• 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.
One of these:
PetiteMalleolus said:
He's also the most skeptical person I've ever known.
Click to expand...
is not like the other.

To my surprise, he said, as best as I can paraphrase, "What's there to shoot down?
Click to expand...
Unless he was saying it because he understands the burden of proof is on the person making the claim and nobody has ever falsified the null hypothesis. He was correct that there was nothing to explain away.

And welcome PetiteMalleolus!
 
Carter's navy training had nothing to do with being able to recognize the planet Venus or where Venus was on the night in question. Venus changes position over several months. Sometimes it is visible for several months in the evening and then it moves to the morning sky. On other months, it is too close to the sun to be noticable. Carter's sighting is consistent with Venus because Venus was there.

As an anecdote about Cater's Navy training, I can add the following story. When I was serving on one of my many submarines, two naval officers (many were academy grads but I can't say for sure if either of them was actually one) were confused by a light on the horizon. The thought it was a ship with a bright light but there was no indication that there was a ship there. The could see no nav lights and sonar reported no sounds from a surface vessel. The Quartermaster (an enlisted man) brought up "Skyglobe" (an old DOS program) and pointed out they need not be too concerned about the planet Venus. Why didn't their naval training allow them to identify the planet Venus? Like Carter, they were not aware of Venus' location and when it would be visible. Since I just was involved in the Engineering section of the ship, I coudl not help. However, I became aware of this by reading about it in the Captain's night order book the following evening. I remember giving one of the officers a bit of gentle ribbing for some time about it.
 
Last edited:
PetiteMalleolus: Welcome to the forum. :)

Really without going into great detail it is not unheard of, for really intelligent people to believe in nonsense.
If you think he really believes the stories just because of some misplaced sense of 'credibility' of the witnesses, I would personally offer some of the research linked in this thread that highlights very clearly that no one is an expert in seeing things they can't identify and therefore, no one is any more credible than anyone else. :)
 
Astrophotographer said:
Carter's sighting is consistent with Venus because Venus was there.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the absence of Venus in Carter's report also consistent with it being Venus?...meaning...if the UFO were not Venus, then why didn't Carter report the "UFO" and Venus in the same area of the sky?
 
The same with Halt's report of Rendlesham. No mention of being able to see the clearly visible lighthouse, only a mysterious light in the same direction that the lighthouse would have been in.
 
R.A.F. said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the absence of Venus in Carter's report also consistent with it being Venus?...meaning...if the UFO were not Venus, then why didn't Carter report the "UFO" and Venus in the same area of the sky?
Click to expand...

That is also important to note. When I stated this was all consistent with Venus, I was describing the report as a whole (which includes the lack of mentioning Venus being visible). One really can't put much into Carter's report. He made it many years later and he could not even recall the correct date. It was Robert Sheaffer who determined when Carter gave the speech. He reports that those present really did not think much of Carter's sighting at the time as if was no big deal. Maybe UFOs are visible all the time in Georgia?
 
Anyone need an example of what we mean by critical thinking? Here's two:

R.A.F. said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the absence of Venus in Carter's report also consistent with it being Venus?...meaning...if the UFO were not Venus, then why didn't Carter report the "UFO" and Venus in the same area of the sky?
Click to expand...


Stray Cat said:
The same with Halt's report of Rendlesham. No mention of being able to see the clearly visible lighthouse, only a mysterious light in the same direction that the lighthouse would have been in.
Click to expand...
 
PetiteMalleolus said:
...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.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the board and don't be afraid to ask a question or throw in your two cents. Most here allow the possibility of ET visitation but would require irrefutable evidence - an "alien" or their technology would be nice - before we replace the 'U' in UFO with 'ET.'

I didn't see the film in question but usually such films (or books) have an agenda. Ask your friend (or yourself) if you think those "hundreds or more" of UFO sightings mentioned described the same thing. UFO sightings are actually singular events. Those that give us 'UFOs Are Real' or have books to sell try to shoehorn the 'U' in UFO into one pervasive global phenomenon but the only real commonality is the first letter of that acronym. It shouldn't be surprising that humans, no matter their training or occupation, are human enough to see something from time to time that they, for one reason or another, can't identify. Pilots are one of the favorite "appeals to authority" used by those selling the flying saucer concept but pilots are human too. Fact is, no one knows what an "alien" craft would look like. Take claims that imply things involving former presidents* or intelligence agencies with a grain of salt. Those that engage in that practice know that such claims are impossible to pin down.

* I'm referring to Hoover, Truman, and some others that are frequently tied into the ufological lore, not Jimmy Carter. I agree with those that have him seeing Venus.
 
Last edited:
PetiteMalleolus said:
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."
Click to expand...
No good sceptic has ever suggested that the vast majority of such stories are made up. They're almost all honest, accurate (so far as perceptions and memory allows) descriptions of what the person thinks they saw and are accepted as such in most cases, with the interpretation of what was seen and the conclusions that can be drawn being the only bones of contention.
 
Pixel42 said:
No good sceptic has ever suggested that the vast majority of such stories are made up. They're almost all honest, accurate (so far as perceptions and memory allows) descriptions of what the person thinks they saw and are accepted as such in most cases, with the interpretation of what was seen and the conclusions that can be drawn being the only bones of contention.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, UFO believers are the ones who make it an either/or proposition; the witness account is either completely accurate or you are accusing the witness of lying. They won't accept the truth that's been established by experiment and observation over decades; that human perception and memory is extremely prone to error.
 
There is one other possibility that these things we see are spiritual in nature.
At which point it is deception that is under certain control by the principals that are in place through religion.
I got this link from another thread, which sort of establishes why that is.

The Bible says God created Adam and Eve -- but what about E.T.?



"The discovery of intelligent life from other planets would be a challenge to the Christian worldview,"

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/05/life-on-other-planets-part-gods-plan/

So far the evidence is indicative for this concept because of what has been reported by abductees, they are either uplifting encounters or nightmarish.
Earth is "specially designed" to be inhabited by living beings, called the anthropic principle.

"The fact that no evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence has ever been detected must be considered ... a confirmation of Christianity," Lisle told FoxNews.com.

Yet it's not too farfetched to believe that there could be life somewhere out there. After all, there are estimated to be more than 100 billion galaxies in the universe, containing trillions of stars and planets.

Lee Strobel, author of the book "The Case for a Creator,” has no problem with the idea of life on other planets. But he points out that the anthropic principle is not a uniquely religious point of view: Pure statistics, he says, suggest life isn't likely elsewhere in the skies.
Click to expand...

It goes on to say :
But much of that debate hinges on nuance. There's also the bigger picture stressed by Dr. Timothy Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City: Scientific discoveries do not negate a God who is outside of time and outside of creation itself.
Click to expand...

These things we see are also described in colors related to whom they are as depicted by art from the past.
Ufolagy described his encounter as a blue Orb and I have seen three reddish orbs at different times, the reddish orbs seem to cause trouble.
There seems to be a major deception involved when it comes to UFOs, on many levels.
I believe there is life out there but not on our level.
I believe that there is a higher life here and out there that are not on our level but on a spiritual level that is restricted to a point.
The phenomanom of UFOs fits with many things that are in scripture in many ways.
I believe we are seeing all of the possible last explanations of what they are in a multiple or grouped observances.
They all will demonstrate in this reality what we consider UFOs.
That's why we can't put a finger on it, they demonstrate all most the same thing in this reality whether they are time travelers, ETs, spiritual beings.
They all will have to use a similar physics to materialize in this reality.
We will discover it, maybe if we are or when we are able to, or let to have the knowledge to travel with this type of physics.
But from what I have seen of this world we would kill ourselves off with that type of power someone will use it as a deterrent or weapon.
The idiots in power would for instance, travel time to change it, which would be another way of us using it in the wrong way.
 
Akhenaten said:
No, ET definitely didn't create Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...

That isn't what the article is talking about although that is another theory.

RoboTimbo says: It's good of you to share your unevidenced beliefs with us.

This might be why there never is any physical evidence.
Since you are an atheist that explanation won't be accepted by you, but then again who are you anyway in this world?
0 :eek:
Your just a person trapped in materializem of the world who is lost spiritually.
You will only see one way, your done.
 
edge said:
That isn't what the article is talking about although that is another theory.

RoboTimbo says: It's good of you to share your unevidenced beliefs with us.

This might be why there never is any physical evidence.
Since you are an atheist that explanation won't be accepted by you, but then again who are you anyway in this world?
0 :eek:
Your just a person trapped in materializem of the world who is lost spiritually.
You will only see one way, your done.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing more of your unevidenced religious beliefs with us. Maybe you should consider putting them in the correct forum?
 
Thanks ufology!

A belated and great big Thank You for providing us with the null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​
and has never been falsified.

If it weren't for your hypothesis that "Some UFOs are alien in origin", we would never have your null hypothesis to go along with it. So, again, Thank You for ufology's null hypothesis which is:

"All UFOs are of mundane origin"​
Maybe someday we'll see it falsified.
 
and I would like to thank Akhenaten for giving us The Null Hypotenuse , for that did make me laugh like a drain.
icon_lol.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom