tech from them in exchange for limited permission to abduct and experiment on random Americans? Don't laugh; read the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, or marching soldiers into a radioactive zone and others. If we killed them, would that be considered 'murder', in the legal sense? And what sort of revenge could we expect if we downed their craft? Just how many of their craft did we shoot down? How many pilots did we lose? Should we ally ourselves to some against others like our Indians did? How do we know which ones are the 'good guys'? Will funnymentalists imagine that aliens are demons and try to kill them on sight? What about inter-species marriages and the like?

So, rather than permit these kinds of inquiries, the easiest out is to ridicule the very existence of anomalous craft -- for as long as possible. Even allowing for the mere existence of UFOs opens up this nasty can of worms.

guyx
edit on 3-8-2012 by gguyx because: spelling dang it

edit on 3-8-2012 by gguyx because: @#$%



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by gguyx
Fellows,

Here we arrive at the crux of the issue, namely, the inevitable slippery slope. IF it is admitted that UFOs exist then the Pandora's box of questions immediately arises. Who's piloting them? Where are they from? Are they butt-ugly? What are they doing here? How many types are there? Are they friendly or not? Are some psychic? Are they interested in trade?

Imagine a reporter's take; who, what, when, where, how and why. Can we video them? Can we have an interview? How many did we shoot down? Are we at war with some of them? Is it true that they have bases here? What kind of 'deals' did our governments make with them to extract technology and what did we have to give up to them to get it? If so, under what authority? (Heads will roll !) Is our government getting tech from them in exchange for limited permission to abduct and experiment on random Americans? Don't laugh; read the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, or marching soldiers into a radioactive zone and others. If we killed them, would that be considered 'murder', in the legal sense? And what sort of revenge could we expect if we downed their craft? Just how many of their craft did we shoot down? How many pilots did we lose? Should we ally ourselves to some against others like our Indians did? How do we know which ones are the 'good guys'? Will funnymentalists imagine that aliens are demons and try to kill them on sight? What about inter-species marriages and the like?

So, rather than permit these kinds of inquiries, the easiest out is to ridicule the very existence of anomalous craft -- for as long as possible. Even allowing for the mere existence of UFOs opens up this nasty can of worms.

guyx
edit on 3-8-2012 by gguyx because: spelling dang it

edit on 3-8-2012 by gguyx because: @#$%


You're right that by starting from the existence of UFOs, a whole can of worms is opened up. With an issue as complex as this, avenues of thought tend to rapidly unfold, and before you know it, you've forgotten how you got to where you are. As a result, it's difficult sometimes to see how the sub-issues are actually related.

There have been some notable cases where beings have been seen in or around these craft that do not at all appear to be human. In some cases, behind portholes or windows, in others, actually outside the craft. There is also the entire abduction phenomenon where abductees describe being taken aboard these craft as well. These cases taken as a whole strongly support the idea that these craft are not at all being piloted by humans. In a very large number of these cases (whether beings seen walking outside the craft, or with beings during an abduction) the communication is telepathic. They also commonly involve reproductive experiments and testing. There are just too many common threads by too many diverse people around the world to ignore it. There really is something absolutely remarkable taking place.

And so panning back out, we have these two separate and very large sets of data - one involving the existence of these craft, and one involving the existence of these beings. These two sets of data are actually strongly supportive of one another - the craft need to be controlled by something, and the beings need some way of getting around. Not to mention the fact that (as mentioned above) there are actually cases that overlap these two data sets, where the beings are seen in or around these craft.

Aside from the enormous amount of observational evidence for the existence of these craft, and aside from the large body of evidence for the abduction phenomenon, the reality of each of these phenomena is even further strengthened by the fact that they seem co-explanatory.

edit on 4-8-2012 by Brighter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by gguyx
 


Good to see some really unique and thoughtful posts in this thread. Welcome. You've said a lot up above, and I certainly don't agree with all of it (what would the odds be, after all?!?), but it's good to see more informed and analytic thinkers get involved.

It seems like there's really been a bump lately in the number of articulate and clear-thinking 'skeptical believers' around here, as I call them. It could just be my imagination, and it'd be cool to run some statistics on membership numbers and post counts and all, but if my hunch is true, I wonder what explains it? Is there some new compelling UFO book just out, or a really fair and balanced documentary that's recently been aired? (Not here in the U.S, as far as I can see, but perhaps in a more open and forward-thinking part of the world? ;-)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by gguyx
 
I think it's because of that lot you listed that UFO buffs/researchers/investigators (whatever suits) have drawn in their speculations. Things have changed since Major Keyhoe could show up on TV and radio telling us 'the extra-terrestrials are here.' All the organisations have failed to emphatically show that 'ET' is here. From the '40s and '50s probabilities that saucers were ET craft, what have we got?

Leslie Kean has tried to get people thinking about UFOs by relying on the authority of witnesses. NARCAP are trying to do it by warning of potential aviation accidents. Neither make much mention of the next question after 'what are UFOs?' They hedge away because so much lunacy has been associated with the subject and in trying to accrete credibility they need to distract away from some of those questions you listed. It was the same for guys like Sturrock, Bullard and Appelle - critical, quite accepting but never quite certain.

In avoiding the follow-up questions, it allows for people to express an interest in UFO reports without others giggling too much; a semblance of modesty and respectability. So something like the '68 Minot AFB is very, very interesting before the *who* is even asked. Even with something as multi-faceted as that case, what more can be said that isn't speculation? *If* the USAF AFOSI investigated and believed all the evidence, it still wouldn't take them any closer to a conclusion than the day it happened. It wouldn't become something you could prepare for or protect against.

We'll all have a ramble down the 'slippery slope' you mention, but it doesn't do any good to stay down there for long.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Great details on the Minot event. This is a very thorough report and investigation. Reminds me of the '66 ('65?) Edwards AFB multiple ufo event involving several (5 or 7) radars. ATC personnel, and at least one fighter pilot with both radar and visual confirmation.

Getting back to educated guesses, I think we can entertain certain possibilities based on our observational data over the last 60 years and in re-evaluating certain historical events in the light of this new data allowing us to see these events with a new perspective.

1) There are different races each with their own agendas, some psychic, some friendly, some unfriendly, others interested in trade.

2) There are hints that there are conflicting agendas among two or more off-world races, amounting to war. I've read a couple cases of 'aerial battles' being seen in the skies, one several hundred years ago over some part of Europe.

3) One or more may have bases here and may have been coming here for a long time.

4) They are not likely to want to take over this planet because they would have done so a long time ago when we were not able to be a thorn in their sides.

5) They may have a stake in the well-being of this planet if for no other reason than to be able to resupply and perform maintenance of their craft, hence the necessity for having bases here, and perform surveillance on us and test our capabilities (monitoring our aircraft, nuclear facilities, military capabilities, shooting down our tests missiles [see Hastings; Big Sur, and others]).

6) Our experts obviously know more than we do. It's likely that our military analysts have already surmised much of the above and probably more.

These possibilities could be the reason for the secrecy. We're likely to be rapidly trying to play catch-up technologically. All I say is that I hope we are getting the very best minds worldwide to do so.

I am plowing through the data on this Minot case and will get back to you after following the links on this informative site. Is there an index of various other sightings or is this only the Minot event?

guyx



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by gguyx
 



I am plowing through the data on this Minot case and will get back to you after following the links on this informative site. Is there an index of various other sightings or is this only the Minot event?


The researcher is Tom Tulien and he's the founder of Sign Oral History Project. So far, he's got the Minot AFB case and a history of the USAF and UFOs. Seems to me, the Minot account is one of the strongest on record and yet what can be done with it? It's certainly strong evidence that someone or something was physically there...who or what? The same can be said for the Edwards AFB in '65 - radar, visuals and so on, but what could be done?

The list of names they have in the interview section is superb. This oral history is something that we need custodians for. All those experiences can be reinterpreted and misrepresented on paper, but actually hearing intonation, inflection and their own words makes the difference. When all is said and done, most UFO experiences are over in moments and leave nothing behind. As such, capturing the account on audio gives it life and often removes the notion that X had actually been chasing Venus.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join