• 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.
AdMan said:
Why do you keep referring to "the above"? Why aren't you directly addressing the points and questions directed at you?

I think you feel it places you above the argument as if you're only observing it and commenting on it; rather, it comes across as if you're a fastidious student complaining to the teacher.
Click to expand...


An answer to the above has already been provided in an earlier post.
 
ufology said:
The quality and quantity of anecdotal evidence for cryptozoological creatures does not compare at all to the anecdotal evidence for UFOs. There may indeed be strange creatures, but none have been chased in braod daylight at the speed of sound by Air Force jets ... or tracked on radar, or seen by commercial pilots. I've seen images of some of these alledged creatures and the last one I looked at looked like a weather balloon. As for infra red pictures, infra red cameras can pick up all kinds of odd thermal anomalies, both natural and manmade. That isn't good enough on its own. Besides if these were living creatures of some kind, there would have to be remnants of them someplace.
Click to expand...
Hello ufology. I don't feel that this answers my question in #11289 adequately. It's the same as John Albert's question, really. You've seen the film Secret Space, right? All those NASA clips of blobs flying around MIR, around astronauts who then comment on the blobs, in and out of camera? Well, fans of blobs in the outer atmosphere would say that these pictures are as good evidence as your "tracked on radar, seen by commerical pilots, chased by broad daylight....".

Seen that one where one of the blobs is tracked and then after a flash of light, whizzes off in the other direction? Here it is, at 1:05:23:



How is this different to the many hundreds of sightings of "intelligently controlled craft" from ground level position?
 
23_Tauri said:
Hello ufology. I don't feel that this answers my question in #11289 adequately. It's the same as John Albert's question, really. You've seen the film Secret Space, right? All those NASA clips of blobs flying around MIR, around astronauts who then comment on the blobs, in and out of camera? Well, fans of blobs in the outer atmosphere would say that these pictures are as good evidence as your "tracked on radar, seen by commerical pilots, chased by broad daylight....".

Seen that one where one of the blobs is tracked and then after a flash of light, whizzes off in the other direction? Here it is, at 1:05:23:

How is this different to the many hundreds of sightings of "intelligently controlled craft" from ground level position?
Click to expand...


The video in the example that is quoted above ( see original post for the video ) is chock full of scraps of ufolore. It wraps conspiracy theories up with military and world governments and combines them with disinformation and hoaxes about UFOs. It's all quite interesting so long as you don't take any of it at face value. A better documentary is this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdZpRcTBwdA

Specifically regarding the white specs around the spacecraft, I've seen enough of the phenomena debunked that I don't pay much attention to it anymore. Tricks of light in the multi-pane glass, ice crystals propelled by maneuvering thrusters, tether cables, space debris ... none of that stuff is what we're really after.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
AdMan said:
Why do you keep referring to "the above"? Why aren't you directly addressing the points and questions directed at you?

I think you feel it places you above the argument as if you're only observing it and commenting on it; rather, it comes across as if you're a fastidious student complaining to the teacher.
Click to expand...


An answer to the above has already been provided in an earlier post.
Click to expand...


Just to antagonise people?

Good plan.
 
ufology said:
The video in the example that is quoted above ( see original post for the video ) is chock full of scraps of ufolore. It wraps conspiracy theories up with military and world governments and combines them with disinformation and hoaxes about UFOs. It's all quite interesting so long as you don't take any of it at face value.

<waffle>
Click to expand...


Are you going to answer the question you were actually asked?


23_Tauri said:
How is this different to the many hundreds of sightings of "intelligently controlled craft" from ground level position?
Click to expand...
 
Akhenaten said:
Are you going to answer the question you were actually asked?
Click to expand...


If the question above refers to this question: "How is this different to the many hundreds of sightings of "intelligently controlled craft" from ground level position?" And if that questions refers to the floating particles of ice, other debris, and tricks of light that give the impression on video that there are things ( assumed incorrectly by some to be space life ), then the difference is that those phenomena have been debunked and are not the same as the objects tracked on radar nearer the ground, that when chased by Air Force interceptors look and perform like no known structured metallic craft made by man.
 
Toke said:
Not many have heard of them, that is why I included a link to them.
(as in underlined word)

Anyway,
You have still not come up with a sensible explanation to why lights in the sky equals aliens.
I believe that "null hypothesis" have been mentioned before, why are you picking aliens instead of mundane or divine explanations?
Click to expand...

Offtopic : Although I betcha a good proportion of the people here , knows about the Cthulhu Mythos, and H.P. Lovecraft.

(Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!).
 
Aepervius said:
Offtopic : Although I betcha a good proportion of the people here , knows about the Cthulhu Mythos, and H.P. Lovecraft.

(Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!).
Click to expand...

Mythos?

MYTHOS?

How dare you?

There's always some truth behind myths!



Ain't this how woos build their fantasies disguised as theories?
 
ufology said:
Snad's stuff is associated with cryptozoology, which is of peripheral interst to ufologists. At the present time in ufology, it falls under the general area of UFO studies right next to mythology and is given about as much weight ( in terms of reality ) as Pegasus or unicorns.
Click to expand...

No, not really.

Snad's interpretating UFO lore as produced by beings which actually are what you believe to be alien craft. He is actually using the very same dataset you are but reaching a different conclusion. I could say the "metallic surfaces" are created by an outer shell of Si which these creatures build over themselves, and they are lifeforms based in Si polymers instead of C (remember Star Trek' Horta?). I could say the lights are the product of bioluminescence. See? Just like you rather unscientifically proposed "anti-gravity" to explain the maneauvers you claim to have observed. The difference is that in my case I know its just fantasy.

I really would like you to answer why you think his interpretation is not as good as yours. Show me, please, the methods you used to evaluate the evidence and reach a conclusion over it. Show me, please, how you managed to conclude his idea is at the same league unicorns are.

MASSIVE ETA BELOW:

I also would like to make a comment regarding your claim of cryptozoology having less (or worse) backup than UFOlogy. This is at least debatable, since I know of at least one bigfooter which considers UFOs to be based on much shakier grounds.

This put, I must say UFO and cryptozoology evidence are at the same low level- both are mostly composed by anecdotes, misidentifications and hoaxes. It really doesn't matter if your pet belief has ten or a thousand times more anecdotes than someone else's. What actually matters is the evidence quality and its something missing in both cases.

You must also not forget or sweep under the carpet the interference or overlapping area between the pseudosciences of UFOlogy and cryptozoology- there are sighting reports linking UFO activity with bigfoot activity, for example. Where and how you draw the line?
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
The quality and quantity of anecdotal evidence for cryptozoological creatures does not compare at all to the anecdotal evidence for UFOs.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. These are all just anecdotes or more accurately, unsupported claims.
 
ufology said:
If the question above refers to this question: "How is this different to the many hundreds of sightings of "intelligently controlled craft" from ground level position?" And if that questions refers to the floating particles of ice, other debris, and tricks of light that give the impression on video that there are things ( assumed incorrectly by some to be space life ), then the difference is that those phenomena have been debunked and are not the same as the objects tracked on radar nearer the ground, that when chased by Air Force interceptors look and perform like no known structured metallic craft made by man.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the clip at 1:05:23 in Secret Space? There is an object appearing to act intelligently. Not a floating piece of ice bobbing about in a chaotic manner. How does that differ from sightings of apparently intelligently controlled craft viewed from the ground or in the troposphere? Because, from where I'm standing, I can't see a difference.

There are plenty of ufologists out there (heck, some of them appear in the film - Jaime Maussan, you gotta love 'im! :D) who consider the clips show in Secret Space to be evidence of intelligent entities (where craft, or biological, or a mix of the two) out there in the outer reaches of our atmosphere. Are these ufologists just indulging their fantasties? Or are they reading too much into Unidentified Flying Objects?

Forgive me, maybe I am just one of the uninitiated, but to me its all Pseudoblobology.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
The video in the example that is quoted above ( see original post for the video ) is chock full of scraps of ufolore. It wraps conspiracy theories up with military and world governments and combines them with disinformation and hoaxes about UFOs. It's all quite interesting so long as you don't take any of it at face value. A better documentary is this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdZpRcTBwdA

Specifically regarding the white specs around the spacecraft, I've seen enough of the phenomena debunked that I don't pay much attention to it anymore. Tricks of light in the multi-pane glass, ice crystals propelled by maneuvering thrusters, tether cables, space debris ... none of that stuff is what we're really after.
Click to expand...


What we're really after here is evidence. Do you possess any?
 
ufology said:
The video in the example that is quoted above ( see original post for the video ) is chock full of scraps of ufolore. It wraps conspiracy theories up with military and world governments and combines them with disinformation and hoaxes about UFOs. It's all quite interesting so long as you don't take any of it at face value. A better documentary is this one:
Click to expand...
The above pseudoscientist wishes to distance his unevidenced pseudoscience from other unevidenced pseudoscience which he thinks is silly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdZpRcTBwdA

Specifically regarding the white specs around the spacecraft, I've seen enough of the phenomena debunked that I don't pay much attention to it anymore. Tricks of light in the multi-pane glass, ice crystals propelled by maneuvering thrusters, tether cables, space debris ... none of that stuff is what we're really after.
Click to expand...
The above pseudoscientist uses typical pseudoscientific special pleading to make his own pseudoscience seem more legitimate to himself than other pseudoscience.
 
ufology said:
If the question above refers to this question: "How is this different to the many hundreds of sightings of "intelligently controlled craft" from ground level position?" And if that questions refers to the floating particles of ice, other debris, and tricks of light that give the impression on video that there are things ( assumed incorrectly by some to be space life ), then the difference is that those phenomena have been debunked and are not the same as the objects tracked on radar nearer the ground, that when chased by Air Force interceptors look and perform like no known structured metallic craft made by man.
Click to expand...

The above pseudoscientist acknowledges that pseudoscience which uses his same methods has been debunked but is unable to make the mental leap to translate that to his own brand of pseudoscience. He believes every UFO to be a structured metallic alien craft even though he has never been able to falsify the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFO sightings are of mundane origin"​
preferring his pseudoscientific one instead.
 
Correa Neto said:
No, not really.

Snad's interpretating UFO lore as produced by beings which actually are what you believe to be alien craft. He is actually using the very same dataset you are but reaching a different conclusion.
Click to expand...


Uh ... no ... Snad isn't using the same "data set". Air Force pilots are vectored by radar to chase floating ice blobs and dust trapped between window panes.

j.r.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom