I think you're confusing me with someone else.
- Status
I think you're confusing me with someone else.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Are you trying to claim that Google Earth has no jet airplanes in flight in any of its images?
Your contention is just ridiculous.
Waenre
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Indeed, here is a link to a page where you can download a .kmz file showing the positions of lots of planes in flight on the hi res Google Earth imagery.
http://es.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2005/12/planes_in_fligh_1.html
Andrew Wiggin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,915
Outside the bounds of what YOU take to be the limits of the natural world isn't outside the bounds of what EVERYONE takes to be the limits of the natural world. Argument from ignorance.
This is more intelligent than you usually are. A pity you're missing the point. You are correct that Holmes never meant impossible in the sense of 'can't happen'. He continued looking for mundane explanations until he found the one that was correct. I pointed out how inane mystery fiction would be if the explanations were supernatural. That's where YOU are going with this. In this mystery, aliens are the impossible hypothesis in the sense that Holmes does NOT consider. The letter was in plain view. The nobleman dressed as a begger. Someone wanted to scare folks. These are Holmes level mundane explanations. How sad it would have been if he'd simply gone to 'well, I can't figure it out, so aliens dun it.' That's where you are.
This has been done to everyone's satisfaction but yours. You're simply repeating that aliens are among the list of plausible hypotheses. Prove aliens exist, then list them as a possible hypothesis for 'we saw something and we don't know what it was' Lack of explanation is not proof of alien existence. Alien existence is proof of alien existence, and the little buggers are in scarce supply.
Only in your own mind. You're really starting to come off as self deluded here, and you're demonstrating daily that you have no conception of burden of proof or evidence.
'I know what I saw' is evidence of the weakest sort. It's apparently convinced you, but that just shows that you can be convinced by evidence of the weakest sort, evidence which does not convince others. For the answer to that, inquire within, and stop projecting.
You're hedging your bets here. Increase in population of observers should increase the frequency of observations. Not 'we do see more, but maybe more, maybe less'.
I said alien craft. I am well aware that not everything seen from the space shuttle, or in fact space missions in general, has been identified. That's a big leap to alien craft.
<inigo> Rendered? You keep saying that word! I do not think that word means what you think it means. </inigo> This one is easy. You really should have tried it yourself before throwing it out there. Google earth catches images of planes in flight all the time. Thousands. Finding objects in flight is apparently a big hobby amongst google earth users, and there are multiple websites and blogs dedicated to the hobby. Know what they don't find? Alien spacecraft.
http://www.gelib.com/all-aircraft-in-flight.htm
Q.E.D.
A
Andrew Wiggin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 2,915
How is this thread like a twinkie? Care to guess?
A
A
Excuse me a minute, but I provided a hypothetical situation to demonstrate the point that if it was ET, we wouldn't be able to distinguish it from any other mundane phenomena. I never claimed UFO's were extra terrestrials, I just don't deny the possibility. The chance of extra-terrestrial lifeforms does exist, and there is a probability that one day an Unidentified Flying Object is actually an extraterrestrial, however slim you see it.
My main arguments at this point are:
a) Some sort of system should be in place whereby UFO witnesses can identify what they have seen, to save everyone else the trouble.
b) More investigation needs to be done into the origins of life and how far evolution goes towards adapting to environments, before a judgement is made on the probability of extra terrestrial life forms
c)More investigation needs to be done into the evolution of civilisation and quantum mechanics before a judgement can be made on the probability of contact.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
I had an owl (braun one) look at me at night though a window of a garden barrack . The OOwwo--woooo noise it made frightened me more than I care to admit. I have to ask what do you find so special in an animal on a branch looking inside out of curiosity. It was probably there is the first place because of the amount of mouse taking refuge in that garden barrack.
Belz...
Fiend God
Stop right there. Didn't you READ what I wrote above ? I said it wasn't a claim at all. I am arguing that what you see as claims AREN'T.
NOBODY is claiming that it WAS a blimp, or a hoax, or whatever. I, and others, claim that you HAVE NOT shown that mundane, known-to-exist alternatives have NOT BEEN ruled out.
THINK about it. Do blimps exist, for instance ? Or do you need me to provide evidence that they do ? Plus, we KNOW that there were blimps in the general area, no matter if some operations were halted during that period. So the possibility of a blimp being the cause has NOT BEEN ruled out. That's why I don't need to make any sort of claim. I only need to show that YOUR claim has no merit.
If you can't understand this, then you don't understand the rules or evidence and burden of proof and you have no business telling me or anyone else how they work. Again: Get. An. Education.
Belz...
Fiend God
The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
There is a more appropriate forum for exploring paranoid conspiracy theories. (Thataway -->)
Yes, the fact that "they" are hiding it is proof that it exists. Everyone knows that just under those blacked out portions of the released documents is the information that will prove my theory... no matter what it is. Jesus. It's not only standard operating procedure for paranoid conspiracy theorists, but another simple illustration of how an argument from incredulity and ignorance works.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Rramjet and KotA say you and SnidleyW are wrong. Rramjet demands that you show him evidence that they are extraterrestrial, otherwise his WAG that there are terrestrial aliens is the TRUE WOO.
Tapio
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 756
Rramjet, I'd like to use this post to point out what I see as one of your major mistakes here. Again and again you have accused people of 'using an unknown to explain an unknown'. You have claimed this as fallacious. Ok then. Could you help me understand how your position in the Iran Jet or White Sands cases isn't exactly explaining the 'unknown with an unknown'.
In both cases - WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH DATA TO KNOW HOW THE ONES INVESTIGATING THE CASES BACK THEN RULED OUT EVERY KNOWN POSSIBILITY OF A MUNDANE EXPLANATION. WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH.
By my logic we would need to know this before starting to hypothetisize on other than mundane explanations. Now, despite the fact you don't know this you still insist on somehow 'knowing' aspects related to it (ie. the abilities of experts in the White Sands case) and based on that 'knowledge' you conclude the UFO's in both cases to be such as in your given second category of UFO's.
You are thus using an unknown to explain an unknown. Why can't you leave it at that? Why is it so hard for you to admit that there are aspects in these investigations that can lead only to the conclusion of not knowing enough to make any kind of decision at all while waiting for more data. Please, help me understand why?
Maybe it's hard for you to see this because you have studied the subject so extensively and feel that it's these small bits that form a greater piece. But if your small bits are based on arguments of ignorance, the greater piece will for sure be biased as well. Or maybe you started out with a greater piece and now have to bend the bits to fit in...I don't know, but it certainly does start to seem like something else than a scientific approach.
One other thing.
I've been lately reading Dawkins' wonderful new book on evolution, accompanied with the great works on genetics by Matt Ridley. Both of them constantly raise incidents where scientists have formed new testable hypothesis based on acquired knowledge. They have then proceeded to test them, recorded and published the results. It is exactly by this way that our knowledge of the natural world (as you call it) has increased.
I'd like to know what you think are the testable hypothesis regarding aliens? I mean, if they are a fact of the natural world (though yet unexplained), there must be some ways we can accurately try to test our knowledge of them.
Actually, considering how many planes are in the air (probably over 6000 non-military in the US alone- and that is not counting small private planes, airships, balloons, gliders, etc), there seem to actually be VERY few pictures of planes are actually captured BUT I DO notice that nearly ALL of those that are photographed are captured from airplanes - and not satellites. What realistic chance then of capturing a UFO in a Google Earth image when it struggles to even capture planes?
There are also some weird things too.
See here for example (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/23/flying_car/) or here
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/22/second_flying_car/)
Or for a "What The…!?" moment.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/16/flying_aircraft_carrier/
But please look at the descriptions of the object(s) sighted in The Iranian UFO case. (http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/) We have NO reason to doubt that the observers did not accurately describe the object. Yet the descriptions DEFY mundane explanation. The UFO displayed colour and shape shifting (from a cylinder shape to a starfish shape), the ability to split apart and come back together, just to name a couple of characteristics that PRECLUDE mundane explanations.
Now it f you claim that “we don’t know enough to identify this object – you are dead right! But there was more… it displayed intelligent control (fleeing AND chasing), it also was able to affect the instrumentation of the fighter jets. So if you really believe that something “mundane” can explain all that… well… I believe that is just burying your head in the sand!
And what I am talking about is the data we have today… not “back then.
No, you seem to be caught up in the debunker mentality here. I am NOT explaining anything. I merely contend that given the descriptions of the objects, mundane explanations are ruled out (eg; the Iranian UFO case) and therefore I hypothesise what it suggests to me then.
However, when the debunkers say “oh I can explain that… it is merely a mundane thing that we haven’t discovered yet” THAT is “explaining the unknown with another unknown” and THAT is a fallacy.
What we need to do is sort out plausible comparative hypotheses. When we have exhausted the “mundane” then we hypothesise about what it LOOKS like to us. And UFOs sure as hell present AS IF they were alien craft. That does NOT mean they are… but they certainly PRESENT as if they are. So I am merely using that presentation as a starting point for my hypothesis.
I have already stated there are other contenders (interdimensional, indigenous aliens, etc)
But the argument from ignorance contends that NOTHING is known about UFOs –but we KNOW a great deal about them. The debunkers just throw this “argument from ignorance” idea in as a strawman argument, knowing full well that we actually DO have a sizable amount of information available to us about UFOs.
It is exactly the same reason they throw in the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations” thing, knowing FULL WELL that no-one can even define what “extraordinary evidence” might be, thus making the whole contention unworkable.
Yes, but not necessarily, an we DO HAVE “acquired knowledge” about UFOs. I have not even begun on the physical evidence cases yet!
Obviously you did not read my post about the amenability of the study of UFOs to the scientific method. I’ll repeat it here for you:
"So what do scientists need to conduct a serious investigation of the UFO phenomenon? Scientists need:
(1) a physical phenomenon to observe;
(2) the formulation of a hypothesis about the phenomenon;
(3) experiments to test the hypothesis; and
(4) conclusions based on the results of the tests that confirm, refute or modify the hypothesis.
The UFO phenomenon meets all four of these scientific requirements:
(1) There is a physical phenomenon to observe. UFOs have been seen worldwide for over 50 years and captured on still and motion picture film and on videotape. There are a number of databases available, each of which contains tens of thousands of documented reports of UFO sightings.
(2) Hypotheses have been formulated. There are many variations of a simple hypothesis: UFOs are intelligently-controlled, physical craft not of Earthly origin.
(3) There is physical evidence that can be scientifically tested. Physical evidence of UFO operations in and around the Earth's atmosphere, as well as on the surface of the Earth, exists and has been studied scientifically (e.g., soil samples, radiation effects, electromagnetic activity).
(4) Evidence-based conclusions can be drawn by scientists. The results of the scientific tests will confirm, refute or modify the hypothesis that UFOs are physical craft not of Earthly origin."
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc569.htm)
Last edited:
BlackKat
Path Crosser
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 325
You do realize those pictures are of a black car parked next to a white car... on the ground.
So all that argument about blimps was a figment of everyone’s imagination?
Umm...WHAT mundane, known-to-exist alternatives? Merely stating there are such alternatives does NOT make it true that there is.
No, if you claim a blimp is a plausible explanation for the Rogue River sighting then you must show me the evidence that blimps could have been there at that time. I have provided an extensive refutation of the blimp hypothesis. If you don’t understand that refutation, then I am afraid I can help you in the matter no further.
Umm… again, I HAVE ruled it out. It becomes increasingly clear to me that you have NOT read the post in question. Here:
Please take advantage of this link to the post and READ it (why do I doubt you will though?). . If you then refuse to accept the official Navy histories on the matter then I cannot help you any further in that matter.
Ummm, gee…But you just claimed that blimps have not been ruled out… !?! And please DO show my claim has no merit – you have not done so far…
On the burden of proof
________________________________________
Let us make this as clear as possible because it seems people are just not getting it.
1. I make a claim - and people ask that I present the evidence to support that claim.
This is a reasonable thing to ask of me. It is rational and logical.
2. Now the debunkers make a claim - and I ask that they present evidence to support that claim.
This is a reasonable thing to ask of them. It is rational and logical.
Yet what occurs when I ask?
They immediately deny that they have to produce evidence to support their claims.
That is unreasonable. It is irrational and illogical.
I have NO idea why people are not understanding such a basic concept.
I can only speculate that in my opinion many are so wrapped up in their peculiar faith based belief systems that they simply cannot continence anything that might put that faith in jeopardy. I my opinion there is exhibited in this thread among the debunkers many cult-like attitudes and behaviours. I suggest these conclusions drawing on the exemplary work of Festinger and his Cognitive Dissonance Theory (for example see: http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~as491398/cdaes.htm).
You have ABSOLUTELY no sense of humour!
Besides you DID not address my substantial point about Google Earth NOT being able to capture airplanes given how MANY there are in the air... and the ones that they do capture are actually taken from airplanes themselves... so what chance capturing a UFO... not very good I would have thought.
Besides...THEN there are the space shuttle UFOs...
Oh, yeah... possibly I might have been referring to Wollery. My apologies Jocce.
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
I thought they were funny... but your general tone through this thread does not give the impression you are making jokes, so I didn't know if you were being serious either. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were joking. Maybe one of these will help in future --->
I just went outside and looked up (lovely clear day here)... no planes in the sky to be seen.
I'm guessing if I can look up and see no planes, a satellite can look down and see no planes. Sometimes when I go out, I see planes.
But the main point of contention with using Google Earth to spot UFOs is the really crappy quality of the images. Even if it found one, it wouldn't be good enough to see much and would be open to the speculation it was faked somehow.
- Status