Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[MG1962]

Well, if we apply critical thinking to that particular piece of UFO evidence...

Check the roundels. If they are not from your country, then its an alien craft.

I saw a B52 beam on once and it just looked like a pencil

 

[Correa Neto]

If you are not American, then you saw an alien craft.

I actually travelled aboard an alien craft. It had "Air Canada" written on it.

 

[Astrophotographer]

In the July 1947 Sightings index page there is no mention of Roswell nor any clippings even though the base had issued a press release stating they had recovered a flying disk. There is a reference to the July 8 sightings at MUROC AFB.

Right. Roswell was a "non-sighting" and deserved just as much recognition as the various other "flying discs" that were reportedly "recovered" in 1947. Again, take it to the UFO evidence thread if you want to talk about a specific case. Then we can beat it to death the same we have been beating things to death on other cases. I have read/researched enough about Roswell to make it very educational. However, you may find my opinions not to your liking.

 

[GeeMack]

Ambiguous??? A flying saucer shaped "outline" is ambiguous??

Sorry, but no...we understand and recognize your bias. There's no reason to hide it.

Indeed. Another example of ufology applying his standard argument by lie, all the while shunning the concept of critical thinking.

 

[GeeMack]

In the July 1947 Sightings index page there is no mention of Roswell nor any clippings even though the base had issued a press release stating they had recovered a flying disk. There is a reference to the July 8 sightings at MUROC AFB.

Applying critical thinking one might come to the reasoned position that it was considered a non issue. Arguing that there's something suspicious about a non-issue not being mentioned would be a typical desperate and dishonest ploy of some "ufologist". Do you really not see that it absolutely requires your arguments to be constructed dishonestly in order to maintain your belief in aliens?

 

[ufology]

Right. Roswell was a "non-sighting" and deserved just as much recognition as the various other "flying discs" that were reportedly "recovered" in 1947. Again, take it to the UFO evidence thread if you want to talk about a specific case. Then we can beat it to death the same we have been beating things to death on other cases. I have read/researched enough about Roswell to make it very educational. However, you may find my opinions not to your liking.

Roswell may have been a "non-sighting", however there is a record of another rancher who found a small cardboard disk and burnt it, then later reported it because hethought it might have something to do with the UFO flap. So that wasn't a sighting either, and it was less significant, and it happened before 1947. So that is an exception to your explanation. So because such reports were included in the files, why do we have that kind of report and not one from a major cleanup that was reported to the media as a "flying disk"? Even though the wreckage ( remnants or whatever ) was supposedly taken to Wright Patterson AFB, nobody on the UFO investigative team got to look at it, no report was made, no news clippings are in the files, no mention of it ... period. Like I said at the start, it's a little more than curious.

j.r.

 

[GeeMack]

Roswell may have been a "non-sighting", however there is a record of another rancher who found a small cardboard disk and burnt it, then later reported it because hethought it might have something to do with the UFO flap. So that wasn't a sighting either, and it was less significant, and it happened before 1947. So that is an exception to your explanation. So because such reports were included in the files, why do we have that kind of report and not one from a major cleanup that was reported to the media as a "flying disk"? Even though the wreckage ( remnants or whatever ) was supposedly taken to Wright Patterson AFB, nobody on the UFO investigative team got to look at it, no report was made, no news clippings are in the files, no mention of it ... period. Like I said at the start, it's a little more than curious.

Your willful ignorance of this reply is noted...

Applying critical thinking one might come to the reasoned position that it was considered a non issue. Arguing that there's something suspicious about a non-issue not being mentioned would be a typical desperate and dishonest ploy of some "ufologist". Do you really not see that it absolutely requires your arguments to be constructed dishonestly in order to maintain your belief in aliens?​

 

[Astrophotographer]

Roswell may have been a "non-sighting", however there is a record of another rancher who found a small cardboard disk and burnt it, then later reported it because hethought it might have something to do with the UFO flap. So that wasn't a sighting either, and it was less significant, and it happened before 1947. So that is an exception to your explanation. So because such reports were included in the files, why do we have that kind of report and not one from a major cleanup that was reported to the media as a "flying disk"? Even though the wreckage ( remnants or whatever ) was supposedly taken to Wright Patterson AFB, nobody on the UFO investigative team got to look at it, no report was made, no news clippings are in the files, no mention of it ... period. Like I said at the start, it's a little more than curious.

There are a lot of UFO events that were recorded by the media in 1947 that never made it into the files. If you actually researched this, you could see that.
Why are you so intent on discussing Roswell in this thread? If you want to discuss it in detail move over to the research thread. We can then hammer out the details. Meanwhile, you are derailing your own thread about critical thinking.
However, since you insist, you are repeating Roswell mythology in some parts here. These are items for which there is no evidence of them actually occurring but you repeat them as if they are facts, which they are not. It demonstrates a lack of "critical thinking" because the likely explanation it was never mentioned was because it was not considered anything worthy of mention.

 

[ufology]

Your willful ignorance of this reply is noted...

Applying critical thinking one might come to the reasoned position that it was considered a non issue. Arguing that there's something suspicious about a non-issue not being mentioned would be a typical desperate and dishonest ploy of some "ufologist". Do you really not see that it absolutely requires your arguments to be constructed dishonestly in order to maintain your belief in aliens?
​

Your heckling has been noted ...

 

[ufology]

There are a lot of UFO events that were recorded by the media in 1947 that never made it into the files. If you actually researched this, you could see that.

Sure, that's possible. Or maybe they were destroyed, or lost or whatever. But it's still a curiosity ( or maybe that's just my subjective opinion ). And sure, I'm guilty as charged for allowing this exchange to continue. It's a hard one to resist even though it's been hashed out over and over again elsewhere. I'd say I'll try harder to ignore you in the future, but it might be misperceived as a slam rather than my bad sense of humor.

j.r.

 

[Rramjet]

I would like to add some comments to one of ufology’s posts:

Q. How do you figure "aliens" is a reasonable explanation at all.
A. It's plausible and considerable effort has been made to rule out all natural or manmade explanations including hoaxes, misidentifications, mental or physical illness, hallucinations etc.

I would add that when no plausible mundane explanations are apparent, and despite a concerted research effort, if a UFO report remains to defy plausible mundane explanation (meaning its characteristics are that of no known mundane object) then the only way to move forward is to hypothesise (or even speculate) about other plausible explanations – and of course ET just happens to be one of those alternatives.

We have the anecdotal multiple eyewitness accounts of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, the intelligent control and the associated beings. We have the fact that science does not rule out potential ET visitation. We have the radar, film and photograph and physical trace evidence. It is this type of evidence that sets UFOlogy apart from other paranormal phenomena.

Quote: "There's no material evidence whatsoever"
Answer: That is a conclusion that is not reasonable. First of all, evidence and proof are two different concepts ( Rramjet made this point as well ). Evidence can take the form of information, and there is plenty of information. The value of that information is what is at issue. This thread doesn't claim the information is "proof", only that it is reasonable to consider that UFOs are something real that have yet to be fully explained and that they don't conform to any known manmade or natural object or phenomenon ( loose USAF definition there ).

Indeed, there is plenty of evidence, but as the quality of that evidence is contentious, it cannot constitute “proof”. UFOs simply have not been fully explained. No single explanation has been able to explain the full range of the evidence. I believe UFOs to be caused by a range of phenomena, rather than a single phenomenon.

Q. Why is the "aliens" conclusion any more reasonable in your mind than Jesus, the BVM, angels, fairies, unicorns, vampires, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster himself?
A. The examples you use aren't what we're discussing, but for the sake of good faith in participation, given the assumed context of each of your examples, the ETH is plausible. Space flight is a proven fact and intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is an near statistical certainty.

It is a matter of evidence. We simply don’t have the same amount or level of evidence for the (mythological) things you mention than we have for UFOs. If we did have that level of evidence, then reports of the (mythological) things you mention would be just as persistent and prevalent as UFO reports – yet they are demonstrably not.

Quote: "you're confused about what Occam's Razor means."
Response: You presume incorrectly.

Ah yes, Occam's Razor. The following is drawn from “What is Occam's Razor?” (http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/General/occam.html):

"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" or "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better. "

Forms stronger than Occam intended include:

"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along" or "The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations" or "If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest" or "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct. "

So what are we supposed to be applying Occam’s razor to?

” This principle goes back at least as far as Aristotle, who wrote "Nature operates in the shortest way possible." Aristotle went too far in believing that experiment and observation were unnecessary. The principle of simplicity works as a heuristic rule of thumb, but some people quote it as if it were an axiom of physics, which it is not. It can work well in philosophy or particle physics, but less often so in cosmology or psychology, where things usually turn out to be more complicated than you ever expected. Perhaps a quote from Shakespeare would be more appropriate than Occam's razor: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/General/occam.html)​

Quote: "There have been enough of these sightings over the last 60 years or so to indicate there's some kind of cultural influence at play."
Response: Agreed. It is part of what makes ufology so interesting.

Indeed, cultural influence inevitable colours our perceptions of the world. Our perceptions of the world around us is largely a learned skill. Culture drives consensus realities – hence also scientific consensus. The influence of culture cannot be neglected.

Quote: "They can neither prove or disprove that somebody became confused, hallucinated, or just made it up, and that is a far more likely scenario than ET, which is equally impossible to prove or disprove."
Response: This thread isn't about "proving" or "disproving". It's about considering the information and determining what is reasonable to believe.

First, the evidence shows that:

“For example, the USAF's Project Blue Book concluded that less than 2 % of reported UFOs were "psychological" or hoaxes; Allen Hendry's study for CUFOS had less than 1 %” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object)

Blue Book’s Dr Hynek (The Hynek UFO Report) has “Hoax” at 0.9% and “Psychological” at 0.5% (p. 259).

If you would like to discuss hoaxes, in one study spanning about 5 years and taking into account 1,593 of the best cases, 1.66% of the cases were found to be hoaxes. I suspect there are probably a lot more now due to the ease of faking video and putting it up on the Internet.

Second, what is the likelihood of ET visiting earth? It is an complete unknown. Therefore you cannot say ET visitation is more or less likely than anything - except perhaps something that has been definitively proved – and in the case under discussion, hoaxes, etc have been shown to play a relatively insignificant role (1-2%), so if we are talking likelihoods, they are not likely at all.

Quote: "To me, it looks like all these kinds of tall tales—UFOs, religious sightings, ghost sightings, cryptid sightings, etc—all fit the PSH better than any of the specialized hypotheses forwarded by researchers in all those discrete fields."
Response: The comment "tall-tales", implies lies, fabrications and such. I'm not talking about those, so the PSH, whatever it is doesn't apply anyway. If you would like to discuss hoaxes, in one study spanning about 5 years and taking into account 1,593 of the best cases, 1.66% of the cases were found to be hoaxes. I suspect there are probably a lot more now due to the ease of faking video and putting it up on the Internet.

“Tall tales”? They are anecdotes.

“The expression anecdotal evidence refers to the use of particular instances or concrete examples to support a general claim. Such information (sometimes referred to pejoratively as "hearsay") may be compelling but does not, in itself, provide proof.” (http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/anecdoteterm.htm)

”Despite its limitations, anecdotal evidence is important in some areas of research, such as case study research, where the emphasis might be on learning as much as you can about a specific situation and you have to depend on a person's own experience for information/data. Even in areas where anecdotal evidence is not considered valid or reliable for the type of study that you want to conduct, it can strongly suggest lines of research.” (http://www.uow.edu.au/student/attributes/statlit/modules/module1/anecdotal.html)​

The difference between UFO anecdotes and anecdotes relating to the (mythological) things you mention is the level of evidence we have in support of UFO anecdotes that we simply don’t have for those other (mythological) things. Specifically the multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic and physical trace evidence.

Moreover:

“The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.” (http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/daubert/judgingthejudges/weightofevidence.html)​

Quote: Note there weren't any "flying saucer" reports prior to the late 1940s. If they're really extraterrestrial craft, then why had they gone undetected for so long, until the popular media began promoting the stories so heavily?
Response: There were a few reports of strange flying objects during World War Two, at the time called foo fighters which contrary to common reports, were not limited strictly to spheres. However before World War Two, it is true that reports are sparse and relegated to myth. However that is no reason to suspect the phenomenon isn't real. It is entirely possible that they just weren't coming here that often ( or at all ) until the 1940s. Simply because we haven't travelled to another inhabited planet yet and shown them we exist doesn't mean that we don't exist until they say we do.

Historical reports do exist. For example:

” On July 3, 1893 several fishermen were awakened in the middle of the night by the presence of a strange craft that they described as an "electric monster." Their watches stopped and the craft/monster emitted electricity and light. The craft also made a loud sound. Two men were knocked unconscious in the encounter. The rest of the party fled in terror. They returned and found their two unconscious friends who were revived. Apparently the two men suffered no permanent injuries. This is the first known documented encounter with a UFO in the Pacific Northwest. You may download a copy of the actual article as it appeared in the Tacoma Daily Ledger Newspaper by clicking here (http://www.ufosnw.com/documents/electricmonst/electricmonstnew.pdf) (PDF 930K). (http://www.ufosnw.com/history.htm)​

Critically, it must also be noted that the “mass media” did not really get going until the 1950s – and that I believe played a big role in the ability of UFO sightings to not only become documented, but also to reach public consciousness.

Also:

It is well documented that the films and and media reports about flying saucers and space aliens were inspired by the sightings, not the other way around.

 

[Akhenaten]

Is the stylised flying saucer on your organisation's logo meant to symbolise a predisposition to a particular mindset or a commitment to critical thinking?

Thanks for asking, and BTW, the Akenaten cartouche you use is pretty cool. The Egyptians had a lot of supernatural beliefs. Akhenaten is especially noted for abandoning traditional Egyptian polytheism and introducing worship centered on the Aten ... usually interpreted as a solar diety, but in more detailed translations as a "disk of the Sun", which was not the Sun itself, but a disk, globe, orb or sphere like the sun which carried their God within it. Quite interesting really.

I can't for the life of me understand why you'd think I, or for that matter anyone else here, would need that explained to them.

What's next? Astronomy lessons for Astrophotographer? Maybe you could teach Correa how to speak Portuguese, or give Stray Cat the run-down on what a graphic artist does.

I'd point out that you don't appear to realise how far out of your depth you are here, but then I recall this:

Maybe I'm stuck out in the middle of a conflict here as well. The thing is ... that's not what the banner in masthead says this place is supposed to be. It's supposed to be a lively and friendly discussion using critical thinking.

If you're going to lecture people about what the masthead says it would work a little better for you if you didn't misquote it.

and start to wonder if you even know where you are.

On the USI emblem:

Star: Independence, illumination, navigation, serendipity, a star in the sky
White Ring: Continuity, preservation, eternal path of light
Gold Text: Value, truth, trust
Indigo Background: Sky, honesty, depth
UFO: The broken outline of an ambiguous object which is the core of the subject matter

There are other issues to reflect on in the colors and symbolism and shapes as well, not they all represent what the emblem is meant to emulate, but are interesting consider in the overall context ( e.g. eternity, the sea, the divine ... and so on ).


j.r.

Oh, puhleeeeese . . .

I just need 50 posts to get my avatar. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to post another reply.

j.r.

Crtical thinking in ufology? Can anyone spell "oxymoron"?

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Removed image due to copyright claim.

Edited by LashL: 

Upon further review and discussion, image restored as "fair use"

 

[ufology]

I would like to add some comments to one of ufology’s posts ...

... and that you most cerytainly did. Good additional point on the growing prevalence of mass media with respect to the UFO phenomenon. Another point that I think deserves further attention is this constant touting of Occam's Razor as the most probable answer.

It seems to me that what we're seeing when the skeptics put it forth is their own bias about what is "simplest". In normal science Occam's Razor is reasonable because there is a controlled set of circumstances with known limits of complexity. For example there is no need to assume a supernatural explanation for why one plant might grow faster than another. They're just plants in soil with measurable properties and conditions.

On the other hand, with UFOs, we don't know for sure what we are dealing with. There is no way to guage what the simplest thing is for them. Therefore Occam's razor shouldn't even be used as a guage in the first place, but if we are to use it, we must admit that because we don't know all the limiting factors, it is entirely possible that it is really easy for them to travel interstellar distances.

For example if an Aborigine who's never seen a jetliner and knows nothing of modern civilzation were to apply Occam's Razor to his jetliner sighting, he'd have to conclude that it must be a giant bird. After all, it would take magic or enginuity beyond all reason to create such a thing ... and for what possible purpose? Yet we do it every day thousands of times a day and think nothing of it. To us the simplest answer is "it's an airplane" So ...

A. Just because it's hard for us doesn't mean it's hard for them. Therefore it is entirely possible that the simplest answer is alien visitation.

The second way Occam's Razor is missapplied to ufology is that it is preumed to mean the simplest answer is the best answer. This is actually a false interpretation. Rather, it is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power.

In ufology, Occam's Razor has been constantly applied through the process of eliminating possible explanations because their explanatory power is insufficient to account for the phenomenon. So ...

B. Occam's Razor has been and is consistently applied by conscientious ufologists and investigators to rule out known natural and manmade explanations. Once those are ruled out, alien technology does offer increased explanatory power, and since A. ( above ) also allows it to be the simplest answer, it is entirely reasonable to suggest it as a hypothesis for UFOs.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

Historical reports do exist. For example:

”On July 3, 1893 several fishermen were awakened in the middle of the night by the presence of a strange craft that they described as an "electric monster." Their watches stopped and the craft/monster emitted electricity and light. The craft also made a loud sound. Two men were knocked unconscious in the encounter. The rest of the party fled in terror. They returned and found their two unconscious friends who were revived. Apparently the two men suffered no permanent injuries. This is the first known documented encounter with a UFO in the Pacific Northwest.​

All this time and you still don't recognise a description of a squid fishing boat?

Ezekiel 1 is going to give you untold trouble.

 

[ufology]

I can't for the life of me understand why you'd think I, or for that matter anyone else here, would need that explained to them.

If you can't understand why I responded to your post ... well maybe you are asking yourself the wrong question.

What's next? Astronomy lessons for Astrophotographer?
Maybe you could teach Correa how to speak Portuguese, or give
Stray Cat the run-down on what a graphic artist does.

You're implying you are an Egyptologist ... how interesting. Your talents never cease to amaze me.

I'd point out that you don't appear to realise how far out of your depth you are here, but then I recall this ( see previous post for details ) Actually, and start to wonder if you even know where you are.

Well if I'm out of my depth then I must be surrounded by true academic elitism.

Crtical thinking in ufology? Can anyone spell "oxymoron"?

Well that last flame at least had more than two syllables. You're getting better overall, but you should really take a few hints from GeeMack over there who is more succinct.

j.r.

PS: the USI logo you posted is copyrighted. Don't use it again without permission.

 

[Aepervius]

On July 3, 1893 several fishermen were awakened in the middle of the night by the presence of a strange craft that they described as an "electric monster." Their watches stopped and the craft/monster emitted electricity and light. The craft also made a loud sound. Two men were knocked unconscious in the encounter. The rest of the party fled in terror. They returned and found their two unconscious friends who were revived. Apparently the two men suffered no permanent injuries. This is the first known documented encounter with a UFO in the Pacific Northwest.

A few comment in no particular order :
1) how many fishermen had a WATCH in 1893 ?
2) 1893=mechanical watch. Explain me how they can be stopped by a "monster", as opposed to : having ran down and forgetting to wind them up.
3) how did they know it was electricity ? I would not hold fishermen knowledge that high on electricity back in 1893. I mean the first new york street was what , 1882 ? And we have this newfoundland fisher knowing what electricity is and look like 9 year later ? Or much more probably they saw some luminescent stuff, maybe a squid mistaking a fisherboat for a whale or something and they all panicked ? ETA striken since I misread the description.

 

[Aepervius]

All this time and you still don't recognise a description of a squid fishing boat?

Ezekiel 1 is going to give you untold trouble.

That is a good one too.

 

[Akhenaten]

... and that you most cerytainly did. Good additional point on the growing prevalence of mass media with respect to the UFO phenomenon. Another point that I think deserves further attention is this constant touting of Occam's Razor as the most probable answer.

It seems to me that what we're seeing when the skeptics put it forth is their own bias about what is "simplest". In normal science Occam's Razor is reasonable because there is a controlled set of circumstances with known limits of complexity. For example there is no need to assume a supernatural explanation for why one plant might grow faster than another. They're just plants in soil with measurable properties and conditions.

This is nothing more than yet another demonstration that you don't have the faintest idea what the Law of Parsimony is all about.

Occam's Razor doesn't demand the simplest explanation, it demands the one that makes the fewest new assumptions. Like the ones you make every time to start inventing characteristics for things that by definition only have one undisputable characteristic - that they are unidentified. Even the 'flying' and 'object' parts are subject to debate, and yet you're already attributing things like intellegent control and the ability to cross interstellar distances to them.

Pure fantasy.

On the other hand, with UFOs, we don't know for sure what we are dealing with. There is no way to guage what the simplest thing is for them. Therefore Occam's razor shouldn't even be used as a guage in the first place, but if we are to use it, we must admit that because we don't know all the limiting factors, it is entirely possible that it is really easy for them to travel interstellar distances.

It seems that you're going to attempt to run a campaign against Occam's Razor similar to Rramjet's epic faliure with ECREE. I predict similar results.

There is no way in the rational universe that the above nonsense could be regarded as critical thinking. You've gone from "we don't know for sure what we are dealing with" to "it is entirely possible that it is really easy for them to travel interstellar distances" within the space of one short paragraph and yet you deny vehemently that your thinking is biased towards flying saucery.

It's not just Occam that's going to cause problems for your ridiculous ideas; Philip K Dick has a few words for you too:

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.​

For example if an Aborigine who's never seen a jetliner and knows nothing of modern civilzation were to apply Occam's Razor to his jetliner sighting, he'd have to conclude that it must be a giant bird. After all, it would take magic or enginuity beyond all reason to create such a thing ... and for what possible purpose? Yet we do it every day thousands of times a day and think nothing of it. To us the simplest answer is "it's an airplane" So ...

You seem to be completely ignoring that most of humanity has progressed to the stage where aeroplanes are an everyday item by the application of such reasoning tools as Occam's Razor - not in spite of them.

If you wish to adopt the same position as the primitive folk in your example and replace critical thinking with "Flying object --> I don't know what it is --> OMG! Aliens!" then go right ahead, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

A. Just because it's hard for us doesn't mean it's hard for them. Therefore it is entirely possible that the simplest answer is alien visitation.

Your a priori assumption of 'them' is the real fly in the ointment for you here. It's nothing like critical thinking to be assigning any kind of characteristics to 'them' at all, even possible ones, without in any way having demonstrated that 'they' even exist.

The second way Occam's Razor is missapplied to ufology is that it is preumed to mean the simplest answer is the best answer. This is actually a false interpretation. Rather, it is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power.

Stuff that flying saucerers make up ≠ increased explanatory power.

In ufology, Occam's Razor has been constantly applied through the process of eliminating possible explanations because their explanatory power is insufficient to account for the phenomenon. So ...

Only because ufology is apparently unable to see that "I don't know" is a much more valid answer than "little green men".

B. Occam's Razor has been and is consistently applied by conscientious ufologists and investigators to rule out known natural and manmade explanations. Once those are ruled out, alien technology does offer increased explanatory power, and since A. ( above ) also allows it to be the simplest answer, it is entirely reasonable to suggest it as a hypothesis for UFOs.

j.r.

You cannot rule out every possible natural and manmade explanation and you can't weasel out of this by sneaking the word 'known' in there because you can't know what every possible natural and manmade explanation is either.

 

[Stray Cat]

PS: the USI logo you posted is copyrighted. Don't use it again without permission.

Is this better?

 

[Akhenaten]

I can't for the life of me understand why you'd think I, or for that matter anyone else here, would need that explained to them.

If you can't understand why I responded to your post ... well maybe you are asking yourself the wrong question.

There was no inquiry as to why you responded, ufology. Let's have another look at the exchange you've snipped almost to oblivion and see what was actually said.

Is the stylised flying saucer on your organisation's logo meant to symbolise a predisposition to a particular mindset or a commitment to critical thinking?

Thanks for asking, and BTW, the Akenaten cartouche you use is pretty cool. The Egyptians had a lot of supernatural beliefs. Akhenaten is especially noted for abandoning traditional Egyptian polytheism and introducing worship centered on the Aten ... usually interpreted as a solar diety, but in more detailed translations as a "disk of the Sun", which was not the Sun itself, but a disk, globe, orb or sphere like the sun which carried their God within it. Quite interesting really.

I can't for the life of me understand why you'd think I, or for that matter anyone else here, would need that explained to them.

Quoting fragments of posts to remove their context and answering questions that were never asked in an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that 'Ufology Society International' is based on an a priori assumption that we're being visited by flying saucers won't work. Surely the responses to your ridiculously transparent "broken outline of an ambiguous object" description will have told you that.

What's next? Astronomy lessons for Astrophotographer?
Maybe you could teach Correa how to speak Portuguese, or give
Stray Cat the run-down on what a graphic artist does.

You're implying you are an Egyptologist ... how interesting. Your talents never cease to amaze me.

I'm not implying anything at all. I'm telling you straight out that you have no idea of the background of any of the people over whom you are pretending to have gained the intellectual high ground.

It won't end well for you, but I'm sure there'll be hours of amusement in it for almost everyone else.

I'd point out that you don't appear to realise how far out of your depth you are here, but then I recall this ( see previous post for details ) Actually, and start to wonder if you even know where you are.

Well if I'm out of my depth then I must be surrounded by true academic elitism.

You're surrounded by real critical thinkers who by and large regard believers in nonsense like flying saucers as being a bit barmy, and you're trying to tell them that they're doing it wrong.

Blind Freddie could see how that will turn out.

Crtical thinking in ufology? Can anyone spell "oxymoron"?

Well that last flame at least had more than two syllables. You're getting better overall, but you should really take a few hints from GeeMack over there who is more succinct.

j.r.

Flame?

That you've chosen as your screen name a term that denotes the pseudoscientific pursuit of pretending that UFOs are flying saucers and that there are aliens/ETs visiting us is likely to make it very difficult for you to tell the difference between criticisms directed at such a silly hobby and those directed at you personally.

NMP

PS: the USI logo you posted is copyrighted. Don't use it again without permission.

It's quite obvious that I used it where I did under the doctrine of fair use to make a point. Having done so I assure you that there's absolutely no incentive whatsoever for me to use it again, with or without your permission.

I prefer to rely on my own crudely rendered pictures.