UFO'S: A possible explanation
- Thread starter makaya325
- Start date
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 10,696
Explaining an unknown with another unknown based on no evidence isn't skeptical.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Actually, I rarely ever see the ball lightning or plasma explanation. Sprites are a recent discovery and might explain some sightings. It is all a matter of probabilities and the circumstances of the event.
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 10,696
Astro, i think that it is possible, for unknown, most phenomona, and unknown phenomona to be considered ufo's. Until be evidence, it iwll remain a man in a suit.
learner
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,697
Which mak is this? And what the hell are you talking about?
Things that are unknown are ufos?
Most phenomena are ufos?
Unknown phenomena are ufos?
Default is man in a suit?
Is it just me?
I think that it is possible for unknown Phenomona to be newly discovered physically!
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
No, it isn't just you. Mak is incoherent tonight. Go to bed, Mak. You are practically slurring your words here.
learner
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,697
Im with you on that one.
Man in a suit though, whats that all about? your op was about ufos
learner
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,697
I am. GOOD night! One hell of a lacrosse game!
I will say that Phillip Klass did include some interesting explainations for UFOs. His electrical line theory is still debated. Ball lightening is rare, but I think if it's real it is usually just seen as whacky lightening.
THere are so many variables for UFOs. Most people are unfamiliar with what the night sky looks like. Rarely do amatuer astronomers see UFOs that they go "oh aliens!" Think of the thousands and thousands of amateur astronomers out there. Heck anyone can buy a telescope.
I always tell people that see UFOs a lot to join the local amateur astronomy club. Most towns have one. If you go out on a clear night and just really LOOK for 20 minutes you'll usually see something that makes you go "ok WHAT is THAT".
ALso big jump from UFO to alien traveller from outerspace. That's the problem. Aliens hyperjumping through worm holes to reach us hasn't been proven anymore than unicorns. Could by flying unicorns in those things (there is much historical evidence for unicorns as opposed to say aliens).
People that know the sky, don't see aliens flying around.
THere are so many variables for UFOs. Most people are unfamiliar with what the night sky looks like. Rarely do amatuer astronomers see UFOs that they go "oh aliens!" Think of the thousands and thousands of amateur astronomers out there. Heck anyone can buy a telescope.
I always tell people that see UFOs a lot to join the local amateur astronomy club. Most towns have one. If you go out on a clear night and just really LOOK for 20 minutes you'll usually see something that makes you go "ok WHAT is THAT".
ALso big jump from UFO to alien traveller from outerspace. That's the problem. Aliens hyperjumping through worm holes to reach us hasn't been proven anymore than unicorns. Could by flying unicorns in those things (there is much historical evidence for unicorns as opposed to say aliens).
People that know the sky, don't see aliens flying around.
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
there are many people who 'know the sky' do see unexplainable sightings, that's why the amateur astronomer explanation is weak.
There have been many examples of pilots at all levels of skill and experience that have reported seeing UFOs. Also, there are planes of some sort in the air 24/7 that are flying at or near the approximate heights that UFOs do. They also have a much wider field of vision than astronomers do. But to you their word seems to mean nothing. But at the same time you will accept anecdotal evidence from amateur astronomers as being golden, as in the Phoenix Lights situation.
Here’s what I find ironic; if an amateur astronomer came to you and said they had seen a UFO, you would immediately go into the debunking mode and say something to this effect, “Well, he is an amateur after all. He can only look to the heavens for 8 hrs. max out of the day. And odds are high they haven’t received training in aircraft silhouette identification, etc.“ That’s a double standard. It’s like you’re making up two different sets of rules that benefit you and not the other guy. Here are the typical rationalizations that a CSIOPtic will give for UFO sightings:
1. ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENON
2. BALL LIGHTNING
3. SWAMP GAS
4. METEORS
5. MASS HALLUCINATION:
6. HOAX
7. WEATHER BALLOONS
8. FLARES (the new weather balloons)
9. FLOCK OF BIRDS
10. LIE
11. (anything I might have missed)
I always get a chuckle out of the James Randi style of debunking when it comes to UFOs (or anything, for that matter). You will never hear them say that it could also be a ‘for real’ alien UFO. It’s like trying to pull the eye teeth out of an angry gorilla’s mouth. A truly objective skeptic will say, “And, yes, folks, we can’t rule out the possibility that it was of alien origin.”
In other words, the simplest explanation is not always the best.
foxholeatheist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,155
Suddenly the burden of proof has shifted to the skeptics?
Of course, that doesn't actually address what Kitty said at all. No-one claimed that they don't see things they may not be able to explain, she simply said they don't see aliens. This is because people who know what they're talking about know that there are always going to be plenty of mundane things that it's not possible to identify due to lack of information. For example, if you see a bright light in the sky but don't look any closer at the time or note where and when it was, you will never know what it actually was. That doesn't mean it was an alien, it simply means you don't have enough information.
That's the important difference between believers and sensible people. One will say "I saw something in the sky, but I don't have enough information to work out what it was.", the other will say "I saw something in the sky, and since I couldn't immediately tell what it was it can't possibly be anything normal and must have been an alien.".
On a related note, I think I actually saw my first weather balloon the other day. Fortunately we had binoculars handy and could make out an orange blob with a shiny thing underneath it, but it did look very strange to the naked eye since it was a very bright light in the middle of the day that couldn't be any astronomical phenomenon but didn't behave at all like an aircraft.
Spektator
Is that right?
One evening on the local college campus a clump of students staring at the sky attracted my attention. They were staring at a bright UFO and were dazzled by the aerobatics it was doing--swooping and swaying and swinging.
I couldn't see the movements the students thought they saw. Fortunately, a physics teacher came strolling up and identified the UFO: it was Venus. Not swooping, swaying, or swinging at all--just very bright in the evening sky. The students didn't believe him, so he led us all to the physics building, broke out a four-inch telescope, and let us have turns looking at the planet (it was crescent-shaped). Even after that, some of the students were still insisting that the planet HAD been swooping around in the sky.
I couldn't see the movements the students thought they saw. Fortunately, a physics teacher came strolling up and identified the UFO: it was Venus. Not swooping, swaying, or swinging at all--just very bright in the evening sky. The students didn't believe him, so he led us all to the physics building, broke out a four-inch telescope, and let us have turns looking at the planet (it was crescent-shaped). Even after that, some of the students were still insisting that the planet HAD been swooping around in the sky.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
I suggest that you read the Condon Report.
Below are a few introductory paragraphs,
"As indicated by its title, the emphasis of this study has been on attempting to learn from UFO reports anything that could be considered as adding to scientific knowledge. Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.
It has been argued that this lack of contribution to science is due to the fact that very little scientific effort has been put on the subject. We do not agree. We feel that the reason that there has been very little scientific study of the subject is that those scientists who are most directly concerned, astronomers, atmospheric physicists, chemists, and psychologists, having had ample opportunity to look into the matter, have individually decided that UFO phenomena do not offer a fruitful field in which to look for major scientific discoveries.
This conclusion is so important, and the public seems in general to have so little understanding of how scientists work, that some more comment on it seems desirable...."
Take especial note of the second paragraph. It applies just as well to other "woo" subjects as it does to this one.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Yes, and there are plenty of pilots who have caused plane crashes because of pilot error. Pilots and astronomers can make errors in observations. Astronomers DO report UFOs but most of the reports presented by EXPERIENCED amateurs and pros are usually lights of an unknown nature and nothing like the reports you read on the internet. Often they turn out to be something mundane like a rocket launch, a fuel dump of a rocket in orbit, a low earth orbit satellite (or a very high orbit), etc. etc. I can give dozens of examples but you probably will not listen anyway.
Not exactly. In the Phoenix situation (and lets not rehash the particulars in this thread), the testimony of Mitch Stanley agreed with what most of the eyewitnesses reported in the raw reports in the NUFORC database. There was also supporting testimony from others to indicate his observations were accurate. Since this was the case, it is far more likely that the Phoenix event had to do with a formation of aircraft than a huge wedge shaped object flying over the city with lights that turned invisible when it passed in front of the moon.
How do you know how I would treat such a report? I have been listening to these UFO stories for years.The first thing I would do is get the particulars (time, date, direction of travel, angular speed, angles of elevation, magnitude, etc.) and see if I could offer an explanation. If I could not, I certainly would not suggest swamp gas. Sometimes I can offer an explanation and sometimes I can not. If I can not, it remain "unidentified" (not alien spaceship) because I was not there or don't have enough information to resolve it.
Feel free to keep that mind closed to possibilities. While you are at it, watch this video:http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8uei4_openmindedness_tech
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
I did not state that the burden of proof has shifted at all, I don't know how you got that out of my post
I am saying there is a tendency for CSIOPtics to have double standards. They have accepted that the antecdotal evidence of ameuter astronomers as part of the 'proof positive' because it gives them the 'evidence' for the Phoenix Lights. But if someone on the other side of the fence presents antecdotal evidence then it's some kind of fallacy...that's double standards.
I notice that nobody addressed my list of CSIOPtic explanations for UFO sightings. That must mean it pretty much covers all of the that you are willing to condiser. The point is that when these pat answers are given they always leave out one of the obvious...alien technology.
Occam's Razor is a great tool as a starting poin but it is not necessarily always the right solution/explanation.
Example: If a man's wife is murdered they look at the husband because of the statics. If the husband has an iron clad albi, they know one thing for sure; the husband didn't physically do it. That, in and of itself, does not rule out that the husband didn't hire someone to do it. That line of inquiry remains open. After the husband they look at immediate famly, friends, co-workers, etc. Then it becomes: Was she getting threatening phone calls, were there a strange man hanging around, etc. But in some cases the least likely answer is the correct one. Example: it could be a tragic coincidence like Bill Cosby's son or Michael Jordan's father.
Here is a perfect example of what I mean. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvEPeGPxeU.
The link is a History Channel program on Human Levitation. Go to about 1 minute 15 seconds and watch one of your guys step on his dick and screw the pooch at the same time.
You cannot open mindly dismiss or ignore an obvious possibility and consider yourself a True Skeptic.