Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


You're intentionally muddying the waters to avoid answering the question.

By 'the entirety of the UFO phenomenon,' I was referring to the UFO cases worth studying - cases such as the Japan Airlines case, and the majority of the cases defined as 'Unknown' according to the U.S. Air Force's own studies. Simply look at what I've said about this subject before, and it will be abundantly clear that I am only interested in the strongest cases, that this is what I consider to be the proper domain of this subject.

So let's not continue a superficial conversation about semantics, and get back to the real, meaningful issue here.

And now that we're clear on the domain of my statement, how about it?

What's your naturalistic explanation that elegantly explains away the majority of those cases?

edit on 18-2-2013 by Brighter because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 



I think you should continue to study the phenomenon in terms of psychology if you like. I would just be honest in terms of admitting when certain cases can be reasonably determined to be outside the domain of psychology. The desire to force-fit an explanation into one's preferred explanatory framework can be alluring.

I think this is where I am misunderstood with my viewpoint in general and probably make people on both sides of the argument puke in their mouths. Personally I think Psychology is a weak science in general. I use the term because I don't have any other term to use to describe the complexity of the human brain. Much of this IS personal belief and some can be substantiated. I do have a background in Psychology, a degree and an ex-wife who is a psychologist (whose dissertation I critiqued relentlessly). This does not make me an expert by any means but it does explain why I would go that route when looking at this.

I also have a lot of personal experiences where I altered my perception considerably. I don’t want to go into details here, but those experiences seem to relate to the experiences I find here with this topic. Where I find a “connection” or an alternate explanation, I will point that out. It is not my desire or intention to “force-fit” anything although, I admit, I may fall into that trap at times.

Terms like “Mass hallucination” mean nothing to me as a means of explanation and as way to “rule out” something. I use the term “hallucination” frequently because it does invoke interesting discussions and outright hostility at times. The term has a negative connotation and seems to be rejected outright because of that. I do believe it is a misunderstood phenomenon and has nothing to do with the absence of real objects but has more to do with the perceptual distortion of those objects.

My intention is not an overall generalized “theory” that explains every aspect of this. I do see where such explanations could work to explain “some” aspects and do think they are misunderstood, overlooked, glossed over and “ruled-out” without really much of a thought.

I am not convinced that alternate explanations have been “ruled out”. Ruled out by whom? What was their reasoning? I really don’t think we know enough about the complexity of perception and misperception or whatever you want to call it to make a solid conclusion.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter
reply to post by draknoir2
 


You're intentionally muddying the waters to avoid answering the question.

By 'the entirety of the UFO phenomenon,' I was referring to the UFO cases worth studying - cases such as the Japan Airlines case, and the majority of the cases defined as 'Unknown' according to the U.S. Air Force's own studies. Simply look at what I've said about this subject before, and it will be abundantly clear that I am only interested in the strongest cases, that this is what I consider to be the proper domain of this subject.

So let's not continue a superficial conversation about semantics, and get back to the real, meaningful issue here.

And now that we're clear on the domain of my statement, how about it?

What's your naturalistic explanation that elegantly explains away the majority of those cases?

edit on 18-2-2013 by Brighter because: (no reason given)


I answered your carefully framed question correctly. You refused to answer mine and are now backpedaling... the reason being that you are unable to meet your own criteria and are unwilling to admit it.


Let me further answer your question.

There is no one-size-fits-all explanation for the ENTIRETY of the UFO phenomenon. It was a ridiculous demand and you know it. Each case is unique. Nor is a "theory" based upon pure conjecture and wild speculation the simplest, most elegant of explanations.

Now how about answering mine, or at least admitting you overreached?
edit on 18-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

I answered your carefully framed question correctly. You refused to answer mine and are now backpedaling... the reason being that you are unable to meet your own criteria and are unwilling to admit it.


Let me further answer your question.

There is no one-size-fits-all explanation for the ENTIRETY of the UFO phenomenon. It was a ridiculous demand and you know it. Each case is unique. Nor is a "theory" based upon pure conjecture and wild speculation the simplest, most elegant of explanations.

Now how about answering mine, or at least admitting you overreached?


No, I'm fairly certain you're backpedaling more than Lance Armstrong (2x points for double entendre).

You seem to be obsessed with engaging in a conversation involving your own misinterpretation of the domain of my question.

Does it have to do with the fact that you don't have an answer to the meaningful question that I asked, and that out of frustration, you're trying to engage in a superficial argument about semantics?

I think it is, and I'm not really interested in such a conversation.

But if you're going to try and defend Druscilla's position, and the position of every other pseudoskeptic, you're going to have to actually answer that specific question. And here is that question, just so we don't lose sight of the real issue here:

What is your naturalistic theory that elegantly and simply explains the strongest UFO cases, that explains them better than the simple theory that what people are reporting really are structured, physical craft?



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


Still waiting for that answer.

You went through the trouble of demanding such an explanation... the least you can do is say whether you believe such an explanation exists.


It's a simple yes or no answer... doesn't require the usual page of obfuscation.
edit on 18-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Since I'm still waiting on a reply from Teaandstrumpets, ironically after this statement:

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

So, back to the top .... I've asked you one question. It's a tough one, and I suppose I don't really expect a reply from you. I've noticed you tend to disappear when these kinds of things come up. Still, perhaps even having to consider how you'd reply might highlight for you (or anyone holding similar views) the fundamental problems with that position. ???


I'll query you about

Originally posted by Brighter

Well let's just begin with the stronger UFO cases, for example the Japan Airlines 1628 case, or the majority of the cases classified as 'Unknown' according to the U.S. Air Force.

What's your naturalistic explanation that accounts for the majority of those?

In other words, what's your naturalistic explanation that accounts more elegantly for this data than the simple explanation that what they are seeing are actually physical, structured craft?


Just like Teasandstrumpets, who has very similar posting history, very similar frequency of presence with post counts in the mere hundreds, very similar writing style, both making very similar statements, and very similar arguments, both seemingly on a crusade to criticize "wrong thinking" in skepticism, and amusingly a very similar propensity for the very same logical fallacies, errors in reasoning, and "wrong thinking", almost like both accounts are fronts for the same person, though they've been set up near a year apart, you too place similar emphasis on parroting, or referencing what seems to be hallowed material from the collections of UFO literature, reports, and investigations available.

Have you considered out of all this UFO literature, though its been expressed and emphasized as important material, the lack of nonambiguous confirming and confirmable evidence?
While the cases, examples, and listed in these reports and other materials hold some significance of historical value, they stand more readily as examples of FAILURE.
The literature may confirm that there is indeed a phenomenon, but, other than that, and being a repository for details on attempts to pin down even a shred of confirming, confirmable data, the literature is a FAILURE at delivering any such confirmation.

Basically the literature says:
Q: What is the UFO phenomenon?
A: We have indication that the UFO phenomenon is indeed a real phenomenon.

FAIL.

So tell us; should we follow in the footsteps indicated by past attempts at investigating this phenomenon to replicate these failures by following the same standards, methodologies, and errors in interrogation of the subject all the previous failures did?
Replicating failure can certainly be as respectable as replicating success as a matter of verification of failure.

... or, perhaps, we can remain at a designation of UNKNOWN until there's confirming confirmable data to give strong enough indication towards a direction of inquiry?

edit on 18-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
In referring back to these holy books, papers, and reports dealing with the UFO subject printed circa 50s-70s, you're so often citing, referencing, or simply mentioning as gospel, you're more than welcome to maintain a 1950s perspective based on the then cutting edge understanding of how the universe worked way back 40+ years ago.


It has nothing to do with how we thought the universe worked in the 1950s. It's sufficient that those in charge knew we had no technology even close to that which was 'demonstrated' in several multiple-witness radar-visual cases.

And you can pretend that such multiple-witness radar-visual cases don't exist, if it suits your psychological needs, but that doesn't make them go away. Cases where ball lightning, hallucination, psychological contamination, inversion layers, radar clutter, 'ghosts', etc., can be ruled out.

Can you offer any conventional explanation for, say, the Minot B-52 case, that does not completely and embarrassingly crumble under scrutiny? You'd have to ignore an awful lot to even put one out there....

And BTW, there's a reason that early time period IS in a sense 'holy; and I'm surprised you're not aware of it: prior to 1970, an entire class of UFO sightings -- those involving military witnesses and radars -- was mostly available for public scrutiny. And it has not been available since. (With some FOIA-related exceptions.) Any opinion regarding the nature of UFOs that doesn't account for this change is basically stillborn.



Originally posted by Druscilla
... After how many decades of pursuing that cute little idea of aliens has there been any confirming non-ambiguous data to indicate aliens that couldn't also be applicable to any other reasonably UNKNOWN possibly even natural phenomenon?


To you, then, any hypothesis not unambiguously "proven" is merely a "cute little idea" which can be ridiculed? That's an odd position to take.

And the above involves strikingly bad logic, aided by a misunderstanding or unawareness of the most compelling UFO cases, and also by a semantic 'trap' involving your exaggerated standard of evidence. One I'm almost certain you don't apply in non-UFO matters.





Originally posted by Druscilla
... We've been to the moon, and sent probes to Mars, Venus, and a number other bodies....


This alone, before you even typed the rest of that sentence, should have caused panic. ;-) These human accomplishments don't fit at all comfortably with your conclusions. A species that just over 100 years ago was confined mostly to 10mph-travel over its planet's surface is now sending probes to other planets, and has sent others out of the solar system.

In other words, we've already sent our own 'UFOs' to other worlds. Now put 2 and 2 together....



Originally posted by Druscilla
The universe is vast, and though there very well may be intelligent life somewhere else in the universe, we've now ... no confirming evidence travel over the distances necessary is possible.


Summarizing your position, then, we presently don't know how interstellar travel works, so the possibility of interstellar travel is instantly reduced? Human limitations of knowledge and thought create the parameters within which the universe must operate?

WOW. That Hynek quote in my signature applies pretty nicely here.

And again, I doubt you apply this kind of 'logic' or evidentiary standard to other areas of knowledge. Why not?


Originally posted by Druscilla
Keeping perspective in proper UNKNOWN is the most objective and sensible approach, unless there's confirming evidence indicating a plausible direction for hypothesis and pursuit of inquiry.


But 'true source still unknown' does not mean we can say nothing about the weight of evidence supporting a given hypothesis, does it?

Reasonably objective data is not an issue -- I refer you, again, to the multiple-witness radar-visual cases -- and scientists routinely quantify data that has a subjective component, so ... what's the problem with a scientific study of UFOs again?

I'm glad our progress is not confined by your very narrow interpretation of what is and what is not "plausible".



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter
reply to post by draknoir2

I was referring to the UFO cases worth studying - cases such as the Japan Airlines case, and the majority of the cases defined as 'Unknown' according to the U.S. Air Force's own


We were having a discussion about the Japan Airlines case in another thread but for some reason that discussion stopped. Someone made some good points about this case there and it shed some light on it for me. I would be interested in your response.

post



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 



And you can pretend that such multiple-witness radar-visual cases don't exist, if it suits your psychological needs, but that doesn't make them go away. Cases where ball lightning, hallucination, psychological contamination, inversion layers, radar clutter, 'ghosts', etc., can be ruled out.


Who ruled them out or are we talking about someone's opinion?



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Brighter
reply to post by draknoir2

I was referring to the UFO cases worth studying - cases such as the Japan Airlines case, and the majority of the cases defined as 'Unknown' according to the U.S. Air Force's own


We were having a discussion about the Japan Airlines case in another thread but for some reason that discussion stopped. Someone made some good points about this case there and it shed some light on it for me. I would be interested in your response.

post




Who - me, or Brighter?
edit on 18-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
In all honesty I don't understand the bullying responses. Believe that these are intelligently controlled machines from space because there is no other explanation! It has been written! Don't come here with your own opinions or I shall taunt you.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


Brighter.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   


hey well you guys are arguing. Heres a video about something you can argue



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Moving the Goal posts



Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection): if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn't up on. This is related to Argument By Question. Asking questions is easy: it's answering them that's hard. If each new goal causes a new question, this may get to be Infinite Regression. It is also possible to lower the bar, reducing the burden on an argument. For example, a person who takes Vitamin C might claim that it prevents colds. When they do get a cold, then they move the goalposts, by saying that the cold would have been much worse if not for the Vitamin C.


Original goal post:


Originally posted by Brighter
By all means, let's hear your reasonable, naturalistic explanation for the entirety of the UFO phenomenon. And understand that such an explanation should be able to elegantly and easily explain all facets - descriptive and physical - of the phenomenon.


Repositioned goal post:


Originally posted by Brighter

What is your naturalistic theory that elegantly and simply explains the strongest UFO cases, that explains them better than the simple theory that what people are reporting really are structured, physical craft?



Double points on this one.

Loaded question




A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption ( e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1] Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.


Straw man


Originally posted by Brighter

But if you're going to try and defend Druscilla's position, and the position of every other pseudoskeptic, you're going to have to actually answer that specific question.



Seems if it weren't for logical fallacies you'd have precious little to say.
edit on 18-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


Well, I believe humans are biological weapons. I believe that we humans are being infected with various viruses to make they mutate and inject proper genomes via viral gene therapy by isolating rare blood types that are actually polyploid humans who have bonded with a certain pathogen to get a mutation effect. We humans are a perfect species with open genetic codes for multiple alterations by virus. Through this process a species if they really didn't care about how we felt. Could cultivate and speed up their evolution with every generation we have.

www.abovetopsecret.com... i have info in here and plenty of it if you are interested. Plenty of info even if you don't believe in my theory. I believe that GMO crops and society the way it is as well as pharma is used to create deficencies and to add chemicals to cultvate certain bacteria and viruses so that a couple rare indivuduals will mutate from it, Like of resident evil. That stuff actually happens, well not the zombies. But how alice bonds with the virus. These people exist and there people with super viral genomes who have super human abilities. Example there are humans that exist that can see 9000x more colour than a normal human. Because the color variation is vary vary hard to pinpoint exactly where their spectrum ends, it can very from tertromat to tetromat but thats not to say other mutants exist. We are doing all the necessary precautions to cultivate this... everything society does. lol. Feeds these pathogens. Coca cola blah blah you all know the poisons that exist. Think of the super human tech coming out for the military. Yes they will brag about their achivements but wont brag about how they got it. Specifically anyways.

So there you have it. Some things people do NEED to know. That we are so much more then what we think we are.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
Just like Teasandstrumpets, who has very similar posting history, very similar frequency of presence with post counts in the mere hundreds, very similar writing style, both making very similar statements..., both seemingly on a crusade to criticize "wrong thinking" in skepticism, and amusingly a very similar propensity for the very same logical fallacies, errors in reasoning, and "wrong thinking", almost like both accounts are fronts for the same person ....


Wow, better keep investigating there, Druscilla. ;-) You're simply wrong. But I'm flattered that you think Brighter and I might be the same person. (Not as flattering for him, haha.) If that's truly important to you, then I'm sure an admin can confirm our independence using whatever it is ATS uses to prevent multiple accounts by one person.

And who's more likely to be on what you call a 'crusade'?
1) someone like me, who's behind ~20 posts per month, or
2) someone like you, who's behind ~20 posts per DAY?

And enlighten me on my "errors of reasoning", please? My position is that no, the ETH is not proven, but that lack of 'proof' does not mean there can be no 'evidence' tending to support it. And unless one has completely lost faith in humanity's intelligence and sensory abilities (and it seems you may have), it's reasonable to conclude that the ETH is more likely than not the best explanation for this phenomenon. A phenomenon detected all over the world for at least the last ~65 years, by literally millions of people (yes, millions, as in 10^6), many of whom are backed up by non-human sensory systems, and all suggesting the presence of artificial, seemingly intelligent and yet non-man made objects in our skies.

Here's an example of an error in reasoning, and it's a fair paraphrase of your position: "There's no unambiguous proof for Hypothesis X, and therefore there's no reason for the very establishment which distinguishes mere 'evidence' from unambiguous 'proof' to study it"... i.e., X must be proven before it can have the opportunity to be proven. That is actually your position, condensed. (But don't be ashamed, because it's apparently Seth Shostak's position, too.) Amazing.

And if the explanation behind UFOs actually is that set of things you say it is -- mass psychological phenomena, human misperception, and hoaxing -- then you need to explain why those three things can't be studied by scientists. Many in the academy will be surprised to hear that human perception and thought processes aren't proper areas of study.




Originally posted by Druscilla
Have you considered out of all this UFO literature, though its been expressed and emphasized as important material, the lack of nonambiguous confirming and confirmable evidence?
While the cases... and other materials hold some significance of historical value, they stand more readily as examples of FAILURE...

Basically the literature says:
Q: What is the UFO phenomenon?
A: We have indication that the UFO phenomenon is indeed a real phenomenon.


The literature says much more than that UFOs are a real phenomenon. What this literature you keep ignoring does say -- and please, just read it, for crying out loud -- is that not only is the phenomenon real, but it also is very likely not comprised merely of psychological manifestations, hoaxes and misperceptions.

In other words, things written decades ago by people much more qualified, knowledgeable and involved than either of us clearly refute the primary arguments you use to smack down others in these forums.

You've admitted you've not read the most important and official UFO material. And you've come very close to saying there's no reason you should. You seem to like this capital 'FAIL' thing. I wonder if ignorance, and especially the unabashed advocacy of it (which you've actually done), is the biggest 'FAIL' of all?



Originally posted by Druscilla
... or, perhaps, we can remain at a designation of UNKNOWN until there's confirming confirmable data to give strong enough indication towards a direction of inquiry?


I'm glad to see you've retreated from UFO denial back toward the more reasonable explanation of 'unknown'. But you're still only halfway there. Once you acknowledge the second part -- that 'unknown' does NOT imply that any hypothesis we posit is equally probable -- then you'll have a clear idea of what it is that multiple obviously-informed people have been trying to tell you.

Knowledge is indeed power. Your words. So now, please go read the Condon Report, SR#14, Hynek, McDonald, Menzel, Klass, etc., and confirm for yourself that your reasons for denial are not new or unique, but were actually dispensed with long ago.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
To apply objectively to a phenomenon that is almost entirely subjective would seen difficult if not impossible. It's a perceptual phenomenon studied by people who don't understand how people perceive. A psychological phenomenon studied by people who don't understand the complexities of psychology. So if someone "sees" a metallic object with all kinds of geometric patterns while they are under a lot of stress, then that is what it must be! At the crux of every case is someone's subjective perception.


Why do you say "almost entirely subjective" instead of "entirely subjective"?

I find that very interesting.

When you speak of UFOs, are you speaking of all reports, or of the truly interesting and seemingly inexplicable 5 to 10%?

I'm interested in the best cases. Multiple witnesses. Highly credible. Something to lose by even reporting the sighting. Radar confirmation... with malfunction, etc., ruled out.

If we're discussing UFOs, then those are the types of cases (by the historical definition of 'UFO') we should confine ourselves to.

Let's ask a basic question: if multiple radars paint an object at a given location, and the object's position and movements match what's described by multiple independent ground and/or air witnesses, is there anything of evidentiary value in there? Or do we let it all just disappear behind the concept of 'subjectivity'?

It seems like you feel that everything which contains any bit of human involvement is necessarily 'subjective' ... right down to the chemist reading 2ml's vs. 3 in his little laboratory pipette. While there is technically some subjectivity involved in any measurement, in even discussing such an obvious truth we've already strayed from "the point", which involves analyzing the probative value of various types of evidence, after considering factors such as corroboration, reliability, and so on.

Note: were we to exclude all data which contains any substantially subjective components, then much of our science would instantly evaporate. Any graph at all containing error bars becomes immediately useless under your rigid 'subjective' vs. 'objective' standard. That's why it's not the standard to apply -- it unfairly excludes useful evidence.

We all just need to be honest about what types of evidence hold weight, and how much. And that analysis just isn't a simple one. It's why books must be read, and the topic's history understood ....



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


Look, your logical fallacy 'identifications' reads like a comedy of errors. It's obvious to anyone who's actually formally studied logic that you never have. Please do yourself a favor and stop.

All you've done is latch onto a misinterpretation for dear life in order to derail the conversation away from your having to confront the real, meaningful question. The reason is that this very question betrays the futility of the entire pseudoskeptical mission. In fact, if it's such an easily defensible position, then why not defend it by providing a meaningful answer to it?

I'm simply asking you to defend a position by answering a very straightforward question. And your response is to 'reinterpret' that question and answer another one. This is no secret. Anyone can see what you're doing. In fact, I'll give you an object lesson in identifying 'moving the goalposts' - examine your convenient reinterpretation of my question and avoidance in answering it. The fact that you still fail to answer the meaningful question is indicative of this very intention.

And the more time that goes by in which neither you nor anyone else answers this question, the idea that UFOs represent a class of real, physical objects remains the superior hypothesis.

This has been the case for years and will likely continue to be so.

This is in fact the problem with arguing with pseudoskeptics - they're unable to defend their own position. The only way their hypotheses survive is through focusing on straw-men and intentionally misrepresenting the entire phenomenon, and derailing conversations down meaningless avenues in order to avoid the real issue. It's as though the very existence of these memes feed off of logical fallacies and serial misrepresentation. This is not a good sign. It's the sign of an position that has no merit, never had any merit, and likely never will.

And I'll pose this question again for anyone to answer, who believes that the best explanation for the strongest UFO cases is that they are all explainable in terms of mundane, naturalistic phenomena:

What is your naturalistic theory that simply and elegantly explains the strongest UFO cases, that explains them better than the simple theory that what people are reporting really are structured, physical craft?

And if you don't want to publicly answer this question, then at least try and do so in private.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

No, I don't think Mainstream Science, of any era, has studied the topic of UFOs to any real degree of competence.

Further, I don't think main-stream science CAN study the phenomenon to any degree of competence, not due to lack of facility, or lack of objectivity, but due to lack of reliable unambiguous data.

Sure, there's data applicable to the phenomenon, but, the data applicable is often misleadingly spurious, non-uniform, unpredictable, and irreplicable among many qualities not least of which being there's nothing to poke at, or reliably observe.


That's unbelievably circular, Druscilla. You're better than that.

If there were reliable and unambiguous data -- some pretty amazing radar data, let's say, from multiple sensors, simultaneously -- then whose stamp of approval would be needed before that data could and would be taken seriously?

Mainstream science's stamp, right? Of course.

But you've admitted that mainstream science has not objectively studied the topic.

So if the only establishment with the power to brand data "reliable and unambiguous" has not fairly looked at that data, then ... how do you conclude there's no reliable and unambiguous data to look at?

Are you saying that a phenomenon must already be proven before the only ones capable of actually proving it can take a look?

I can't think of a more perfectly impenetrable barrier to the serious study of UFOs than logic such as that.

