That Damn UFO Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2014, 05:52 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(26-11-2014 05:48 PM)Free Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 05:41 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I don't understand why you're jumping down this guys neck over this.

Neither do I, actually. Consider

I respect him, but for some reason lately his posts towards me have been ... viperous.

I have meant no ill will towards him, and hopefully things will improve.

The issue may well be that what you consider evidence is not evidence.
That annoys the crap out of those of us who value actual evidence. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
26-11-2014, 06:05 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2014 06:10 PM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(26-11-2014 05:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If you think a faint, tiny scratch in a ninety-year old photograph counts as "evidence"... you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone else of that.

I think that when people view this photo from 1927 they will agree that stating it as a "tiny scratch" just might be grossly understated.

Quote:
(26-11-2014 03:51 PM)Free Wrote:  Agreed. So what? If we cannot say for sure what they are, then sometimes it's a matter of investigating what they are not.

And what they are not is aliens.

Again, since you are professing this as a truth, you are making a positive claim, whether you agree or not. Also, I didn't say they were, or were not, aliens.

Quote:There is literally nothing whatsoever intrinsic to the evidence to suggest that - even if we are so overly generous as to call it "evidence".

I find it odd that you do not consider pictures as being evidence of something when in fact they are considered evidence in any modern court of law. Equally, I find it puzzling that when several people witness the same event that you also do not consider it to be evidence, yet modern courts of law do.

Is it possible that your standard of evidence is unreasonably excessive?

Quote:
(26-11-2014 03:51 PM)Free Wrote:  The proof is always in the available evidence. Credible people can make mistakes, which can include eyewitnesses.

And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"I once saw a thing and I don't know what it was" is not an extraordinary claim.

"It was an alien/ghost/Elvis riding a bigfoot" is an extraordinary claim.

These analogies of yours smack of more of an attempt to ridicule than to draw a comparison, since the "alien/ghost/Elvis riding a bigfoot" thing simply does not compare to someone who seen or photographed an unidentified flying object.

Those who make such claims do not say, "I once saw a thing," but rather they clearly say, "I once seen an unidentified flying object" and then go on to describe it.

Quote:
(26-11-2014 03:51 PM)Free Wrote:  You don't make that leap and claim it to be factual, but you can indeed make that leap in the form of a well informed opinion.

Could still be wrong of course, but at least if you were wrong you would still have based your opinion on the available evidence.

That doesn't answer my question, champ.

How do you make the leap to claiming it's even possible? How do you make the leap to concluding it's likely?

You do it with evidence and sound reasoning, champ. Yes

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 06:22 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(26-11-2014 06:05 PM)Free Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 05:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If you think a faint, tiny scratch in a ninety-year old photograph counts as "evidence"... you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone else of that.

I think that when people view this photo from 1927 they will agree that stating it as a "tiny scratch" just might be grossly understated.

Hat? Pie dish? I hate photos like this. You can never judge distance properly. Why is it only in front of that cloud? Is it a cloud?

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 06:29 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2014 06:41 PM by cjlr.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(26-11-2014 06:05 PM)Free Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 05:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If you think a faint, tiny scratch in a ninety-year old photograph counts as "evidence"... you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone else of that.

I think that when people view this photo from 1927 they will agree that stating it as a "tiny scratch" just might be grossly understated.

That isn't a photograph.

That's a blurry jpeg.

(26-11-2014 06:05 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:And what they are not is aliens.

Again, since you are professing this as a truth, you are making a positive claim, whether you agree or not.

Not this shit again. No, rejecting another claim is not the same as making a claim. If you wish to assert something - even as a "possibility" - then it is entirely on you to make the case for it.

(26-11-2014 06:05 PM)Free Wrote:  Also, I didn't say they were, or were not, aliens.

O rly?

(24-11-2014 07:17 PM)Free Wrote:  I cannot say for sure, but based upon what we know about our technology back in 1973 I would have to say that I am leaning towards that thing being extraterrestrial in nature.
(25-11-2014 04:41 PM)Free Wrote:  Sure, it is possible that it wasn't extraterrestrial, but when i look back on it now with the understanding that there was simply nothing mankind had that could possibly do what that thing did in 1973 ... what other options are there?
(25-11-2014 06:11 PM)Free Wrote:  I have very good reasons to suspect that extraterrestrials have always been here, or have always visited this planet. There's just too many eye witness accounts in which multiple people have described the exact same thing. Too many pictures from 50 years ago or more.

Sure sounds like it to me.

(26-11-2014 06:05 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:There is literally nothing whatsoever intrinsic to the evidence to suggest that - even if we are so overly generous as to call it "evidence".

I find it odd that you do not consider pictures as being evidence of something when in fact they are considered evidence in any modern court of law. Equally, I find it puzzling that when several people witness the same event that you also do not consider it to be evidence, yet modern courts of law do.

Is it possible that your standard of evidence is unreasonably excessive?

I don't find a low-quality digital reproduction of a completely unsourced purported image to be even remotely compelling.

If you think a blurry jpeg on an anonymous website would be admissible in court... egads.

Eyewitness testimony is the single worst form of evidence there is.

(26-11-2014 06:05 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"I once saw a thing and I don't know what it was" is not an extraordinary claim.

"It was an alien/ghost/Elvis riding a bigfoot" is an extraordinary claim.

These analogies of yours smack of more of an attempt to ridicule than to draw a comparison, since the "alien/ghost/Elvis riding a bigfoot" thing simply does not compare to someone who seen or photographed an unidentified flying object.

Those who make such claims do not say, "I once saw a thing," but rather they clearly say, "I once seen an unidentified flying object" and then go on to describe it.

I am being dismissive, because I think the claim is ridiculous. But I find it utterly baffling that you could say the "evidence" for ghosts is so obviously inadmissible and yet in the same breath say that there is something about UFO claims that is even remotely to be considered of greater credibility. To tie this back to the above - if your standards were consistent you'd either accept both or neither.
(the ghost hunter would accuse you of having "unreasonably excessive" standards of evidence, and you know it)

Either phenomenon evinces millennia of depictions and accounts. I can point you to just as many people who claim to have seen or photographed a ghost. I can point you to lots of blurry anonymous images of ghosts on clearly biased enthusiast websites. I can point you to a great deal of consistent eyewitness testimony regarding ghosts. Absolutely none of it is compelling to me.
(and no, to pre-empt your tediously off-base objection, saying "ghosts don't exist" is not making a claim but denying one; it is stating that I do not find it worth my consideration to entertain a notion for which there is no credible evidence)

The people in question are not describing an actual flying object. That is a massive implicit claim which cannot stand unsubstantiated.

The are describing their limited subjective experience, often filtered through highly suggestible and biased post-hoc reconstruction, at years or decades remove... That's a sight difference, wouldn't you say?

You, for example, think you have a clear memory of something that happened over forty years ago. I would suggest you read the literature on the reliability of memory; there are several good accounts in what we might call the "skeptical press" (eg the Skeptic Society, the Center for Inquiry, etc).
(EDIT - see here for a very pertinent example!)

(26-11-2014 06:05 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:That doesn't answer my question, champ.

How do you make the leap to claiming it's even possible? How do you make the leap to concluding it's likely?

You do it with evidence and sound reasoning, champ. Yes

Okay. What is the evidence? Why the reluctance to put it forward for consideration?

"There is some weird stuff in old photos therefore aliens" is not sound reasoning. I should hope you don't need me to tell you that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
26-11-2014, 06:41 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2014 06:45 PM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(26-11-2014 06:22 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 06:05 PM)Free Wrote:  I think that when people view this photo from 1927 they will agree that stating it as a "tiny scratch" just might be grossly understated.

Hat? Pie dish? I hate photos like this. You can never judge distance properly. Why is it only in front of that cloud? Is it a cloud?

Investigate further.

Also, consider that in 1927 the words of "flying saucers" or "aliens" was not part a of the American lexicon. Therefore, why would someone fake something about something they know absolutely nothing about, nor had ever even heard about? This is what I mean by " solid reasoning." Since they had absolutely no reference of flying saucers to draw from, why throw something in the air and photograph it? Makes no sense in 1927.

This picture was taken by a fireman, and with him was the entire fire department.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 06:44 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(26-11-2014 06:41 PM)Free Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 06:22 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  Hat? Pie dish? I hate photos like this. You can never judge distance properly. Why is it only in front of that cloud? Is it a cloud?

Investigate further.

Also, consider that in 1927 the words of "flying saucers" or "aliens" was not part a of the American lexicon. Therefore, why would someone fake something about something they know absolutely nothing about, nor had ever heard about?

This picture was taken by a fireman, and with him was the entire fire department.

Investigate further.

It is claimed to be from a volunteer fire detachment, sourced and credited not to any member of this purported group and not provided with other photographs from the same excursion for context, but instead attributed to the anonymous site contributor "El Disco"...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 06:59 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2014 07:07 PM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(26-11-2014 06:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 06:41 PM)Free Wrote:  Investigate further.

Also, consider that in 1927 the words of "flying saucers" or "aliens" was not part a of the American lexicon. Therefore, why would someone fake something about something they know absolutely nothing about, nor had ever heard about?

This picture was taken by a fireman, and with him was the entire fire department.

Investigate further.

It is claimed to be from a volunteer fire detachment, sourced and credited not to any member of this purported group and not provided with other photographs from the same excursion for context, but instead attributed to the anonymous site contributor "El Disco"...

No, it WAS a fireman who snapped the picture. He, the fireman, said the following:

"Our question is: have you heard of this thing, and if so, do you have this picture or others like? I, for one, would like to remind myself and some of the guys here that I may be getting on in years, but I'm still of sound mind and body. Again, it happened around 1927 or 1926. Thank you very much. You are doing a great service."

I actually have seen this picture, almost 35 years ago.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 07:17 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(26-11-2014 06:41 PM)Free Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 06:22 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  Hat? Pie dish? I hate photos like this. You can never judge distance properly. Why is it only in front of that cloud? Is it a cloud?

Investigate further.

Also, consider that in 1927 the words of "flying saucers" or "aliens" was not part a of the American lexicon. Therefore, why would someone fake something about something they know absolutely nothing about, nor had ever even heard about? This is what I mean by " solid reasoning." Since they had absolutely no reference of flying saucers to draw from, why throw something in the air and photograph it? Makes no sense in 1927.

This picture was taken by a fireman, and with him was the entire fire department.
I disagree, films about space travel and meeting aliens were being made way before then and lets not forget H.G. Wells War of The Worlds

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 07:26 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2014 07:30 PM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(26-11-2014 07:17 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 06:41 PM)Free Wrote:  Investigate further.

Also, consider that in 1927 the words of "flying saucers" or "aliens" was not part a of the American lexicon. Therefore, why would someone fake something about something they know absolutely nothing about, nor had ever even heard about? This is what I mean by " solid reasoning." Since they had absolutely no reference of flying saucers to draw from, why throw something in the air and photograph it? Makes no sense in 1927.

This picture was taken by a fireman, and with him was the entire fire department.
I disagree, films about space travel and meeting aliens were being made way before then and lets not forget H.G. Wells War of The Worlds

There may have been 1 or 2 films created during the silent era, but the words "flying saucers" or "aliens" were not part of the American lexicon in 1927.

In fact, the term 'flying saucer" was not coined until 1947, yet here we have a picture of a flying saucer from 1927.

War of the Worlds was not broadcast until 1938, as far as mass media is concerned.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 07:37 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(26-11-2014 06:59 PM)Free Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 06:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Investigate further.

It is claimed to be from a volunteer fire detachment, sourced and credited not to any member of this purported group and not provided with other photographs from the same excursion for context, but instead attributed to the anonymous site contributor "El Disco"...

No, it WAS a fireman who snapped the picture. He, the fireman, said the following:

"Our question is: have you heard of this thing, and if so, do you have this picture or others like? I, for one, would like to remind myself and some of the guys here that I may be getting on in years, but I'm still of sound mind and body. Again, it happened around 1927 or 1926. Thank you very much. You are doing a great service."

I actually have seen this picture, almost 35 years ago.

Free, I have no beef with you but people see all sorts of things they can’t explain or describe. That doesn’t propel the sighting into visitors from outer space. I’d love to know for certain there is intelligent life in the universe (I’m not so sure we qualify so I didn’t say “other”).

With the advent of the phone camera and video recorder (think the ubiquetous GoPro) everyone walks around with some kind of recording device, many are HD and yet, UFOlogists always trot out grainy, crappy photos or video Consider This alone should raise red flags for you. If these UFOs are a recurring phenomena then our lovely media would already have been inundated by volumes of photos and vids. There isn’t a conspiracy to hide this evidence, it just doesn’t exist.

I remain skeptical but hopeful (unless of course they come with Ray Guns, we don’t have Ray Guns yet). Weeping

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: