UFO over O'Hare

[baron]

This believer has seen UFO's (Literally: Objects flying in the air that he could not identify), and didn't lose any sleep over them. Those mechanics alledgedly saw something in the air that they were unable to identify. Whatever led them to leap from "Hovering disc-like object" to "Extra-terrestrial space craft" is beyond me.

It was the mechanic's opinion. He concluded it was a craft. He also concluded that it resembled no earth-based craft he had witnessed. In an admittedly large leap of logic he appeared to suggest it was an extra-terrestrial craft. Not a conclusion I personally agree with but I don't find any difficulty in understanding his reasoning, nor do I feel the need to mock this guy for expressing an opinion.

Commentary:

1) You'd think that after 911 people would be better skilled with Photoshop.

I'd expect everyone to be better skilled at Photoshop than this dismal effort suggests.

2) False data (Photoshopped images) detract from the validity of the original assertion.

Yes they do. That's hardly the fault of the original witnesses, though, is it?

3) They did not see anything because there was nothing to see.

Please provide evidence.

Nah, sorry, but that's just blatant rubbish.

As I said earlier, the problem is immediately jumping from, "What the hell's that!?!?" to, "Oh my god, it's a REAL UFO!"

First off, UFO = unidentified flying object. It doesn't mean alien space craft. It's important to be precise.

Secondly, why should it be of relevance what the witness concludes? If a witness accurately descibes their oberservation then why are you concerned with what interpretation they put forward? If you disagree with their conclusion then discount it. What's the problem? Notwithstanding the fact that if an observer sees something they believe is a structured craft, what possible reason can you come up with for them not stating this? Why should they not be allowed to speculate?

Intellectual snobbery is probably the answer you're looking for.

I have no problem with people seeing strange objects in the sky - I've seen two myself which immediately appeared inexplicable, but study quickly resolved the issue in each case.

They needed to take a leaf out of Sherlock Holmes and eliminate the possible answers before jumping to the impossible ones.

No they don't. They have no obligation at all to investigate. The only thing required of them is to provide accurate observational accounts and, if possible, evidence, such as photos. We, as critical thinkers, hopefully have the brains to perform evaluation for them and not jump up and down indignantly because they have the gall to actually express an opinion.

As long as people are happy to jump to conclusions, I'm very happy to jump on them with equal amounts of scorn and ridicule.

That says more about your critical thinking abilities than theirs.

Can you imagine what the first man to see an aurora thought? He probably thought the world was ending and his god arriving. When he still woke up the next morning and saw the same thing the next night, he probably started looking for other explanations.

Indeed. At the point he saw the aurora there would be no explanation as to what it was. Further investigation by qualified people would eventually establish the true nature of the aurora. Just imagine if this guy's peers had acted in the way you appear to condone - called him an fool or a drunk on the basis of his interpretation without pausing to consider the reported facts. Not much progress would have been made, would it?

 

[Cuddles]

It was the mechanic's opinion. He concluded it was a craft. He also concluded that it resembled no earth-based craft he had witnessed. In an admittedly large leap of logic he appeared to suggest it was an extra-terrestrial craft. Not a conclusion I personally agree with but I don't find any difficulty in understanding his reasoning, nor do I feel the need to mock this guy for expressing an opinion.

Secondly, why should it be of relevance what the witness concludes? If a witness accurately descibes their oberservation then why are you concerned with what interpretation they put forward? If you disagree with their conclusion then discount it. What's the problem? Notwithstanding the fact that if an observer sees something they believe is a structured craft, what possible reason can you come up with for them not stating this? Why should they not be allowed to speculate?

Someone could see a 6 foot wide spacecraft at 1900 feet? We can mock this guy as much as we like because this is simply not possible. The fact that he then concluded that something which he could not have seen was an alien just makes it that much easier to mock him.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Secondly, why should it be of relevance what the witness concludes? If a witness accurately descibes their oberservation then why are you concerned with what interpretation they put forward? If you disagree with their conclusion then discount it. What's the problem? Notwithstanding the fact that if an observer sees something they believe is a structured craft, what possible reason can you come up with for them not stating this? Why should they not be allowed to speculate?

Why do some people insist on taking a skeptic's "ha, ha, what a clown" and shoving down his throat "I think we should immediately pass laws disallowing people from stating their opinions"? No one said anything about disallowing the witnesses from babbling about what they saw. Please don't confuse mocking and guffawing with legal action.

Just imagine if this guy's peers had acted in the way you appear to condone - called him an fool or a drunk on the basis of his interpretation without pausing to consider the reported facts. Not much progress would have been made, would it?

But we haven't done that, have we? We've discussed the facts of the matter as much as possible and reached some conclusions about what happened. As usual with UFOs, there probably isn't enough information to reach a definitive conclusion.

~~ Paul

 

[baron]

Someone could see a 6 foot wide spacecraft at 1900 feet? We can mock this guy as much as we like because this is simply not possible. The fact that he then concluded that something which he could not have seen was an alien just makes it that much easier to mock him.

You appear to have combined selected facts to suit your own ends. As I recall (I don't have time to check) the size quoted was between 6' and 24'. It does not say that the height of the object and its size were related in this fashion by any one observer.

Having said that, if you can't see a solid 6' object against a uniform grey sky at approx. 1/3 mile away then you need to visit an optician.

Furthermore you immediately state he's lying instead of allowing for the possibility he did not judge the size and / or height accurately. Again, to suit your own slanted view.

This may well be a hoax, or misperception, or whatever. However, I prefer to judge that on evidence, not ridiculous biased assumption.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Furthermore you immediately state he's lying instead of allowing for the possibility he did not judge the size and / or height accurately. Again, to suit your own slanted view.

I agree he certainly could be telling the truth. I do wish that observers would stop telling me the size and speed of unknown objects in the sky, however. Not that I want to pass a law against it, mind you. Can't people have a little bit more awareness of their own limitations?

~~ Paul

 

[UTGrad3920]

I am a skeptic. I believe life exists on other planets far away. I do not believe we have been visited by extraterrestrial life. I do however have often wondered the following question and wonder if any of you have thought about it?

If these UFO sightings are some kind of illusion or hoax people have made up over the years, why is it the same saucer-shaped craft we see in photos? This kind of stuff has been going on since before the 1950s and if I were to come up with a claim of a UFO from space coming to Earth I would probably imagine a more "aerodynamic" looking craft with a more familiar shape (like a jet aircraft or something which looks like it could actually fly). A rotating disc shape, especially in the 1950s would not be convincing to me as a craft which would move up and down, turn, and propel itself through our atmosphere. Yet it seems throughout the years this is the only shape mentioned in UFO sightings. Doesn't this seem odd?

 

[baron]

Why do some people insist on taking a skeptic's "ha, ha, what a clown" and shoving down his throat "I think we should immediately pass laws disallowing people from stating their opinions"? No one said anything about disallowing the witnesses from babbling about what they saw. Please don't confuse mocking and guffawing with legal action.

Come off it. Legal action? Passing laws? What on earth are you babbling about? Are you making a joke, because I can't believe anybody could infer that I was talking about legal action or forcing anyone to do anything.

But we haven't done that, have we? We've discussed the facts of the matter as much as possible and reached some conclusions about what happened.

Have you actually read the thread? Of course some people have done this, and still continue to do it, seemingly outraged that someone is attempting to apply balanced thinking to the matter.

This is one thread I think I will bow out of. It's clear what some people's preferred approach is, and it clearly can't be influenced by reason.

Yep, all these witnesses are stoned loonies and liars.

Great, that's another case solved.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Come off it. Legal action? Passing laws? What on earth are you babbling about? Are you making a joke, because I can't believe anybody could infer that I was talking about legal action or forcing anyone to do anything.

I was exaggerating. But you did say "Why should they not be allowed to speculate?" No one said anything about disallowing speculation.[/quote]

Have you actually read the thread? Of course some people have done this, and still continue to do it, seemingly outraged that someone is attempting to apply balanced thinking to the matter.

This is one thread I think I will bow out of. It's clear what some people's preferred approach is, and it clearly can't be influenced by reason.

You need to get a thicker skin, Baron.

~~ Paul

 

[Cuddles]

You appear to have combined selected facts to suit your own ends. As I recall (I don't have time to check) the size quoted was between 6' and 24'. It does not say that the height of the object and its size were related in this fashion by any one observer.

Having said that, if you can't see a solid 6' object against a uniform grey sky at approx. 1/3 mile away then you need to visit an optician.

Furthermore you immediately state he's lying instead of allowing for the possibility he did not judge the size and / or height accurately. Again, to suit your own slanted view.

This may well be a hoax, or misperception, or whatever. However, I prefer to judge that on evidence, not ridiculous biased assumption.

So while ranting on about how slanted my view is you lie about what I have said. What a good argument you make. Now go back and read my post again. At which point did I say anything about him lying? After you visit the optician that you obviuosly need more than me, you may notice that I said he it is not possible to say that a 6 foot object was 1900 feet away. It is not possible for the human eye to be anywhere near that accurate. Therefore, either he was mistaken or he was lying. As it turns out I think the former is far more likely, but for some reason you decided to suit your own slanted view by making some ridiculous assumptions instead of bothering to ask me, or even read what I said. Come back when you have an actual argument to make instead of lying about something that is easily refuted by the quote in your own post.

 

[R.A.F.]

It was the mechanic's opinion. He concluded it was a craft.

2 assumptions. (that it was an actual physical object, and that it was a "craft".)

He also concluded that it resembled no earth-based craft he had witnessed.

Another assumption...

In an admittedly large leap of logic he appeared to suggest it was an extra-terrestrial craft.

...and another assumption...

Not a conclusion I personally agree with but I don't find any difficulty in understanding his reasoning...

You understand his reasoning?? What reasoning??? He's made a number of assumptions...he's made those assumptions without any supportive evidence, and you "understand"??

Please explain that to me.

 

[baron]

You need to get a thicker skin, Baron.

I'm not offended, just tired of repeating what should be common sense.

...and still the nonsense rolls in. Cuddles doesn't understand the concept of estimation and RAF doesn't understand the process of reasoning.

It's enough to drive a sane man mad

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Cuddles doesn't understand the concept of estimation...

No? How do I estimate the size of an unknown object up in the sky? How do I tell how far below the 1,900-foot cloud ceiling the object is, and reconcile that with its unknown size?

~~ Paul

 

[R.A.F.]

...and RAF doesn't understand the process of reasoning.

If that be true, then why don't you explain it to me (as I asked) instead of being insulting??

 

[Cuddles]

If that be true, then why don't you explain it to me (as I asked) instead of being insulting??

Having now seen some of his posts in other threads, I think that's all we're going to get.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
Next they'll be seeing WMD's in every piece of luggage, the Loch Ness Monster off Navy Pier, and the Virgin Mary in a grease spot on the Dan Ryan expressway!
...-Fnord of Dyscordia-

If the Loch Ness Monster shows up off of Navy Pier I've got a 6mm w/ a 6x-24x scope with its name on it. Just need to find a taxidermist that can mount the thing.

 

[baron]

No? How do I estimate the size of an unknown object up in the sky? How do I tell how far below the 1,900-foot cloud ceiling the object is, and reconcile that with its unknown size?

~~ Paul

OK, I will try one last time.

Someone sees an object in the sky. He doesn't know for sure how far away it is nor how big it is. He therefore estimates to the best of his ability. He uses factors such as the cloud ceiling, strength and direction of natural illumination, atmospheric hazing and his natural ability to grossly judge distance using the focus of his eyes. When the object moves through the cloud ceiling he is able to further refine his estimates based on its apparent speed and time until it disappeared.

He therefore concludes that the object, to the best of his judgement, was x' in diameter and y' above the ground.

What exactly is the problem here?

What's the alternative? "I saw something. I don't know what it was, nor am I qualified to offer any information about it. It could have been an inch wide or two miles. It hovered between ten feet and half a mile from the ground. It may have been solid or vapourous. It may not have existed at all except in my own mind."

Or maybe that's exactly what some people want to hear. Such an account would be that much easier to ridicule, wouldn't it?

 

[baron]

Having now seen some of his posts in other threads, I think that's all we're going to get.

Run out of steam already? No surprise there then.

 

[baron]

If that be true, then why don't you explain it to me (as I asked) instead of being insulting??

Spare me. You posted a sarcastic diatribe to which you pompously demanded response. Repost in a civil manner and I will reply.

 

[Hellbound]

Spare me. You posted a sarcastic diatribe to which you pompously demanded response. Repost in a civil manner and I will reply.

It was R.A.F.'s opinion. He concluded you were an a$$. He also concluded that you shoudl respond to his questions. In an admittedly large leap of logic he thought sarcasm would be appropriate. Not a conclusion I personally agree with but I don't find any difficulty in understanding his reasoning, nor do I feel the need to berate this guy for expressing an opinion.

 

[Hellbound]

To continue:

Why should it be of relevance what someone concludes? If someone accurately descibes their opinions then why are you concerned with what interpretation they put forward? If you disagree with their conclusion then discount it. What's the problem? Notwithstanding the fact that if someone sees an observer who has obviously interpreted far beyond their ability or capacity, what possible reason can you come up with for them not stating this? Why should they not be allowed to speculate?

Intellectual snobbery is probably the answer you're looking for.