• 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.
Akhenaten said:
Bloody Australians. You can dress 'em up but you daren't take 'em anywhere.
Click to expand...

Please cut that out, you are giving me flashbacks to that night in Marseilles where I tried a Fosters.
(That mildewy water was not nice.)
 
Resistance is futile . . .

BorgCube.jpg

. . . you will be redefinated.​
 
Perhaps it is time for this thread to just disappear. Its original author is no longer with us and the follow-ups have been worse at repeating the standard UFO dogma/mantra than he was. Time to move along....nothing to see here.
 
Astrophotographer said:
Perhaps it is time for this thread to just disappear. Its original author is no longer with us and the follow-ups have been worse at repeating the standard UFO dogma/mantra than he was. Time to move along....nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

Seconded.
 
The worst "evidence" there is for any case is eye witness. Show something than can be examined by others.

Why is it that UFO sightings are the reported significantly less by amateur astronomers than the general public?
 
Pythonic said:
The worst "evidence" there is for any case is eye witness. Show something than can be examined by others.

Why is it that UFO sightings are the reported significantly less by amateur astronomers than the general public?
Click to expand...


Pythonic,

Actually your assumption is just parroting a bunch of cynics, technocrats and scientific skeptics, but in reality it is not always true. For example the video evidence out there is obviously filled with hoaxes, but you would still consider a You Tube video better than a report from an Air Force pilot?

Or let's take the UFO out of equation altogether. Stand outside looking up a the dark sky some night. With good eyes you can observe satellites passing over. When you see one try to take a picture of it with your cell phone. Then ask yourself if you believe your cell phone picture or your own eyes.

Human perception is much better than the cynics and skeptics give it credit for. It is based on well known scientific principles with known tolerances. That is why optometrists can measure eyesight and if necessary create perfect lenses for glasses. There are many instances when eyewitness tesimony may be better than material evidence.

Not only that, material evidence can also lead to false conclusions. A strand of hair at a crime scene doesn't prove the person it came from committted the crime. If that person was on the other side of the planet and seen by numerous independent witnesses, that person will not be convicted on mere trace evidence ... physical or not.

Be careful about using absolutes like "worst" or "always" when you are making statements, otherwise you'll run into trouble. Think for yourself.
 
ufology said:
Pythonic,

Actually your assumption is just parroting a bunch of cynics, technocrats and scientific skeptics, but in reality it is not always true. For example the video evidence out there is obviously filled with hoaxes, but you would still consider a You Tube video better than a report from an Air Force pilot?

Or let's take the UFO out of equation altogether. Stand outside looking up a the dark sky some night. With good eyes you can observe satellites passing over. When you see one try to take a picture of it with your cell phone. Then ask yourself if you believe your cell phone picture or your own eyes.

Human perception is much better than the cynics and skeptics give it credit for. It is based on well known scientific principles with known tolerances. That is why optometrists can measure eyesight and if necessary create perfect lenses for glasses. There are many instances when eyewitness tesimony may be better than material evidence.

Not only that, material evidence can also lead to false conclusions. A strand of hair at a crime scene doesn't prove the person it came from committted the crime. If that person was on the other side of the planet and seen by numerous independent witnesses, that person will not be convicted on mere trace evidence ... physical or not.

Be careful about using absolutes like "worst" or "always" when you are making statements, otherwise you'll run into trouble. Think for yourself.
Click to expand...

You're claiming that no witnesses of alleged UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) have ever misperceived a mundane object?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom