That Old Chestnut.

"Ninety(something) percent of all ufo sightings are expainable away, as identifiable."


SAYS WHO? I want to know says who.


An ancient Robertson Panel report?

An oldy moldy Project Blue Book finding?

A bunch of proud hostile skeptics under the guise of paranormal enthusiasts, over at some chat forum website?

Some higherarchical ufo organization? During the time of the internet?

James Randi?

Is this a government website, where I can go check the realtime incoming data?

So theres a roomfull of robots or personnel who go, "That one! Bogus! Buzz!


Says who?

Originally posted by simone50m
"Ninety(something) percent of all ufo sightings are expainable away, as identifiable."
...
Says who?

Says who? Most experienced ufologists and UFO groups.

Stan Friedman regularly disagrees with such comments by other ufologists, claiming that the figure should be considerably lower - but he is very much in the minority each time there is such an argument.

reply to post by simone50m


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bbf25d3d2fc7.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by simone50m


This place gives a pretty good idea of just how much nonsense is out there. I'd say about 1 in 500 original posts ever made require a second glance. So, actually about 99.99% are rubbish.

Who says so? Well, any person able to look at something objectively. Too many folks in here are ridiculously gullible and only see what they subjectively want to see.

reply to post by boncho


What exact phrase should I type into search?

reply to post by simone50m
I think it's '5%' rather than 10% that aren't immediately explained as the usual suspects. Where this originated from is hard to know for certain. J Allen Hynek mentions the 5% in his UFO Experience book and it's been repeated by anyone supporting Leslie Kean's book from last year. Michio Kaku has also cited the 5%.

To me, it isn't an accurate figure but a way of expressing that a small minority of reported and researched UFO sightings remain unexplained. It's like shorthand or a broad expression in the same way people talk of '90 degree turns' by UFOs. Very few reports mention the '90 degree turn,' but it's used by people to describe an object moving in ways that conventional, known objects cannot.

reply to post by WhatAliens


But -exactly- how do you know this? Factually.

Originally posted by simone50m
reply to post by boncho

 

What exact phrase should I type into search?

"Robertson Panel
Project Blue Book
hostile skeptics
higherarchical ufo organization
James Randi
government website
robots"

Try those.

If you see something up in the air and you don't know what it is, it's an unidentified flying object, UFO. It doesn't have to be from outer space, it just has to be unidentified as in "I don't know what that is". That's all. So yeah, maybe someone else can identify it and solve the mystery, maybe not. But who really cares? I think the term UFO is a bit broad if you ask me. But that's my opinion.

reply to post by boncho


Star and flag star and flag!

I mean, its true for me personally. Quite embarassing actually, I was with a lot of friends and we were sitting on the curb, i looked up and said OMG a ufo! cool! ... quickly my friend johnny said "Liz, thats a bat, but nice try."

lol!

As I stated in another post, since my time visiting ATS, every UFO video has been explainable, with the majority being planes, balloons, bugs, celestial objects, or CGI. There has never been a video posted that is completely unexplainable and makes you go hmmm.

But yet the easily explainable videos get posted every single day, all day because people want to believe so badly.

I could probably agree with each of you to some level, but I still feel like i need to point this out;


It only takes ONE UFO (provable) to make all these points moot.



Still not ENTIRELY convinced myself, but, it is a big universe.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


So the culprit videos are run the gamut through high technology laboratories, by scientists?

Or is it more like, "Oh that looks like a bug. Therefore, it's a bug."

Just wondering, is all.

reply to post by simone50m

So the culprit videos are run the gamut through high technology laboratories, by scientists?

Occasionally they are yes........but the vast and I mean vast number of sightings are explained away using simple common sense.

Even if the ratio was 1% unexplained..there is still the question are we alone ?

We want to believe so badly ..
Yet there are so few totally unexplained events and they usually have no pictures .

The truth is out there ..but will we be able to recognize it ?

reply to post by granpabobby

The truth is out there ..but will we be able to recognize it ?

NO. And that is, because Debunkers would say, "We worked our amazing common sense for all of you, to figure out that it is only this mundane thing, so there is nothing to see here, move along, move along."
Or some attention whore will surface and say He is the mighty hoaxer who caused a global legend.

reply to post by simone50m

NO. And that is, because Debunkers would say, "We worked our amazing common sense for all of you, to figure out that it is only this mundane thing, so there is nothing to see here, move along, move along."

How can someone come along and "work your common sense for you"?

If you've got common sense then you've got it! and you can work these things out for yourself, but if you haven't got any common sense.............well......I'll leave that up to you to work out.

Here's what we're up against (not the best image around)





A bunch of similar photos caused "an internet sensation". The number of people who thought this was real was staggering. If ANYONE thinks that this is real, they need their head testing!

Most people instinctively know when something looks fake. Yet there are those out there that simply ignore all common sense in order to promote their own beliefs, irrespective of what they're really seeing. This site is a classic example of that.

Say I was arrested for murder. If police found someone near the murder scene who didn't see me commit the murder, does that mean I'm innocent? Of course not. What if the police track 1,000 people who also didn't actually see me commit murder. The sheer number of people who didn't witness the murder must prove my innocence, right? That's the logic that's generally applied to alien spacecraft (I won't use the term UFO) by the 'believers'.

In other words, a million peices of non-evidence don't constitue evidence. Wanna-be believers fail to grasp this simple fact. the number of so-called sightings that actually leave me stumped are incredibly small - Roswell, Rendlesham, Phoenix and JAL are all bogus, and have been extremely well explained already (although you wouldn't have thought so when listening to those that are desperate to believe).

A challenge to skeptics...

Book a trip with me to the San Luis valley in southern Colorado and prepare to have your life changed.
Mine was!!

www.seancasteel.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...
www.cyberwest.com...

And perhaps we can get in some world class trout fishing on the world famous San Juan.
My main gig actually...flyfishing guide and outfitter.