First, the Battelle statistic (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)
was actually 21.5%, so your disingenuous tactics (even if the figure WAS 20%) of stating ”at least 80%” is plain to see, again indicating a biased mindset from the very beginning.
Second, the tendency of the scientists in this study to “force fit” mundane explanations to reports is well know (see The Hynek UFO Report for example). So the actual figure of 21.5% is actually a surprising outcome for such research. It actually indicates that at least 21.5% of reports can be classified as unknown.
Third, UFO reports are made by people who cannot identify what they are observing and feel strongly enough about it to make an “official” report. There are THREE other groups that we do NOT know the precise statistics for. Those who do NOT report unexplained sightings, those who accurately identify mundane objects and those who misidentify UFOs as mundane objects.
Given the number of observers and given the number of mundane objects in the skies we can surmise that “those who accurately identify mundane objects” vastly outweighs ANY other group in number by orders of large magnitude. This is why we can claim that observers are actually (and usually) very good at indentifying mundane objects in the sky.
We do also do not have statistics for “those who do not report” their sightings. Some estimates are that a vast majority of “unexplained” sightings go unreported – perhaps 10% of the population have “seen” a UFO and not reported it. This bears on the above estimate… that is, 90% of people presumably accurately identify mundane objects in the sky. We can say of the unreported sightings that they will probably reflect the findings of research (although we cannot be certain as no studies have been conducted on individual differences between “reporters” and “non-reporters” – to my knowledge that is…).
Finally we do NOT know how many of the estimated 90% of “accurate mundane assessors” actually misidentified a UFO as a mundane object. Nor do we have anything that we can use to estimate this number (as we have for the above groups).
So you see, the “answers you seek” are not readily apparent because the research has not been conducted TO “explain” it. MUCH research CAN and SHOULD be conducted to explore these unanswered questions.
Actually the Hills reported the Grey Aliens nearly a year BEFORE the “alien” you state appeared on TV - so THAT does NOT support your contentions in any way.
Oh by the way… see this sceptical article for the “supposed” REAL origins of the “grey alien”… (http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/gray/gray_history.htm). Perhaps you can even start using the ideas expressed in THIS article to refute UFOs and Greys…LOL. But the point is YOU are simply WAY off beam in your simplistic assessments about what did or did not constitute “popular” culture” preceding or not the reports!
Research, AccessDenied. Research! It is an informative process that you might find enlightening. LOL.
Again this unfounded assertion merely betrays your complete lack of fundamental knowledge about the types of alien being historically reported… again, I suggest a little basic research be conducted… merely making unfounded assertions based on your own faith-based belief systems can get you into trouble (see above for example).
Again your lack of basic knowledge betrays you! The media coined the term “flying saucer” from Arnold’s description of the MOTION of the objects: Like a "saucer would if you skipped it across water". “Flying saucers” as a popular term is then purely a MEDIA construction, NOT a description of UFOs themselves. It was the MEDIA who then started calling UFO reports “saucer” reports. The actual descriptions of the witnesses of the objects did NOT ever contain “saucer” as a descriptor. You REALLY need to do some basic research Access Denied!
Oh boy.. your ignorance REALLY shines through on this one! Not only do you NOT admit your fundamental error in the assessment of Einstein’s feelings and actions toward quantum theory, you misinterpret quantum indeterminism itself! Quantum indeterminism is a fact of experimental life! For example it manifests most clearly in experiments where one cannot know both an electron's position and momentum because electrons do not have simultaneous determinate positions and momentums. It also manifests experimentally in sub-atomic events such as the decay of radioactive particles. Radioactive decay is a probabilistic event spoken of in terms of “half-lives”. That is the half-life of an element is the length of time during which one atom of the element has a 50% chance of undergoing radioactive decay. Unfortunately, when it comes to individual decay events, there is no objective cause that can be associated with it! We cannot determine in advance which atoms will decay and which will not! This is a VERY REAL phenomenon, not some “philosophical issue”. I could go on, but it is becoming too far off topic, so I will desist. Suffice to say you NEED to conduct the RESEARCH before making any more unfounded, faith-based assumptions.
I stated:
If he the professor [Michio Kaku] has mislead people, then I ask you to show HOW and WHERE he has done so.”
Ughh… perhaps a quote from the professor might help you out…
”The simplest way to visualize a Kerr wormhole is to think of Alice’s Looking Glass. Anyone walking through the Looking Glass would be transported instantly into Wonderland, a world where animals talked in riddles and common sense wasn’t so common.
The rim of the Looking Glass corresponds to the Kerr ring. Anyone walking through the Kerr ring might be transported to the other side of the universe or even the past. Like two Siamese twins joined at the hip, we now have two universes joined via the Looking Glass. Some physicists have wondered whether black holes or worm- holes might someday be used as shortcuts to another sector of our universe, or even as a time machine to the distant past (making possible the swashbuckling exploits in Star Wars). However, we caution that there are skeptics. The critics concede that hundreds of wormhole solutions have now been found to Einstein’s equations, and hence they cannot be lightly dismissed as the ravings of crack pots. But they point out that wormholes might be unstable, or that intense radiation and sub-atomic forces surrounding the entrance to the wormhole would kill anyone who dared to enter. Spirited debates have erupted between physicists concerning these wormholes. Unfortunately, this controversy cannot be re- solved, because Einstein’s equations break down at the center of black holes or wormholes, where radiation and sub-atomic forces might be ferocious enough to collapse the entrance. The problem is Einstein’s theory only works for gravity, not the quantum forces which govern radiation and sub-atomic particles. What is needed is a theory which embraces both the quantum theory of radiation and gravity simultaneously. In a word, to solve the problem of quantum black holes, we need a “theory of everything!”
(http://mkaku.org/home/?page_id=423)The rim of the Looking Glass corresponds to the Kerr ring. Anyone walking through the Kerr ring might be transported to the other side of the universe or even the past. Like two Siamese twins joined at the hip, we now have two universes joined via the Looking Glass. Some physicists have wondered whether black holes or worm- holes might someday be used as shortcuts to another sector of our universe, or even as a time machine to the distant past (making possible the swashbuckling exploits in Star Wars). However, we caution that there are skeptics. The critics concede that hundreds of wormhole solutions have now been found to Einstein’s equations, and hence they cannot be lightly dismissed as the ravings of crack pots. But they point out that wormholes might be unstable, or that intense radiation and sub-atomic forces surrounding the entrance to the wormhole would kill anyone who dared to enter. Spirited debates have erupted between physicists concerning these wormholes. Unfortunately, this controversy cannot be re- solved, because Einstein’s equations break down at the center of black holes or wormholes, where radiation and sub-atomic forces might be ferocious enough to collapse the entrance. The problem is Einstein’s theory only works for gravity, not the quantum forces which govern radiation and sub-atomic particles. What is needed is a theory which embraces both the quantum theory of radiation and gravity simultaneously. In a word, to solve the problem of quantum black holes, we need a “theory of everything!”
This is a discussion of theoretical physics. Again I ask, precisely HOW is such discussion misleading? NO, please do NOT answer… you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge and you also admit that it is off topic so I think, while you raised the issue that required a response from me, if you really want to continue THIS discussion, open another thread.
BACK on topic…
First, I posted a full 45 minutes AFTER your post, so I guess it was MY post that prompted the correction from you! In your first post you accused me of basic mathematical incompetence, but it took MY prompt for you to recognize your OWN! LOL.
Now… You STILL have NOT explained how you arrived at the percentages you used in your “equation” OR what they mean in the context of UFO sighting reports. I simply issued a “please explain” and yet you seem to be totally unwilling to DO that. Why? Is it because you cannot?
I stated:
”Fortunately I do not have to personally list them (and besides it would be a huge diversion from the topic of this thread to do so).
BUT I ALSO stated precisely HOW and WHERE you could find the “list” you sought. I also stated that it would be WAY off topic for me to list all the circumstances and situations where human perception might be mislead.
Of course you ignored that part of my reply and posted only a part of my response - trying to show how I had not answered your question. I actually answered comprehensively.
This is of course a dirty tactic by quoting me selectively to claim that I did not answer your question (when I actually did) and then to claim that because I did not answer your question I did not know what I was talking about…
But of course, dirty tactics and abuse is your only recourse when logic and science fail to support your unfounded faith-based assertions! Perhaps a better recourse might be, in future, NOT to comment at all?
