I am more interested in hearing you prove that it's aliens. After all, it's your claim, you have the burden of proof.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
I am more interested in hearing you prove that it's aliens. After all, it's your claim, you have the burden of proof.
What? Who says it's not buring up in the earths atmoshphere?
Again, you gotta stop lumping together unrelated observations. Pick one and we'll discuss it.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Rramjet, have you ever considered that its nothing but a perspective effect? The meteorite most likely was blazing through the atmosphere of our rotation ball of boredom and just happened to be in between the camera and the moon.
Now consider this- what would be the size of that thing if it actually were near the Moon?
Posts of this quality really do not help your case and your credibility.
Oh, BTW, I can't speak Greek.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Remember what I wrote about UFOlogy being composed by a lot of bad interpretation of bad data?
That's exactly what I think about it. By the way, instead of just dumping a link, you should have written a text on why mundane explanations can not account for the imagery. The standard UFOlogy approach of shifting the burden of proof is flawed and you should know it by now even if you did not when you first arrived at this forum. The same is valid for vain and false claims, repeated over and over again and never properly backed, about "debunkers" ignoring data and the availability of "reliable data in spades".
But I'll write a couple of lines about the problems of the material you presented.
Just for starters, we have little if any control on the sort of manipulations the images may have suffered as well as their actual contexts (if the cameras were inside or outside a craft, what sort of cameras were used, camera settings, etc.).
Now, the images themselves show lots of lens flares, reflections in windows pannels froms outside and inside sources, all sorts of debris (ice, space junk, water, etc.) outside and inside the crafts, camera and film artifacts and stuff we can't possibly identify by lack of enough information. The collection speaks volumes about the ignorance of those who present it as evidence of "aliens beyond the borders of what we call nature", since most can be easily explained. Anyone with a basic understanding of scientific methodology would be aware of this. No need of conspiracy theories and rants about mainstream science- the data, the evidence and its interpretation are bad.
I think most if not all those videos probably were already discussed at JREF before. The "search" function will help you finding the threads.
That was just another sweeping and mistaken statement. It might sound good at a first "sight", but as soon as one actually thinks about it, its is found as foolish as the "everything is possible" line. Like in the case of the previous "there is no bad evidence" claim, its something I would not expect from an individual used to the ways of real science. Here are two examples why:
-Do you consider the impossibility and complete absence of reliable evidence of an universal flood debatable?
-Do you consider the absence of reliable data backing ID as debatable?
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
We have been down this path. None of the scientists outside the UFO community who have been exposed to the “evidence” has been influenced to the point that they dropped any of their current studies to pursue UFO research. That in itself demonstrates that the evidence is not compelling. Keep plugging the UFO websites but they are very biased in what they present as is your interpretation.
Are you suggesting that the scientific community is standing in the way of UFO research? Are you suggesting that my "debunker" newsletter and website stand in the way of UFOlogists getting their scientific evidence published? Are you suggesting that those “who expose false claims” are standing in the way of scientific research? Certainly, I would think that science would appreciate “debunkers” exposing these claims as false because they might waste important monetary resources on wild goose chases. Feel free to present some REAL evidence that supports this claim and not your personal opinion. Do you have any actual examples of UFO research being rejected because of “UFO debunkers”, some scientific cabal that does not want UFOs researched, or some social stigma?
What is stopping you? The Fund for UFO research has money and you are a scientist. All you have to do is make a proposal. So far, their money has been wasted achieving nothing of significance. Robert Bigelow has thrown all sorts of money at UFO research with no results. What proposal will you create that can help solve the mystery or will be it more of the same rehashing of old cases that solve absolutely nothing?
According to your original post, you stated:
Concerning scientist not “rushing to investigate”, the comments posted here suggest that the people making them do not understand the historical and cultural situation pertaining to UFOs – and certainly they don’t understand the nature of scientists and scientific funding bodies. Conservatism is the norm. Controversy is shied away from. “Blue Sky” science struggles for funding as it is, throw in a controversial subject and there is no hope.
You are the one claiming scientific expertise and offering your opinion as the correct one. THAT is why I asked for any evidence that you should offer your credentials. Without such evidence, it means your opinion on this matter is worthless and you are simply parroting what these UFO websites tell you.
Look at the way you have used it. You use it as a label or an epithet. Just a few posts from here you state:
it is the UFO debunkers such as those posting in this thread that are determined to build that barrier as high as they can and to maintain it for as long as possible
You are implying that “UFO debunkers” are some evil entity obstructing scientific research. That is a label unless you are stating that “debunkers” are exposing false claims. If that is so, science should appreciate the effort of these “debunkers”. Decide which definition you desire. Either “debunkers” are exposing false claims and aiding science or “debunkers” are obstructionists preventing real science from studying UFOs. If you are of the opinion that “debunkers” are obstructing then don’t use the term “debunker”. Using the standard UFO proponent label/epithet for those with an opposing opinion about the source of UFO reports indicates you really don’t understand the definition.
There are thousands if not millions of photographs and videos of meteors. The recent April 14, 2010 fireball in Wisconsin was recorded by at least two video cameras (one was a city sky cam and another was a police cruiser dash camera). Several other security cameras caught the change in sky conditions (it illuminated the ground).
Really? Are you serious? Do you know what the difference between a meteorite, meteor, and meteoroid is?
1. The video in the blog shows the moon and an apparent meteor moving past it. This was not recorded from space and was an earth based telescope/camera (probably an amateur astronomer with a small telescope). This indicates the meteor was in the earth’s atmosphere and had nothing to do with the moon at all.
2. Your reference to the “Lunar leonids” recorded on video is also inaccurate. They were recordings of the meteoroid impacts on the unlit side of the moon and had nothing to do with them being meteors “burning up” in the moon’s “non-existent atmosphere”. They did not record anything other than the impact.
SnidelyW
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 486
I should have inserted the word spontaneous when I asked how many photos of meteorites existed. So, the question should have read "How many spontaneous photos of meteorites exist?" I realize many photos of meteor showers exist, using time lapse or multiple exposure photography. The point was to show that there are most likely more photos of UFO's than spontaneous photos of meteorites.
Regarding special status for UFO evidence- could we not say that the UFO phenomenon might not just be examined strictly from a pure science point of view, but also from a social point of view? To expand my position a bit, it has been suggested that presentation to authorities of UFO sightings has a social stigma attached. The reasons have been stated ad infinitum.
Do you not think then, that a science researcher, who has taken years to build up his reputation within the science community, would risk tarnishing that reputation by attempting to study something with such negative social status? It's pretty easy to declare here that funds are available to research, but actually stepping up and putting ones livelihood at risk without any promise of benefit, or even extended funding would be professional suicide.
I respect the position of skeptics who wish to see the chunk of flying saucer on exhibit at the Smithsonian before they will admit their existence. I think that skepticism could be tempered by admission the UFO phenomenon is as much as social issue as an elusive scientific one.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Define "UFO photograph". Many have been shown to be hoaxes or mundane objects. There are actually very few UFO photos and videos promoted as "authentic unidentifieds". Meanwhile, there are many "spontaneous" (I assume you are describing people just getting photos/videos of fireballs but this was not their original intention) photographs and videos of fireballs. The Peekskill fall had several. The recent wisconsin fall also had at least two videos. I could add satellite re-entries as well since those tend to be spontaneous (although I know of one website that promotes such a re-entry as a genuine flying triangle!).
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
SnidelyW said:
I’ll answer you with a question:
How many pictures of UFOs not suspected of being hoaxes and misidentifications (this includes the blurred stuff) exist?
Without this information, one can not actually say if there are more photos of UFOs or of meteorites taken in the heat of the moment. This put, I must say that at this thread, UFO pictures not suspected of being hoaxes and misidentifications are extremely rare.
SnidelyW said:
It is my personal opinion that UFO lore is mostly a socio-cultural issue. Social sciences and eventually some fields like neurology should be able to handle it (or most of it). No, I am not saying all people who see UFO are nuts. As example, I cite the works where people were able to induced abduction-like experiences in volunteers.
Regarding to what you call the social stigma, it was created and is maintained by UFOlogists themselves. UFOlogy is seen as a mix of pseudoscience and crackpotery because pseudoscience and crackpotery are abundant within it. Poor methodology, gullibility and lack of honesty are the sources of this fact.
If UFOlogists were to adopt a sound scientific methodology and dump all the garbage, the stigma would fade away. The stigma will continue to exist for as long as they keep relying on their usual methods, as Rramjet does.
SnidelyW said:
First point: Don’t you think at least some would risk and take the jump? It would be a hell of an achievement.
Second point (directly linked to the previous): They do not take the jump because of fear, it is because even what is sold as the best evidence is of low quality.
Third point: As previously stated, funds should be available from sources other than conventional science funding organizations. And some of these funds can be at reach of the hands of amateurs, also.
Fourth point: One can always piggyback one or more research lines over a given project. No “stigma” required.
SnidelyW said:
Oh, I already admitted that UFOs are social phenomena! Regarding the alleged elusive character, well, UFO lore does not match with it.
As for the skeptics requiring a chunk of flying saucer on exhibit at the Smithsonian before admitting their existence, you are just plainly wrong. Many of us would be happy with reliable imagery, for example. Sharp and not suspected of being a hoax. Something which, given UFO lore, should be relatively easy to get, especially these days. Something which could be obtained, assuming UFO lore is correct, with a cheap set up, even by (relatively skilled) amateurs. It is also something UFOlogy has not been able to produce and has been failed to explain properly why.
thanks and also no thanks
Thanks for the 'debunker' definition, but we seem to disagree. Which is fine.
Thanks for the 'debunker' definition, but we seem to disagree. Which is fine.
I don't understand this about "specific definitions" at all. Words mean what they mean. We all know what "alien" means with regards UFOs. You want to redefine it; that's your prerogative. But Society and language don't really work that way.
Alien means alien. Alien with regard to UFOs means beings from another planet. Your willful ignorance to pretend otherwise is your problem and your problem only. You, Rramjet, have no right to redefine terms. Participate in the discussion using standard English and common understanding, and stop wasting time on semantics.Rramjet said:
But so would ufology!
SnidelyW
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 486
Could you take a look at these photos, including the one of the artifacts which purportedly fell from the sky, and tell me why they aren't sharp enough, or reliable enough?
http://wisconsinufo.blogspot.com/
Thanks for your time in advance.
Or, maybe we do it like it's normally done instead. You tell us how you excluded hoaxes. That would be a good first step.
I stated:
“Here is some of that data that you call for (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc) - and it was not hard to obtain - and it is from a very expensive “experimental set up” (ie; NASA) – obviously of greater quality and more reliable than the “simple and cheap” set up you call for. I find it fascinating that the UFO debunkers continually assert that there is no reliable data when we have it in spades. Of course when that data is presented to the UFO debunkers…they simply ignore it.
I ask you then Correa Neto, what is your opinion of this data?”
It would have been more helpful had you been specific: That is, indicated which parts of the video represented the things you claim. But of course you cannot, because specificity would require close analysis and that is something you apparently are unwilling to undertake. Your merebelief seems enough for you.
I stated:
“Everything is debatable, even the truth of what you just said…”
“ID”? Usually an abbreviation for “Identification” - but I presume that is not what you mean? (no matter… I stand by my claim that anything is debatable).
“Here is some of that data that you call for (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc) - and it was not hard to obtain - and it is from a very expensive “experimental set up” (ie; NASA) – obviously of greater quality and more reliable than the “simple and cheap” set up you call for. I find it fascinating that the UFO debunkers continually assert that there is no reliable data when we have it in spades. Of course when that data is presented to the UFO debunkers…they simply ignore it.
I ask you then Correa Neto, what is your opinion of this data?”
How would you interpret it then? Here is a whole set of videos taken by NASA. My question to you is: What do they show?
Oh, yeah, right… have you even looked at the video(s)? If you have mundane explanations, then you should put them forward.
It is not I who is “shifting the burden of proof”, it is you. I provide you with the data you call for and ask if you have any rational explanation for it. Of course you do not… all you can do is make some spurious semantic arguments, attempting to shift the focus from the data. I will not let you get away with such tactics. I will merely ask if you have any rational explanation for the data I have presented.
…but you have just ignored the data!
NASA manipulates its images? Oh…Yeah, right… I was forgetting… they airbrush out the UFOs… not the other way round… huh…
Edited by Tricky:
Edited for moderated thread.
Oh? Precisely which parts can be “explained”. Be specific please. Otherwise your statements here amount to precisely nothing.
Merely stating generalised, unfounded assertions does make them true. I would have thought anyone claiming membership of an ostensibly skeptical society such as the JREF would know that much at the very least.
Sure, sure, so you say. But merely saying so does not make it true.
I stated:
“Everything is debatable, even the truth of what you just said…”
You disagree? Then you have just proved my point.
No, the line is “In an infinite Universe, everything is possible”.
You have not understood what my claim is in relation to this. It is merely that (for example) your “bad evidence” for UFOs is someone elses’ good evidence for fraud (or mistaken identity, etc). The evidence itself is neither good nor bad, it is merely our interpretation of it that makes it seem so. Evidence is evidence. To make the point further, perhaps you can explain to us what “extraordinary evidence” might consist of?
“Universal flood”? I presume you mean the biblical flood? There is a great deal of evidence for historical flooding and major inundations of various parts of the world that, to the inhabitants/victims, would have made it seem like the flood was “universal”. The flooding of the Black Sea is one such example.
“ID”? Usually an abbreviation for “Identification” - but I presume that is not what you mean? (no matter… I stand by my claim that anything is debatable).
Last edited by a moderator:
You say the words, but what follows from you indicates you do not believe them…
I can only speak from a scientific perspective when I state that words absolutely need precise definition for the context in which they are used - and especially in a thread such as this. Quite simply words do not “mean what they mean”. I define my terms precisely where it is appropriate (and I feel it necessary) to do so. I think you would be better to ignore the “word” itself and concentrate on the meaning I assign it (where I do). I think the debate would advance much quicker if you just looked at my meaning rather than getting bogged down in semantics.
For my purposes I have precisely defined “alien” in terms of something outside our natural or technological knowledge - that may involve your LGM… but not necessarily. That you persist in believing it to necessarily mean “beings from another planet”, IMO, is a deliberate tactic on your behalf to deny entry into debate …and that does not surprise me in the least.
There are actually (tens of) thousands of photos and videos promoted as “authentic unidentifieds”. One only has to visit a website such as (http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures.html or http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/photohome.asp ) to see that. I am not claiming all the photographs on these sites are “authentic”, but they certainly are promoted as such. In the age of digital photography and easy public access to digital editing software, no photo is now immune from the claim of “hoax”. However, among those thousands of photos there are definitely genuine UFOs – and that is the bottom line – genuine UFOs. The question is “What are they?” If more time was spent researching and less time arguing, we might just come up with a genuine answer to that question. The trouble is, at present the resources for such genuine research are simply not available.
My simple question is: What are the UFO debunkers afraid of? Surely, if they are true skeptics, as they claim, then they must admit the possibility that they are simply wrong in their belief system. A belief system that maintains all UFOs can be explained as misidentified mundane objects or hoaxes. Patently, on the evidence, such a claim is as absurd as to claim that the earth is flat. If it were that easy to dismiss UFOs, then the debate would have been over long ago.
If the UFO debunkers truly believed their own claims, they would be exhorting peak funding bodies to extend proper funding to trained UFO researchers so as to settle the question once and for all. If, as members of so called “skeptics” societies they truly believed their goal was to expunge “woo” beliefs from cluttering humanity’s search for true knowledge, then proper funding of UFO research would certainly be an excellent first step in that direction. No question humanity has ever faced was resolved without properly constituted, dedicated research programs. Actually, if the UFO debunkers truly believed their own rhetoric, then they would conduct their own research, instead of simply trying to talk the subject to death in ignorance of the evidence.
Skeptic’s societies constantly try to shift the burden of proof back to the UFO proponents, as if they would believe such a proof coming from such a direction anyway. This is like asking a Christian group to come up with a definitive proof for the existence of God - and then stating that whatever they came up with would be believed as the definitive answer.
Either the skeptics have no goals of their own, in which case they simply sit around and argue sans evidence, or they have definitive objectives which they can operationalise by conducting research that might dispel their perceived mythologies. They continually demand UFO proponents put their money where their mouth is, yet demand no such rigour of their own.
And this extends to their “arguments” as well. If a UFO proponent makes an unfounded assertion, they are quick to jump all over it and demand proof, yet when a UFO debunker makes an unfounded assertion, then that is simply the gospel truth, no questions need be asked.
No, there is a genuine mystery at the heart of UFOs, and no amount of hand-waving ridicule or the stating of unfounded belief systems from the UFO debunkers will take the place of genuine research into the subject.
You quote my statements, yet somehow construe to completely miss their meaning. It is not scientists who “stand in the way of UFO research”, it is the UFO debunkers such as yourself in conjunction with the “popular” media who stand in the way (and many governments around the world - particularly the US “government” – although I would put it more in terms of the (Eisenhower’s) “Military/Industrial complex” – who basically control the media anyway).
Yes, precisely. But not alone, it is the cultural zeitgeist, reinforced by popular media, in conjunction with websites such as your own that combine to symy properly constituted research into the subject.
Not at all. But those who contend true claims are actually false claims – based on a mere belief system such that which you hold - do the job quite well (and are usually funded quite well also I might add – as opposed to any scientist who might actually want to conduct serious research into the matter).
Edited by Tricky:
Edited for moderated thread.
You are denying that there is any social stigma surrounding the study of UFOs? You certainly don’t live in the society I live in if you believe that to be the case. You certainly have not seen any of the recent media reports on UFOs – and here I am referencing in particular the way the media treated Stephen Hawking’s latest offering on the possibility of “aliens”. One of the greatest minds of our generation – and it was ridicule all the way down the line!
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status