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.
Originally posted by Brighter
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.
Originally posted by Brighter
Just speaking in terms of UFOs, I notice you always defer to some imaginary future state of science (psychology, physics, atmospheric science, etc.), in the following sense: "Well, one day we could find a scientific explanation that explains these away as natural phenomena, that doesn't involve having to posit any 'intelligent control'".
But there is no evidence to support such a belief, and it's essentially wishful thinking. Take psychology for example. How would it be possible - without fundamentally redefining the entire subject of psychology - for a psychological principle to explain how multiple witnesses see something that leaves physical trace evidence? You'd have to conveniently create the most absurd psychological phenomenon, involving nothing short of supernatural, super-human powers, that enables the subconscious collective imaginations of a group of humans to instantaneously materialize enormous physical objects, and then have them fly around while getting tracked on radar. If you find that more plausible than the non-superhuman-mental-powers version of that story, well then I think we'll just have to disagree.
And I know you're prone to such explanations. I recall from another thread that your best explanation for certain UFOs was their actually being flying wormholes. And just to let you know, as 'cute' an idea as wormholes are, science has zero observational evidence for the existence of wormholes, let alone flying wormholes within our own atmosphere with blinking lights that somehow reflect radar. In other words, you'd prefer a theory with zero observational basis to a theory with more than plenty of observational evidence (involving the physical existence of these craft). By your own stated standards of evidence, you're being irrational.
One could easily respond to similar proposals of explaining UFOs in terms of ball lightning or the piezoelectric effect. Neither of these phenomena can explain the evidence for UFOs in any reasonable fashion. The most obvious problem is that there is no evidence that either of these natural phenomena could explain the often highly detailed visual descriptions of these objects. What these people are often describing are clearly not examples of ball lightning, or 'earth lights'. Furthermore, there is zero evidence that either 'earth lights' or ball lightning can be tracked on radar, and as far as I know, lightning cannot. And even if it could, I'm sure it wouldn't show up on radar displaying properties consistent with a craft traveling within the speeds that they do. And there is also no evidence that 'earth lights' or ball lightning can be dull in color with a clearly defined outer structure that is indistinguishable from a constructed or manufactured object. To assume so is speculation, pure and simple.
You seem like a reasonably intelligent person that for some reason consistently fails to realize that sometimes the best explanation is the simplest one. Instead of extremely exotic (impossible?) future psychological phenomenon, or some extremely exotic future discovery in physics (flying wormholes), theories for which we have zero evidence for, isn't the most simple explanation that these are just physical craft, a theory for which there is plenty of evidence?
Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Why do you say "almost entirely subjective" instead of "entirely subjective"?
I find that very interesting.
Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.
Read more: Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between | Objective vs Subjective www.differencebetween.net...
When you speak of UFOs, are you speaking of all reports, or of the truly interesting and seemingly inexplicable 5 to 10%?
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 ....
Originally posted by Druscilla
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.
Buoyant plasma hypothesis
The declassified Project Condign report concludes that buoyant charged plasma formations similar to ball lightning are formed by novel physical, electrical, and magnetic phenomena, and that these charged plasmas are capable of being transported at enormous speeds under the influence and balance of electrical charges in the atmosphere. These plasmas appear to originate due to more than one set of weather and electrically charged conditions, the scientific rationale for which is incomplete or not fully understood. One suggestion is that meteors breaking up in the atmosphere and forming charged plasmas as opposed to burning completely or impacting as meteorites could explain some instances of the phenomena, in addition to other unknown atmospheric events.[71]
Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by atlasastro
You may desire to consider the UFO phenomenon getting along quite fine and swimmingly without any requirement for aliens, ala per my post directly before yours.
People, however, like aliens.
Aliens have a face.
You can hug an alien.
You can have crystal power transcendental meditative telepathic imaginary conversations with Aliens.
Aliens can be secret evil-doers in cahoots with those dastardly self entitled rich folk.
Aliens can answer for all sorts of mysteries and unknowns.
I understand. Crop circles have been attributed to natural phenomena(BLT's famous plasma vortices) yet many people still prefer E.T as an explanation. It is interesting given that the studies are often sited as sincere scientific studies and evidence that the phenomena can not be attributed to manmade causes(which is then used to infer aliens) whilst the conclusion of natural phenomena is ignored.
Naturally occurring phenomenon?
Ah, that's a hard sell.
The vast majority of folk would rather have a face to blame, hope for, and even pray to as opposed to some randomized naturally occurring mysterious high-order physics.
Monster movies sell better than natural disaster movies, and the same trend applies to UFOs.
No it does not sound like science.
The really amusing and hilarious thing about ETH too is that it replaces "Unknown Phenomenon" with an equally vague, equally unquantifiable value of "Aliens".
Does that sound like science?
"Hey kids; inside this box is something you know nothing about and probably wouldn't understand. In a moment, we're going to replace that mysterious something with something else you've never heard of, seen, experienced, or know anything about."
Right.
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
Originally posted by draknoir2
The way you are using the term implies a deliberate, irrational rejection of a widely accepted "truth".
Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
if I get bored enough and have some time, I might just find the quotes from all the skeptics in this thread where they say things are possible...but I have a robot to work on and you know how much time that takes.
Originally posted by ImpactoR
Originally posted by draknoir2
The way you are using the term implies a deliberate, irrational rejection of a widely accepted "truth".
It's almost like that but whether it is truth has yet to be revealed. The point is, denying absolutely possible things based on current evidence and that evidence is not even all. In general... i was speaking to Drusdilla and others whom I've been observing enough to see where they are heading, and it;s not jard to figre put - that of complete close-mindness. You know, accepting more things when cases suggest so wouldn't hurt your "scientific!?:" approach.
Originally posted by ImpactoR
closing yourself because you don't have the evidence in your hand is pseudoscience,.
Originally posted by Druscilla
[Re: Einstein-Rosen bridges (aka 'wormholes') and Plasma balls]
...We've another even more plausible example than my own highly speculative suggestion, more quantifiable than aliens without any requirement for aliens.
Edit post de facto: Star for you, and star for everyone else I've agreed with on every post from page 1 onward (since I've been sporadically negligent in fulfilling this standard of social support).
But if those independent groups run counter to the mainstream, who will take them seriously? That's the point. The Condon Report defined the mainstream. Actually, Condon's own Summary and Conclusions and Recommendations defined it -- saying there's nothing to UFOs -- and his conclusions don't fit at all well with the hundreds of pages of actual science that follow them. (Released later....)
Originally posted by atlasastro
... Mainstream Science may not have studied the phenomena with any real vigor, but others have! There have been plenty of independant groups who have gathered material outside of mainstream science, have they not? NICAP and MUFON have or did have members with scientific credentials.
They've stated at various times either that they believe the ETH is the most plausible answer, or that it can't be ruled out, or that UFOs are simply an unknown on which they take no stance, but only gather information.
Originally posted by atlasastro
Have any of those organisations publically stated that the ETH explains any of the UFO phenomena they have encountered?
But we can't say there've been "no results" yielded, can we? Are you familiar with the AIAA findings or the Sturrock results, when anonymously polling astronomers? Privately, a higher percentage of astronomers than of the general population say they've seen what's best described as a 'UFO'. So credentialed people will admit anonymously what the giggle factor prevents them from admitting publicly. And do you know how Jacques Vallee became interested in UFOs? He saw astronomer colleagues destroying data that suggested a true UFO. Apparently this was to avoid ridicule....
Originally posted by atlasastro
Further more, I would be interested in your thoughts on the plethora of mainstream science, technology and resources commited to searching the universe for life. The resources commited to searching the galaxy, and not just our atmosphere, that has yeilded no results in way of finding extra-terrestrial life and how this relates to the ETH as a way of explaining UFO in our atmosphere.
Originally posted by atlasastro
Surely the UFO phenomena would not simply be confinded to our atmosphere if the ETH was indeed the cause of the phenomena.
I hope you see what I mean.
Originally posted by ImpactoR
Except for I am not making a claim existence of ET as a fact based on the evidence, I am claimig simply 'Don't be so sure what it is not' thus I do not try to make claims of something existing without solid evidence, this is the difference between belief and open mindness
Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Do you see just how incredibly hard you're having to work to deny what is obviously the most straight-forward explanation for this phenomenon?