But the data is "unpredictable and irreplicable", you say.

Could data regarding a transient phenomenon which we apparently don't control be anything other than "unpredictable and irreplicable"? Of course not.

Does the fact that a phenomenon's data is difficult, or "unpredictable and irreplicable", say much at all about whether that phenomenon is actually occurring? No.

If we assume the ETH is correct -- and we definitely shouldn't, but just for a second, let's -- wouldn't the data quite possibly look a lot like exactly what we have? We're not even in control of it. So the fact that the data IS that messy, etc., can't be properly used as an argument against the hypothesis.

Imagine the things we'd not know if we let data that's "unpredictable and irreplicable" dissuade us from serious study.



Originally posted by Druscilla

I asked before, and again; Where's the unambiguous confirming data ... ?
... So far, UFOs exist soundly as a phenomenon, as an unknown, quite readily independent their own without the requirement for aliens.


Uh ... again, where would this "unambiguous confirming data" be coming from?

(Now I can't get the image of a Mobius strip out of my mind....)

If this phenomenon exhibits intelligence, with performance far exceeding anything we're remotely capable of -- and remember, how do we know if it does or doesn't, given the lack of proper study? -- then it becomes extremely difficult to hide behind that shield you keep calling "unknown".



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Ah, you're so completely adorable when you try so hard.




Can you offer any conventional explanation for, say, the Minot B-52 case, that does not completely and embarrassingly crumble under scrutiny? You'd have to ignore an awful lot to even put one out there....


It's not a conventional explanation, but, I can give just as speculative, if not more grounded probability based on known science than having to include aliens:
Unidirectional, naturally occurring Einstein-Rosen bridge interfaces would -
1. Offer solid radar returns
2. Present a 'metallic-looking' appearance due the unidirectional interface being output only
3. Appear toroid, saucer or lens-shaped, spheroid, or any other number of mathematically sound geometries.

Some literature you might profit from reading, um, scrutinizing, far more so than the speculative fumblings of what amount to ghost hunters might be found here: Arxiv.org: search string "+Wormhole +Geometry"
If you've cause for feeling any of the said papers "embarrassingly crumble under scrutiny", you're more than welcome to write any of the authors of those papers who will be more than happy to paint your own embarrassment large in whatever color you desire.

As far as ambiguity is concerned; you've got radar hits; dots on a screen.
What are you going to do with dots on a screen backed up by supposed human eyeball accounting?
Is any of it actionable?
Regardless of how unambiguous the radar returns are, the whole of it is still entirely ambiguous as any sort of evidence of anything other than something peculiar.

You've got dots on a screen, and some people say they saw something.

Oh what an orgy of data you present for debate. /sarcasm.

Seemingly intelligently controlled "craft"?
Every single word that makes up that statement of "seemingly intelligently controlled craft" is speculation.
Seeming: appearing to be
Intelligently: appearing to have intelligent action
Controlled: the act of being manipulated by an outside agency (no proof)
Craft: a vehicle (no proof)

Naturally occurring Einstein-Rosen Bridge Interface fits just as well as any wishy washy schoolgirl desire for ETH, and there's a prodigious amount of hard science backing up the probability, far more so than anything claiming that there's a Yoda out there.

Still, we've no firm data to even be so bold as to say that any events as described could even fit an Einstein-Rosen Bridge Interface as explanation. You, however, wanted something of a tickle beyond your limited facility for imagination of the entirely speculative, so, there you have it; speculation of equal or greater probability than aliens with a wealth of science to back it up for your perusal to criticize.

Running off pell-mell. Willy and Nilly in the pursuit of Mork, Alf, Marvin the Martian, or whatever preconception that fits into the 'aliens' bin you want to run around looking for is a willful act of wearing blinders against the distractions of any other possibility as of yet unproven, or unknown.

UFOs as a phenomenon get along quite nicely without any requirement for aliens.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join