Question/observation

reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt


Ok. Thanks. I will check it out when I have a chance.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt

 

Do you know what salt tastes like?

Prove it?

Go taste some salt. Next we will blind fold you and put something salty and something sweet. Unless you have brain damage, you will be able to distinguish them apart. Same is true for all people everywhere!

That is actually something entirely different though. That is demonstrating the ability to discern the difference between salt and sugar, not the ability to prove you know what salt tastes like.

reply to post by EnPassant

20 years ago Jenny Randles said that the argument about the existence of UFOs is over. They exist because the evidence is overwhelming. What we need to know now is Who is piloting these things?

Amen. Randles echoes what hundreds, possibly thousands of EXPERTS who have studied this phenomenon extensively, have said.

I stand by my word. I know what I and others witnessed on several occasions. The explanations back up my experience. Anyone else, including Druscilla (by the way, I love her) who feel otherwise, need to read up or experience what others have experienced to help change their incorrigible stance on this topic.

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt

 

Do you know what salt tastes like?

Prove it?

Go taste some salt. Next we will blind fold you and put something salty and something sweet. Unless you have brain damage, you will be able to distinguish them apart. Same is true for all people everywhere!

That is actually something entirely different though. That is demonstrating the ability to discern the difference between salt and sugar, not the ability to prove you know what salt tastes like.

Which is the point. It's subjective. You can't prove the experience of something. So no matter how convinced or convincing someone is, it doesn't constitute proof. A witness may have very well see an alien, but that means little scientifically. We do know it is possible to "see" things including aliens without there being anything there. This doesn't mean everyone is hallucinating but it is one thing we know happens.

Aliens could very well be flying around abducting people and mutilating cattle but until we capture one and they confess to their crimes, what we have is a story based on loose facts.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt

 

Do you know what salt tastes like?

Prove it?

Go taste some salt. Next we will blind fold you and put something salty and something sweet. Unless you have brain damage, you will be able to distinguish them apart. Same is true for all people everywhere!

That is actually something entirely different though. That is demonstrating the ability to discern the difference between salt and sugar, not the ability to prove you know what salt tastes like.

Which is the point. It's subjective. You can't prove the experience of something. So no matter how convinced or convincing someone is, it doesn't constitute proof. A witness may have very well see an alien, but that means little scientifically. We do know it is possible to "see" things including aliens without there being anything there. This doesn't mean everyone is hallucinating but it is one thing we know happens.

Aliens could very well be flying around abducting people and mutilating cattle but until we capture one and they confess to their crimes, what we have is a story based on loose facts.

Yeah I agree.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian
So an alien (or more aptly put, UFO) is pretty much the same as a ghost? People see UFOs just as they see ghosts but to date, the material aspect of the visual evidence is not available, at least for public consumption, to the masses.

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by EnPassant

 

20 years ago Jenny Randles said that the argument about the existence of UFOs is over. They exist because the evidence is overwhelming. What we need to know now is Who is piloting these things?

Amen. Randles echoes what hundreds, possibly thousands of EXPERTS who have studied this phenomenon extensively, have said.

I stand by my word. I know what I and others witnessed on several occasions. The explanations back up my experience. Anyone else, including Druscilla (by the way, I love her) who feel otherwise, need to read up or experience what others have experienced to help change their incorrigible stance on this topic.

edit on 1-7-2013 by Jaellma because: (no reason given)

Of all the writers on this subject Jenny Randles is one of the most level, objective and intelligent of all of them.

The military reports I have seen conclude that ET is the most likely explanation for the UFO phenomena, but that is about as far as it goes.

Still don't understand how the USAF in 1947 couldn't tell the difference between a crashed flying saucer and a weather balloon. That has me puzzled, how is it possible the USAF could employ such incompetent people? Virtually like saying a trained mechanic couldn't tell the difference between a skateboard and a car

reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt
Apparently they knew the difference between a weather balloon and a saucer but recanted their original story possibly for security measures, etc.

Originally posted by Jaellma

Amen. Randles echoes what hundreds, possibly thousands of EXPERTS who have studied this phenomenon extensively, have said.

I stand by my word. I know what I and others witnessed on several occasions. The explanations back up my experience. Anyone else, including Druscilla (by the way, I love her) who feel otherwise, need to read up or experience what others have experienced to help change their incorrigible stance on this topic.

First yellow highlight: What about the Thousands of EXPERTS that disagree? Where's the accountability for that? It's certainly a rather important part of the equation.
You can't just say thousands of people agree on any specific subject X while completely ignoring the other side of the equation. That's one of those logical fallacies; appealing to popularity, or statistics, or something, as well as obscuring or not even including relevant data like all the experts that disagree.

Second Yellow highlight; I don't deny that there IS a UFO phenomenon. I do not lay any claim to any knowledge on what UFOs actually are, but, as evidenced, statistically, legitimate unknowns, they're rare.
I thus find it extremely conspicuous and suspicious when someone, anyone lays claim to SEVERAL sightings where there's many quite very educated and intelligent people all over the planet that have yet to ever see anything unidentifiable.

Often enough when queried, these incidents where SEVERAL sightings are occurring are misidentification of, FOR INSTANCE; satellites, satellite flares, and satellite disappearance as they fall into Earth's shadow.

I think there's places where you can even go pay a few hundred $ to go signal UFOs (ahem, manmade satellites) with lasers where then the UFOs actually signal back(!!!!)(oops, that's just the sun reflecting off the solar panels of the satellite), and then you even get to see the UFO demonstrate is cloaking technology(!!!!)(oops, again, nope, just the satellite falling into Earth's shadow, thus going non-visible to naked-eye viewing).

That's a for-instance. Areas of geological activity may very well express a phenomenon called Earth Lights, which may be described as naturally occurring piezoelectric activity.

Many who don't practice a logical inquiry and approach to the subject make dismissive light of swamp gas, ball lightning, and weather balloons, yet, these are real, and people do indeed get wound up about them with the conviction they've seen a UFO.

The list goes on. Military flares, Skydivers making night jumps, missile tests, and other semi-regular somewhat location specific activities get mistaken all the time for UFOs that can be seen on several occasions.

Intentional hoaxing/trolling by people with a bit of helium, some balloons, and LED lights occurs all the time. LED kites can zig and zag all over the place, tracing seemingly complex patterns and intelligently controlled maneuvers.

Also, to anyone that scoffs at balloons getting mistaken for UFOs, well, look at this very obvious LED balloon array controlled by a very cheap, basically disposable Raspbery Pi or similar computer:

The whole thing could be made for less than $100.
Now imagine that released into the wild, some 5000 feet up.
I'm fairly certain some people are going to be absolutely convinced they saw a UFO (makes no noise, blinks crazy lights, saucer ball or some other non-typical aircraft shape, etc).

What's real? What's illusion? What's the difference between what's actually seen and what's perceived? There's some observational discipline and objective viewing awareness required to make good calls on some things, especially when observed at night.

Additionally conspicuous, especially in cases where there's multiple witnesses (supposedly), why do we not hear from ALL present? Why don't we ever hear from the guy/girl that says "do you even Jupiter bro?", or the other witnesses that don't really have corresponding or complimentary information to the more fantastic money-making claims?
Missile bases getting shut down? Okay. So, we have like two people talking about it? What about everyone else on the duty roster at the time?
There's always seems to be a conspicuous absence of what everyone else that was 'there' might have to say, typically in favor bias for the money-making spotlight detailed story time event described by only one or two key people.

Lots of holes. Lots of questions. Nothing ever solid. Selection bias cherry picked Stories and 'evidence', none of which are above or beyond question is all there ever is.

reply to post by Druscilla


Raspbery Pi... I'm going to get me one of them. Sounds sweet.

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

So an alien (or more aptly put, UFO) is pretty much the same as a ghost? People see UFOs just as they see ghosts but to date, the material aspect of the visual evidence is not available, at least for public consumption, to the masses.

It's a matter of perspective. You have personal experiences which you interprit. For me personally, I just don't see it as likely. People see UFOs and ghosts just as people see things they hallucinate. They have much In common. And no, I'm not saying its all hallucination or whatever but I have my suspicions. People are allowed to believe and interprit things as they want.

reply to post by Druscilla
Well, I am glad you responded because it shows you are not just a skeptic but someone who really and truly wants to understand the phenomenon as it exists. Let me first state that I am very familiar with your entire list of possible explanations for UFO sightings. I would not come on here and state I have witnessed instances of what I feel are true unexplainable aerial phenomenon if there were lingering questions of my sightings' validity.

When I am referencing UFO sightings I am referring to the 5% unexplainable instances that defy all possible earthly explanations. While it's possible they may somehow fall into the 95% explainable category, I made sure I checked off all possible explanations before coming to a final conclusion.

I will be brief in saying that in 2 of my 3 sightings, they were both in extremely rural to remote jungle-type locations in Latin America and South America, respectively. I will further state that in both instances I was in the company of moderate to highly educated individuals, of whom I trust very well.

My 1st sighting was after sunset and happened in a nearby ball field. My colleagues and I were just about to leave the area when we noticed a bright light approaching from above and coming to an almost standstill position just slightly above the ground. At first we thought it was a plane or helicopter but it didn't make sense since there were no airports or runways nearby. The light was a glowing orangish color and was approximately several hundred meters from us. We couldn't tell if it was a solid object behind the light or not but there appeared to be a darker object in the middle of the light. If I had to estimate the size of the light/object it must have been the size of a small bus or van. Anyway, the light continued to move across the ground level as if searching for something and then it just raised up from ground level in a strange motion and then shot off into the sky. Needless to say, we were all dumbfounded and excited at the same time. We all agreed whatever it was, it could not have been a conventional aircraft nor was it Chinese lanterns or anything we have ever witnessed. Given where we were it was an even stranger phenomenon. We later found out from some local oldtimers occurrences and sightings like that was not strange and happened in greater frequencies in decades past.

IMO, that experience definitely fit the 5% category, and we did explore the entire list of possible other explanations but they never seemed to fit that category.

My other UFO experience also happened in the remote jungle area but the object/light my team and I saw was actually flying above us, was circular and made no sound. It was possibly 1/2 a mile up and again, could not possibly have been remotely controlled due to where we were and the proximity of the nearest village, etc. Some may say it was an "earth light" entity but I am not aware those things intelligently follow and surveill people. I could be wrong but I have not seen information converse to that thought process.This lighted object stayed at a certain height and distance from us, circled in a calculated radius and appeared to be observing and studying us for over 20 minutes. The bottom line is that these 5% anomalies are possibly earth bound, terrestrial, intelligent entities that are reclusive and prefer the safety of remote rainforest areas and even the oceans.

To answer some of your other questions:
1.

First yellow highlight: What about the Thousands of EXPERTS that disagree? Where's the accountability for that? It's certainly a rather important part of the equation.
You can't just say thousands of people agree on any specific subject X while completely ignoring the other side of the equation.

Conversely, I could say for every ghost story with thousands of experts agreeing they exist, there will be a thousand experts who DISAGREE they exist. Unless something cannot be physically touched or we are unable to touch it due to its elusiveness or suppression of information limits what we know, folks will always use debunking as a way to satisfy their unorthodox belief system.

2.

Additionally conspicuous, especially in cases where there's multiple witnesses (supposedly), why do we not hear from ALL present? Why don't we ever hear from the guy/girl that says "do you even Jupiter bro?", or the other witnesses that don't really have corresponding or complimentary information to the more fantastic money-making claims?

There are many cases where accounts from ALL are taken. There are also cases where some individuals are so shaken they absolutely refuse to give an account. In some cases, there are gag orders to keep quiet or suffer pre-determined consequences. The list goes on an on.

reply to post by Druscilla
3.

Missile bases getting shut down? Okay. So, we have like two people talking about it? What about everyone else on the duty roster at the time?

If you had read about this extensively you would notice there were always gag orders instituted for the witnesses. Some bucked the system, some were utterly afraid to go against the grain and some just plain clammed up. In many cases, the information is quickly confiscated and never to be seen again. In other cases, technicians, officers, pilots, etc were flatly told not to report it on paper, don't write it down, it never happened, etc. The level of secrecy was so extensive and deep and crossed over into multiple international governments.

4.

There's always seems to be a conspicuous absence of what everyone else that was 'there' might have to say, typically in favor bias for the money-making spotlight detailed story time event described by only one or two key people.

That may be true but that is normal in every single area in our life. In your profession, in Psychology, Sociology, Science, Medicine, whatever, everyone writes to make a living and turn a buck, regardless of topic or relevance of topic.So, I can't knock anyone for writing and trying to make a living off of information out there.

Mind you, there are accounts and stories out there where the individuals shun the spotlight, do not want any money and would rather be left alone BUT their story stands by itself in its incredulity.

Yes, lots of holes and lots of questions but that's what makes UFOlogy an exciting and incredible field. Information is more readily available from other governments than they are from the US government but as mentioned previously, you have to put in the time to properly study it to really understand what's out there and what needs additional attention.

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt

 

Apparently they knew the difference between a weather balloon and a saucer but recanted their original story possibly for security measures, etc.

That is exactly what I am suggesting.

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt
The military reports I have seen conclude that ET is the most likely explanation for the UFO phenomena, but that is about as far as it goes.

So it's an assumption, of an assumption, of an assumption, of an assumption. Meaning... You assume there's intelligent life in the universe(A), you assume they are so highly advanced that they can traverse our, or other galaxies(B), you assume they have visited earth(C), you assume they travel in metallic/glowing/_____fill-in-the-blank vehicles(D). All have to be progressive assumptions in order to arrive at the final assumption of these being "ET". Why are all of these assumptions? Because in the 65+ year history of UFOs being reported, not ONE PIECE of tangible evidence has shown up.

Still don't understand how the USAF in 1947 couldn't tell the difference between a crashed flying saucer and a weather balloon. That has me puzzled, how is it possible the USAF could employ such incompetent people? Virtually like saying a trained mechanic couldn't tell the difference between a skateboard and a car

People need to focus on the materials identified by Brazel, Marcel, and Marcel Jr. Small i-beams and foil-like material, all no more than 2 or 3 feet long. Look at weather balloon construction at the time. Foil-like material and small i-beams. Radar targets(balloon cargo) were no more than a few feet long. Do people think pieces of a large spacecraft crash onto the Brazel/Foster ranch just so happen to be the same material type and same proportion of small weather balloon cargo? Seriously, what are the chances of that? Common sense would say a spacecraft would be constucted completely and totally different. Something unrelatable to human construction would be left in those materials. Yet, nothing is. Again, only a coincidence?

I swear... simple common sense is tossed out the window in favor of these fantastical UFO/alien stories.