UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-09-2015, 01:45 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 01:31 PM)Free Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 01:25 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  As to alien provenance? Sure, considering that the major premises -- that aliens exist and are traveling here -- is entirely unevidenced.

But is it possible that they are travelling here? We can qualify it as being possible since we, as humans, have sent people and vehicles to the moon and other planets ourselves.

So the answer to the question of it being possible is certainly yes.

The difference between interstellar travel and a short trip to the Moon renders the comparison unsatisfactory, to me. Sustenance take up a lot of room, if nothing else. And has already been pointed out, what is the purpose of sending exploratory craft with designs entirely unsuitable to reentry?

(09-09-2015 01:31 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Militaries around the world are excoriated for their secrecy. My dad worked on the F-117 program for years, never even telling his own family. Black budgets are a fact of life. And even aviation experts are kept in the dark as long as possible about such projects.

Yes, but eventually information about these aircraft leaks out, and none of them can even remotely be compared to the objects being described by these witnesses.

Well, aside from the fact that many nations have experimented with saucer designs (and found them wanting, by the way), sure.

(09-09-2015 01:31 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Also, identifying something as "man-made" when it is traveling at extremely high rates of speed would seem to present its own difficulties.

Sure would, especially when a craft has been seen motionlessness for a period of time, and then goes from approximately 1000 feet above ground to orbit in 1 second flat.

That is what was witnessed by the eyewitnesses.

Video, please?

(09-09-2015 01:31 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Yes, it's possible that there is intelligent alien life in the Universe. It's remotely possible that they are visiting here. But the idea that because an expert cannot identify something he has seen means that it must be non-human is begging the question, for one must believe these two unproven premises in order to accept the third.

That is why it is not reasonable.

But we are not speaking of only one expert, but a team of 12.

And that is why it is reasonable accept it as a very real possibility.

"Possible"? Sure. "Reasonable"? Hardly; 12 experts can be just as flummoxed as one, if none had ever seen the craft. You've yet to demonstrate that this is reasonable, based as it is on two unevidenced assumptions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 01:52 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 01:45 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Funny thing about military security -- sometimes it's completely fucked.....

I first saw a SR71 in Anchorage -- when they were still classified --- and only supposed to fly "nighttime hours".....

Given that during summer solstice it never gets dark - they flew only from 11 pm til 4 a.m. --- and you could see it plainly. I lived just outside Elmendorf and heard the thunder as a SR71 was taking off -- and watched it (with jaw dropped) as it climbed out on afterburners --- and headed westward to the horizon -- where it was gone in a minute or two.... I'd never seen something so big, move like that.

It is indeed pretty hard to hide a 108-foot-long black plane in the daylight sky. Never shared a flightline with them, but sure would have loved to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 01:59 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
Yes there are unidentified flying objects.

Most of the time they are later identified.

In those few cases where they are not identified it does not mean that they are aliens coming to stick an anal probe up your ass.

Humans, you are not that special.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Minimalist's post
09-09-2015, 02:08 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 01:45 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 01:31 PM)Free Wrote:  But is it possible that they are travelling here? We can qualify it as being possible since we, as humans, have sent people and vehicles to the moon and other planets ourselves.

So the answer to the question of it being possible is certainly yes.

The difference between interstellar travel and a short trip to the Moon renders the comparison unsatisfactory, to me. Sustenance take up a lot of room, if nothing else. And has already been pointed out, what is the purpose of sending exploratory craft with designs entirely unsuitable to reentry?

Okay, but you are using conventional thinking here. Let me explain something for illustrative purposes.

Here on earth, in regards to intelligence, we humans (arguably) are at the top of the list of all known evolved species. we have seen our species evolve intellectually over the many centuries of our existence.

Also, since life evolved here on earth the way it did, we have evidence that life does evolve, and that evidence gives us a precedence to qualify the real possibility that life on other planets may also have evolved similarly.

If a species on another planet evolved intellectually to a higher degree than we humans, it is not inconceivable that they would be capable of technologies that exceed the current human capacity to understand.

Understanding their technology could be as alien to us as our pets trying to understand just what the hell we are actually doing when they see us using a remote control to operate the TV.

As humans, our egotism tends to lead us in the direction that if something can be learned, we can learn it. But what if there are things that we simply do not have the physical capacity to understand, similar to our pets not understanding what a remote control is for?

Hence, if life on another world is possible, and intelligent life on another world is possible, we cannot assume based upon our own limitations and conventions about how difficult it would be for interstellar travel to exist within an advanced alien culture.

We can speak for ourselves, yes. But we cannot speak for them.

Quote:
(09-09-2015 01:31 PM)Free Wrote:  Yes, but eventually information about these aircraft leaks out, and none of them can even remotely be compared to the objects being described by these witnesses.

Well, aside from the fact that many nations have experimented with saucer designs (and found them wanting, by the way), sure.

Agreed.

Quote:
(09-09-2015 01:31 PM)Free Wrote:  Sure would, especially when a craft has been seen motionlessness for a period of time, and then goes from approximately 1000 feet above ground to orbit in 1 second flat.

That is what was witnessed by the eyewitnesses.

Video, please?

There are no video's of the craft. The situation I am speaking about happened about 9 years ago 2006, just before camera phones came into widespread use. All we have is a collection of eyewitness accounts, TV reports, investigative journalism, an attempt to cover it up exposed, etc.

You can begin here, although Wiki does not give you nearly all you need to come to any kind of complete evaluation. I found this one, when investigated fully, to be perhaps the most credible of all UFO reports of all time.

Quote:
(09-09-2015 01:31 PM)Free Wrote:  But we are not speaking of only one expert, but a team of 12.

And that is why it is reasonable accept it as a very real possibility.

"Possible"? Sure. "Reasonable"? Hardly; 12 experts can be just as flummoxed as one, if none had ever seen the craft. You've yet to demonstrate that this is reasonable, based as it is on two unevidenced assumptions.

There is a difference in probabilities between 12 experts and 1. 1 expert has a far greater probability of being flummoxed than 12, who all from different positions, reported the exact same event.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 02:20 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 01:18 PM)Free Wrote:  1 zoologist compared to say a dozen aeronautical experts is not a fair comparison.

It is if they have precisely the same amount of actual evidence to back up their claims - which is to say, none.

(09-09-2015 01:18 PM)Free Wrote:  It's all about the credibility of these witnesses, and the fact that they all witnessed the same thing at the same time.

The credibility of a witness is determined by how well their claims match up to the evidence.

In the absence of evidence, no amount of baseless speculation will suffice to establish credibility.

(09-09-2015 01:18 PM)Free Wrote:  In a court of law, when one witness only is testifying against a defendant, a judge can take the position of "It's only his word against the defendants."

However, when you ad two or more eyewitness to the scenario, why is their combined identical testimony now far more credible?

I knew the courtroom example would come up eventually. It always does, and it is always an indicator that the person bringing it up does not actually understand either the relationship between anecdotes and evidence or the way courts work.

If a man is accused of a crime, but no actual evidence of the crime even taking place can be produced, the case is dismissed and the man is found innocent. No number of witnesses, or even consistency of testimony given by them, can actually take the place of real evidence.

People can be wrong. People can even be wrong en masse. People can also lie, or trick themselves, or any number of other things. Memory and perception are unreliable, and they don't stop being unreliable just because you have a doctorate. This is one of the most absolutely basic principles of logic and rationality. To say otherwise is to commit the bare assertion fallacy and pretend that it suddenly stops being a fallacy just because a lot of people are saying it.

Anecdotes are not evidence, no matter who they come from.

What anecdotes are is a reason to investigate. They are an indication that something has happened. They are not, of themselves, evidence of what that thing actually is. It could be alien spacecraft or a secret government project. It could also be any number of other things, ranging from a hoax to being mistaken about what was seen to active lies.

No matter who comes up with the anecdote, or how many people agree with it, anecdotes are not evidence.

(09-09-2015 02:08 PM)Free Wrote:  Okay, but you are using conventional thinking here.

And doing otherwise is baseless speculation resulting in the creation of an ad hoc hypothesis.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
09-09-2015, 02:27 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 02:08 PM)Free Wrote:  Okay, but you are using conventional thinking here. Let me explain something for illustrative purposes.

Here on earth, in regards to intelligence, we humans (arguably) are at the top of the list of all known evolved species. we have seen our species evolve intellectually over the many centuries of our existence.

Also, since life evolved here on earth the way it did, we have evidence that life does evolve, and that evidence gives us a precedence to qualify the real possibility that life on other planets may also have evolved similarly.

If a species on another planet evolved intellectually to a higher degree than we humans, it is not inconceivable that they would be capable of technologies that exceed the current human capacity to understand.

Understanding their technology could be as alien to us as our pets trying to understand just what the hell we are actually doing when they see us using a remote control to operate the TV.

As humans, our egotism tends to lead us in the direction that if something can be learned, we can learn it. But what if there are things that we simply do not have the physical capacity to understand, similar to our pets not understanding what a remote control is for?

Hence, if life on another world is possible, and intelligent life on another world is possible, we cannot assume based upon our own limitations and conventions about how difficult it would be for interstellar travel to exist within an advanced alien culture.

We can speak for ourselves, yes. But we cannot speak for them.

Of course we must work with what we have. But possibility ≠ probability. Leaping to the conclusion that it must be alien based on such a tenuous chain of reasoning is not justified.

If I lost a fork out of a silverware set, which is more likely: that I accidentally threw it away with the table scraps, or that a ghost took it?

You're multiplying entities.

(09-09-2015 02:08 PM)Free Wrote:  There are no video's of the craft. The situation I am speaking about happened about 9 years ago 2006, just before camera phones came into widespread use. All we have is a collection of eyewitness accounts, TV reports, investigative journalism, an attempt to cover it up exposed, etc.

Don't you think it odd that just as a widespread proliferation of equipment that could prove these alien craft happened, opportunities to record them haven't occurred?

(09-09-2015 02:08 PM)Free Wrote:  You can begin here, although Wiki does not give you nearly all you need to come to any kind of complete evaluation. I found this one, when investigated fully, to be perhaps the most credible of all UFO reports of all time.

So, in 2006, no one broke out their camera-phone? They certainly had them then. Without video, I'm personally unable to assess things that are important in these cases, like visibility conditions. I'm also entirely unable to assess the expertise of the witnesses in matters of aviation -- as are you.

And -- nothing in that link provides any indication of extraterrestrial origin.

(09-09-2015 02:08 PM)Free Wrote:  There is a difference in probabilities between 12 experts and 1. 1 expert has a far greater probability of being flummoxed than 12, who all from different positions, reported the exact same event.

You ignored my point, which is that in the face of an unusual craft, none of them would know what they're looking at.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
09-09-2015, 02:37 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
I agree that it's possible that there is intelligent life out there. In fact I think it is highly probable.
I also agree that there could be civilizations that are far more scientifically advanced than us.
My problem with them being capable of interstellar travel, is the distances involved and their abilty to manipulate the laws of physics.

After all the trouble they must have gone through to get all the way here, why conceal themselves from us?
Why not land right in the middle of the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games and say howdy?
There are a lot of easy ways to prove they exist, and a lot of bullshit ways to explain why they exist without proving it.
This all feels very familiar to me for some reason. Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like pablo's post
09-09-2015, 02:43 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 02:20 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 01:18 PM)Free Wrote:  1 zoologist compared to say a dozen aeronautical experts is not a fair comparison.

It is if they have precisely the same amount of actual evidence to back up their claims - which is to say, none.

If eyewitness testimony could not be considered as evidence, then please free all criminals who were convicted upon multiple eyewitness testimony.

Whenever multiple eyewitnesses each take the stand and point the finger at a defendant and say "It was him," it certainly carries great weight with the jury.

Quote:
(09-09-2015 01:18 PM)Free Wrote:  It's all about the credibility of these witnesses, and the fact that they all witnessed the same thing at the same time.

The credibility of a witness is determined by how well their claims match up to the evidence.

In the absence of evidence, no amount of baseless speculation will suffice to establish credibility.

It isn't baseless speculation when multiple eyewitness can identify a suspect in a court of law. Here is a scenario:

A guy is seen jaywalking in front of 10 witnesses, who report it to a nearby police officer. The officer didn't see it, and he cannot turn back time to see it, but he arrests the man for jay walking.

The only evidence is the 10 eyewitnesses, and the guy gets convicted.

Quote:
(09-09-2015 01:18 PM)Free Wrote:  In a court of law, when one witness only is testifying against a defendant, a judge can take the position of "It's only his word against the defendants."

However, when you ad two or more eyewitness to the scenario, why is their combined identical testimony now far more credible?

I knew the courtroom example would come up eventually. It always does, and it is always an indicator that the person bringing it up does not actually understand either the relationship between anecdotes and evidence or the way courts work.

If a man is accused of a crime, but no actual evidence of the crime even taking place can be produced, the case is dismissed and the man is found innocent. No number of witnesses, or even consistency of testimony given by them, can actually take the place of real evidence.

But it does take the place of any other physical evidence.

Quote:People can be wrong. People can even be wrong en masse. People can also lie, or trick themselves, or any number of other things. Memory and perception are unreliable, and they don't stop being unreliable just because you have a doctorate. This is one of the most absolutely basic principles of logic and rationality. To say otherwise is to commit the bare assertion fallacy and pretend that it suddenly stops being a fallacy just because a lot of people are saying it.

Anecdotes are not evidence, no matter who they come from.

No one denies that people can be wrong, but when multiple eyewitness are used the probability of them all being wrong is far less than that of a singular witness.

Why consider multiple eyewitness accounts of the same event as merely being an anecdote? Combined they are far more than that.

Quote:What anecdotes are is a reason to investigate. They are an indication that something has happened. They are not, of themselves, evidence of what that thing actually is. It could be alien spacecraft or a secret government project. It could also be any number of other things, ranging from a hoax to being mistaken about what was seen to active lies.

Yes, but with virtually all other possibilities all but eliminated, whatever remains must be the truth.

Quote:No matter who comes up with the anecdote, or how many people agree with it, anecdotes are not evidence.

What you falsely attribute as mere anecdotes are in fact eyewitness accounts.

Quote:
(09-09-2015 02:08 PM)Free Wrote:  Okay, but you are using conventional thinking here.

And doing otherwise is baseless speculation resulting in the creation of an ad hoc hypothesis.

You cannot claim baselessness when precedence has been established.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 02:49 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 02:37 PM)pablo Wrote:  I agree that it's possible that there is intelligent life out there. In fact I think it is highly probable.
I also agree that there could be civilizations that are far more scientifically advanced than us.
My problem with them being capable of interstellar travel, is the distances involved and their abilty to manipulate the laws of physics.

After all the trouble they must have gone through to get all the way here, why conceal themselves from us?
Why not land right in the middle of the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games and say howdy?
There are a lot of easy ways to prove they exist, and a lot of bullshit ways to explain why they exist without proving it.
This all feels very familiar to me for some reason. Consider

All of what you said above would be nice if it all would happen ... according to the human perspective.

Should we expect aliens to behave in any way like humans? To me, all I see in aliens is merely another evolved animal not so unlike anything that evolved here on earth. It doesn't matter in the slightest if they came from another world, or Timbuktu.

But since we cannot expect other animals on earth to see things from the human perspective, should we expect an alien animal to see things from the human perspective?

You and me baby we aint nuthin but mammals ...

Wink

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2015, 02:57 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(09-09-2015 02:49 PM)Free Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 02:37 PM)pablo Wrote:  I agree that it's possible that there is intelligent life out there. In fact I think it is highly probable.
I also agree that there could be civilizations that are far more scientifically advanced than us.
My problem with them being capable of interstellar travel, is the distances involved and their abilty to manipulate the laws of physics.

After all the trouble they must have gone through to get all the way here, why conceal themselves from us?
Why not land right in the middle of the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games and say howdy?
There are a lot of easy ways to prove they exist, and a lot of bullshit ways to explain why they exist without proving it.
This all feels very familiar to me for some reason. Consider

All of what you said above would be nice if it all would happen ... according to the human perspective.

Should we expect aliens to behave in any way like humans? To me, all I see in aliens is merely another evolved animal not so unlike anything that evolved here on earth. It doesn't matter in the slightest if they came from another world, or Timbuktu.

But since we cannot expect other animals on earth to see things from the human perspective, should we expect an alien animal to see things from the human perspective?

You and me baby we aint nuthin but mammals ...

Wink

Wouldn't expecting them to conceal themselves be considered a human perspective? Why would they have any concern about whether we observed them or not?
To something so far advanced, we would seem nothing more than an insignificant bug to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: