• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
ufology said:
Oh sure I understand memory is fallible.

As long as we agree science is also fallible.

j.r.
Click to expand...



Of course science is fallible. Who said it wasn't? Science is all about trying to demonstrate errors in earlier science, and get to better solutions.

This is not the ufology as a pseudoscience thread, but that is one reason why pseudosciences are not sciences. They seldom accept error.
 
ufology said:
. In my own sighting, I witnessed such a maneuver. The probablility that it was manmade is almost zero, and when you go back to the late 1940s and 50s, there is simply no way we had that kind of technology then ... so far as I know, we still don't.

j.r.
Click to expand...

You keeps saying this without having any way of knowing that it's true.
 
ufology said:
The above is a good post and the picture of the drone in the original post is cool too. I also agree that some witnesses don't think through their line of reasoning. For example they will say that because it was silent and huge, no Earthly craft could do that. But they forget that there have been some pretty huge lighter than air vehicles created that can hover silently.
Click to expand...
And some forget (or never understood) that silent and huge could mean something small and very close that they are misperceiving as huge and far away.

Where things do get beyond our technology is when objects do instantaneous high speed, high degree turns, or instantaneous acceleration or decelleration from and to very high speed. In my own sighting, I witnessed such a maneuver. The probablility that it was manmade is almost zero, and when you go back to the late 1940s and 50s, there is simply no way we had that kind of technology then ... so far as I know, we still don't.

j.r.
Click to expand...
If it were ever confirmed that any craft do that, it would indeed be interesting. Having only anecdotes based on perception and memory, both of which you've repeatedly demonstrated to be fallible, really isn't anything to go on. Often people also cite their own argument from ignorance that they don't know what secret military craft are out there. The falsifiable null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​
has never been falsified.
 
ufology said:
The above is a good post and the picture of the drone in the original post is cool too. I also agree that some witnesses don't think through their line of reasoning. For example they will say that because it was silent and huge, no Earthly craft could do that. But they forget that there have been some pretty huge lighter than air vehicles created that can hover silently.

Where things do get beyond our technology is when objects do instantaneous high speed, high degree turns, or instantaneous acceleration or decelleration from and to very high speed. In my own sighting, I witnessed such a maneuver. The probablility that it was manmade is almost zero, and when you go back to the late 1940s and 50s, there is simply no way we had that kind of technology then ... so far as I know, we still don't.

j.r.
Click to expand...

See , the problem is not that this is beyond our Tech, the problem is that it is beyond physical law. Having something go at a speed, then switching speed instantly (or rather very short time non perceptible to human), means that they are under an acceleration *at least* equivalent to nullify their speed in the direction they stop moving, and accelerate them up to the speed they seem to be moving the otehr way around. And contrary to what star trek tells you , you can't really avoid that.

Now what you wanted to say , is that you *thought* you witnessed such instant on acceleration. I am betting all my money that what you think you witnessed did not happen that way, if only by virtue of Newtonian mechanic.
 
Waits for appeal to ignorance.

"You don't know what alien tech and science can do! Newton was shown wrong before! Are you saying physics is dead?"
 
UFO's are just like magic, they can be anything one wants them to be, just like Gods.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Resume said:
You keeps saying this without having any way of knowing that it's true.
Click to expand...


Actually I said, "The probablility that it was manmade is almost zero, and when you go back to the late 1940s and 50s, there is simply no way we had that kind of technology then ... so far as I know, we still don't."

Because I made no absolute statement, and instead used the words "probablity" and "almost zero" and "as far as I know", I can abosultely know that what I said is true based on my firsthand experience and the examination of available data on known manmade craft.

j.r.
 
ufology said:
Actually I said, "The probablility that it was manmade is almost zero, and when you go back to the late 1940s and 50s, there is simply no way we had that kind of technology then ... so far as I know, we still don't."

Because I made no absolute statement, and instead used the words "probablity" and "almost zero" and "as far as I know", I can abosultely know that what I said is true based on my firsthand experience and the examination of available data on known manmade craft.

j.r.
Click to expand...

There is no way you could estimate the probability to be "almost zero." That is a number you pulled from . . . somewhere. You don't seem to have learned anything from your time here.
 
ufology said:
Actually I said, "The probablility that it was manmade is almost zero, and when you go back to the late 1940s and 50s, there is simply no way we had that kind of technology then ... so far as I know, we still don't."

Because I made no absolute statement, and instead used the words "probablity" and "almost zero" and "as far as I know", I can abosultely know that what I said is true based on my firsthand experience and the examination of available data on known manmade craft.

j.r.
Click to expand...


Weasel words aside, it's just an anecdote, and not a very good one at that.

Why persist?
 
Back in the 40's and 50's we had fallibility.

It even existed in the 70's and as far as I know, we still have it today.

We also still have fireflies like we did back in the 70's
 
Paulhoff said:
No, science is self correcting, and not like memory at all.
Click to expand...


Actually ... human memory is self correcting. How many times have you forgotten some bit of trivia, only to search your memory and have it surface in the near future? Additionally, it is self correcting using the most sophisticated data processor known ... our brain's capacity for reasoning and logic ... when something slips our mind, we can use related memories and intelligent investigation to restore lost memories. For example, let's say you forgot what year some personal event happened ( perhaps the year you graduated ), you can use your memory to correlate other events from the same year, for example a hit song, movie or major public event, establish the year of those events, and restore the memory of the year you graduated from that ... never having needed to lookup the actual information from the yearbook.

j.r.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom