AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
I know what I saw... It's not a glowstick.
It all depends on how you define glowstick ( alien craft ).
- Status
It all depends on how you define glowstick ( alien craft ).
23_Tauri
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2010
- Messages
- 4,927
Well it was about the size of a Volkswagen....... airbag.
Did you just call Adman an airbag, Stray? That's a bit rude, isn't it, my friend?
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
No Twent, I didn't, I wouldn't want to be rude to Ady.Did you just call Adman an airbag, Stray? That's a bit rude, isn't it, my friend?
But I can see from my angle that there has been a degree of misunderstanding.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Twent.
ETA: Is this going to be a protracted derail?
ETA: Is this going to be a protracted derail?
Last edited:
there's many examples of this but one of the best to show alien visitation believers is one from J Allen Hynek. They always like to name drop him as a respectable scientist that did ufo research but they forget he came to the conclusion that the ufo phenomenon was most likely not aliens in nuts & bolts craft.
Anyway here's the story
remirol
Senior Wrangler
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,089
No Twent, I didn't, I wouldn't want to be rude to Ady.
But I can see from my angle that there has been a degree of misunderstanding.
Sinners, all of you. Might as well wave goodbye to this thread
Archer17
Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2003
- Messages
- 174
Our French mini-lop Tina poops gold nuggets. Sounds crazy, huh? Need evidence? I got all that you need:
I am a firsthand witness. My written testimony is evidence.
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
Wudang
BOFH
It's a sine of the times.
23_Tauri
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2010
- Messages
- 4,927
Only cos you say so.
Wudang
BOFH
You're trying to trig me into agreeing with you.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Anybody remember when this was a thread about ufos and evidence and... oh wait we never actually got as far as evidence. Never mind.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
But you have to admit, they proved the hell out of UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) existing.
Archer17
Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2003
- Messages
- 174
Define "evidence."
I don't want to be remembered here for rabbit-poop so I'll toss out a link to something cool that, in sticking with the topic, has generated UFO reports over the years:
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the NOSS Triads.
PetiteMalleolus
New Blood
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2011
- Messages
- 18
Hey, guys -- I'm a 1st-time poster. Sorry if this gets a little long (1/73,586,827th the length of this thread still constitutes a volume...).
I've been following for a while, although I was absent during some of the early Rramjet Period (abductions and JREF access don't mix...), and I've learned a lot here, but I apparently still have, uh, a ways to go, so maybe you guys can help me out.
I have a friend who's exceptionally well-read who is, among other things, a linguistic specialist, biblical scholar (he's atheist), logician and former philosophy professor. He's also the most skeptical person I've ever known. He's always trying to not-only educate me in general, but get me to think more skeptically and to be more careful about what constitutes evidence. He's always seemed to appreciate that I've gone through life non-woo-afflicted, but he realizes that I'm not-even-nearly as educated as he is. A few days ago, he told me he had a film to show me --- in past months, I've intermittently attempted to fill him in on the goings-on in this thread (he doesn't have internet access), and I knew only that the film was somehow related to my recent ramblings... I flew over there (it was only a mile, no one saw me, it was night, and cameras are banned in our county...) and we watched what was the 1979 film, "UFOs Are Real", (yeah, I know a bunch of you guys probably saw it..).
When the show ended, I was guessing that he was going to remind me of something-to-the-effect-of that people will go to great lengths in supporting beliefs for which there is no evidence of, and then point out all the philosophical/psychological/logical fallacies like he always does in exposing paranormal claims. Before he said anything, I said something like, "Yeah, some of those I can try to explain away, but for some of the others, I'm just not knowledgeable enough to explain what was presented.", and I guessed that he'd then explain the hoaxes/hallucinations/whatever-else/etc... To my surprise, he said, as best as I can paraphrase, "What's there to shoot down? These are accounts by trained, educated, informed, knowledgeable-in-their-milieu people who don't have reason to make these stories up.", and he certainly was, at least, addressing the claims by pilots. He's definitely not saying that every one of these claims in the show must be true, but he did cite the fact that there've been hundreds (or more?) of such claims (again, he certainly was addressing at-least pilots/military-people; and, he's very well aware that large, large, large numbers of people have claimed the existence of various Gods, psychic powers, etc... -- he'll systematically tear such claimants to shreds; and he's obviously well-versed in the logical fallacies, E.C.R.E.E., witness fallibility and the null hypothesis). He's not concluding that there's definitely been alien visitation, but he doesn't feel that the stories in the film can all be "poo-poohed" (his term) away, and feels that at-least-some of these stories constitute "some evidence that should be considered" (his quote). He also particularly mentioned Hoover's statement, the C.I.A. statement and Jimmy Carter's navy training. He is more reluctant to give weight to the 2 abduction stories (Travis Walton, Betty Hill -- personally, my idol-worship phase was traumatized when she threatened to surpass Benny in most-humorous-responses-elicited...) but doesn't appear quite ready to totally dismiss them -- particularly noting the Walton-case polygraph results.
So, quite simply, I ask: How would you guys reply to his statements? I realize that, regarding UFO-lore, you guys've "heard it all before", but here, particularly given my friend's background, I'm curious as to whether you guys have a slant that I haven't seen posted yet (or maybe missed early in the thread) -- there's gotta be something(s) I'm missing here... Thanks.
Also --
Ufology -- Hello... Hey, I was thinking... Needless-to-say, if it happens to be the case that you, to-at-least-some-extent, are here for education, this forum seems (well, almost-all-the-time, at-least...) to be the perfect place for it. If I ever needed skeptical input, I could run, 24-hours-a-day, to RoboTimbo, AstroPhotographer, Akhenaten, StrayCat, JohnAlbert, Paul2, etc... and, independent of what they make think of me personality-wise or vice versa, they'll unhesitatingly give insight into whatever I may ask (thus obviating the need to reveal my striking Christina Aguilera resemblance...). For what it's worth, I find that the technique that RoboTimbo mentions --essentially, "Make up an example of your own and spit it back to me so that I can see that you understand" -- is often the best way for me to try to teach things to people (and to learn things myself). There've been times when I've struggled to understand concepts that people have tried repeatedly, in multiple ways, to explain to me, so I'd try to explain-back to them, and they'll say, "Well, part A is right, but you don't have B (C, D, etc...) yet", or, "You don't seem have any of it right, yet", or, "Yeah, now you seem to understand". Unless I'm at stage "Yeah, now you seem to understand", it seems that I have to, if I wish to climb to a higher stage, continue to find ways to refine my understanding of the concept(s) (which likely will include bouncing questions off people more knowledgeable than I am), and hopefully, I'll ultimately be told that I do indeed understand.
As you know, different people on this forum have different strengths -- philosophers, magicians, AstroPhotographer with his air ventures, JohnAlbert with his logical fallacies expertise, you with your UFO background, to name just a few -- and, since no one obviously is claiming omniscience, it seems possible that, if the skeptics could see that you indeed understand the null hypothesis, one-or-more of them might be able to better-understand you and subsequently better-address some of your claims/statements/whatever-you-wish-to-call-them, possibly leading to skeptics even introducing ideas that have not surfaced here yet.
I do realize that perhaps you do understand it (the null hypothesis) and are hesitant to indicate such (or feel that you already have indeed indicated it), and that you may have reason(s) for hesitating which may differ from reason(s) that some posters have hypothesized here -- but on another hand, you seem to possess the ability to "take a licking and keep on ticking", and if you are indeed sufficiently-impenetrable, would perhaps have nothing to lose (and, indeed, potentially something to gain) in trying Robo's suggestion of you making up an example using the null hypothesis. And, supposing you do indeed "successfully spit the null hypothesis back to him" -- it seems that your fundamental position about it wouldn't necessarily have to change, that is to say that you could still maintain that you don't feel that the null hypothesis applies to your field. Any thoughts? Thanks...
I've been following for a while, although I was absent during some of the early Rramjet Period (abductions and JREF access don't mix...), and I've learned a lot here, but I apparently still have, uh, a ways to go, so maybe you guys can help me out.
I have a friend who's exceptionally well-read who is, among other things, a linguistic specialist, biblical scholar (he's atheist), logician and former philosophy professor. He's also the most skeptical person I've ever known. He's always trying to not-only educate me in general, but get me to think more skeptically and to be more careful about what constitutes evidence. He's always seemed to appreciate that I've gone through life non-woo-afflicted, but he realizes that I'm not-even-nearly as educated as he is. A few days ago, he told me he had a film to show me --- in past months, I've intermittently attempted to fill him in on the goings-on in this thread (he doesn't have internet access), and I knew only that the film was somehow related to my recent ramblings... I flew over there (it was only a mile, no one saw me, it was night, and cameras are banned in our county...) and we watched what was the 1979 film, "UFOs Are Real", (yeah, I know a bunch of you guys probably saw it..).
When the show ended, I was guessing that he was going to remind me of something-to-the-effect-of that people will go to great lengths in supporting beliefs for which there is no evidence of, and then point out all the philosophical/psychological/logical fallacies like he always does in exposing paranormal claims. Before he said anything, I said something like, "Yeah, some of those I can try to explain away, but for some of the others, I'm just not knowledgeable enough to explain what was presented.", and I guessed that he'd then explain the hoaxes/hallucinations/whatever-else/etc... To my surprise, he said, as best as I can paraphrase, "What's there to shoot down? These are accounts by trained, educated, informed, knowledgeable-in-their-milieu people who don't have reason to make these stories up.", and he certainly was, at least, addressing the claims by pilots. He's definitely not saying that every one of these claims in the show must be true, but he did cite the fact that there've been hundreds (or more?) of such claims (again, he certainly was addressing at-least pilots/military-people; and, he's very well aware that large, large, large numbers of people have claimed the existence of various Gods, psychic powers, etc... -- he'll systematically tear such claimants to shreds; and he's obviously well-versed in the logical fallacies, E.C.R.E.E., witness fallibility and the null hypothesis). He's not concluding that there's definitely been alien visitation, but he doesn't feel that the stories in the film can all be "poo-poohed" (his term) away, and feels that at-least-some of these stories constitute "some evidence that should be considered" (his quote). He also particularly mentioned Hoover's statement, the C.I.A. statement and Jimmy Carter's navy training. He is more reluctant to give weight to the 2 abduction stories (Travis Walton, Betty Hill -- personally, my idol-worship phase was traumatized when she threatened to surpass Benny in most-humorous-responses-elicited...) but doesn't appear quite ready to totally dismiss them -- particularly noting the Walton-case polygraph results.
So, quite simply, I ask: How would you guys reply to his statements? I realize that, regarding UFO-lore, you guys've "heard it all before", but here, particularly given my friend's background, I'm curious as to whether you guys have a slant that I haven't seen posted yet (or maybe missed early in the thread) -- there's gotta be something(s) I'm missing here... Thanks.
Also --
Ufology -- Hello... Hey, I was thinking... Needless-to-say, if it happens to be the case that you, to-at-least-some-extent, are here for education, this forum seems (well, almost-all-the-time, at-least...) to be the perfect place for it. If I ever needed skeptical input, I could run, 24-hours-a-day, to RoboTimbo, AstroPhotographer, Akhenaten, StrayCat, JohnAlbert, Paul2, etc... and, independent of what they make think of me personality-wise or vice versa, they'll unhesitatingly give insight into whatever I may ask (thus obviating the need to reveal my striking Christina Aguilera resemblance...). For what it's worth, I find that the technique that RoboTimbo mentions --essentially, "Make up an example of your own and spit it back to me so that I can see that you understand" -- is often the best way for me to try to teach things to people (and to learn things myself). There've been times when I've struggled to understand concepts that people have tried repeatedly, in multiple ways, to explain to me, so I'd try to explain-back to them, and they'll say, "Well, part A is right, but you don't have B (C, D, etc...) yet", or, "You don't seem have any of it right, yet", or, "Yeah, now you seem to understand". Unless I'm at stage "Yeah, now you seem to understand", it seems that I have to, if I wish to climb to a higher stage, continue to find ways to refine my understanding of the concept(s) (which likely will include bouncing questions off people more knowledgeable than I am), and hopefully, I'll ultimately be told that I do indeed understand.
As you know, different people on this forum have different strengths -- philosophers, magicians, AstroPhotographer with his air ventures, JohnAlbert with his logical fallacies expertise, you with your UFO background, to name just a few -- and, since no one obviously is claiming omniscience, it seems possible that, if the skeptics could see that you indeed understand the null hypothesis, one-or-more of them might be able to better-understand you and subsequently better-address some of your claims/statements/whatever-you-wish-to-call-them, possibly leading to skeptics even introducing ideas that have not surfaced here yet.
I do realize that perhaps you do understand it (the null hypothesis) and are hesitant to indicate such (or feel that you already have indeed indicated it), and that you may have reason(s) for hesitating which may differ from reason(s) that some posters have hypothesized here -- but on another hand, you seem to possess the ability to "take a licking and keep on ticking", and if you are indeed sufficiently-impenetrable, would perhaps have nothing to lose (and, indeed, potentially something to gain) in trying Robo's suggestion of you making up an example using the null hypothesis. And, supposing you do indeed "successfully spit the null hypothesis back to him" -- it seems that your fundamental position about it wouldn't necessarily have to change, that is to say that you could still maintain that you don't feel that the null hypothesis applies to your field. Any thoughts? Thanks...
Spektator
Is that right?
I will respond to only one of these points. I know Jimmy Carter slightly and know people who work with him better. I have a great deal of respect for the former President. I will point out that his UFO report is consistent with a sighting of Venus. He doesn't think it was Venus, but he admits that the light he saw was in the same portion of the sky Venus would have occupied that night. People can be fooled. And I did not hear this from him, but from someone who knows him very well: when he was President, he asked to be briefed on the nature of UFOs and was disappointed to hear that the government had no evidence that they were anything but mundane phenomena or misidentified astronomical objects and the like.
The smartest person I know believes that every once in awhile, biblical style miracles occur. Nothing to be done about it.
- Status