UFO'S: A possible explanation

[makaya325]

While skeptics do not attribute the alien explanation to ufo's, do they ever consider, or even praise explanations such as: Plasma Vortex's, Ball Lightning, Sprites, etc?

[paximperium]

Explaining an unknown with another unknown based on no evidence isn't skeptical.

[Astrophotographer]

Actually, I rarely ever see the ball lightning or plasma explanation. Sprites are a recent discovery and might explain some sightings. It is all a matter of probabilities and the circumstances of the event.

[paximperium]

Quote:

Sprightly Explanation For UFO Sightings?
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2009) — In legend, sprites are trolls, elves and other spirits that dance high above our ozone layer. But scientists at Tel Aviv University have discovered that some very real "sprites" are zipping across the atmosphere as well, providing a possible explanation for those other legendary denizens of the skies, UFOs.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223131119.htm

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

Actually, I rarely ever see the ball lightning or plasma explanation. Sprites are a recent discovery and might explain some sightings. It is all a matter of probabilities and the circumstances of the event.

Astro, i think that it is possible, for unknown, most phenomona, and unknown phenomona to be considered ufo's. Until be evidence, it iwll remain a man in a suit.

[learner]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Astro, i think that it is possible, for unknown, most phenomona, and unknown phenomona to be considered ufo's. Until be evidence, it iwll remain a man in a suit.

Which mak is this? And what the hell are you talking about?

Things that are unknown are ufos?
Most phenomena are ufos?
Unknown phenomena are ufos?

Default is man in a suit?

Is it just me?

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by learner

Which mak is this? And what the hell are you talking about?

Things that are unknown are ufos?
Most phenomena are ufos?
Unknown phenomena are ufos?

Default is man in a suit?

Is it just me?

I think that it is possible for unknown Phenomona to be newly discovered physically!

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by learner

Which mak is this? And what the hell are you talking about?

Things that are unknown are ufos?
Most phenomena are ufos?
Unknown phenomena are ufos?

Default is man in a suit?

Is it just me?

No, it isn't just you. Mak is incoherent tonight. Go to bed, Mak. You are practically slurring your words here.

[learner]

Originally Posted by makaya325

I think that it is possible for unknown Phenomona to be newly discovered physically!

Im with you on that one.

Man in a suit though, whats that all about? your op was about ufos

[learner]

Originally Posted by desertgal

No, it isn't just you. Mak is incoherent tonight. Go to bed, Mak. You are practically slurring your words here.

Il take your wise advice as well. Might be catching, goodnight.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by learner

Il take your wise advice as well. Might be catching, goodnight.

I am. GOOD night! One hell of a lacrosse game!

[kittynh]

I will say that Phillip Klass did include some interesting explainations for UFOs. His electrical line theory is still debated. Ball lightening is rare, but I think if it's real it is usually just seen as whacky lightening.

THere are so many variables for UFOs. Most people are unfamiliar with what the night sky looks like. Rarely do amatuer astronomers see UFOs that they go "oh aliens!" Think of the thousands and thousands of amateur astronomers out there. Heck anyone can buy a telescope.

I always tell people that see UFOs a lot to join the local amateur astronomy club. Most towns have one. If you go out on a clear night and just really LOOK for 20 minutes you'll usually see something that makes you go "ok WHAT is THAT".

ALso big jump from UFO to alien traveller from outerspace. That's the problem. Aliens hyperjumping through worm holes to reach us hasn't been proven anymore than unicorns. Could by flying unicorns in those things (there is much historical evidence for unicorns as opposed to say aliens).

People that know the sky, don't see aliens flying around.

[jakesteele]

Originally Posted by kittynh

I will say that Phillip Klass did include some interesting explainations for UFOs. His electrical line theory is still debated. Ball lightening is rare, but I think if it's real it is usually just seen as whacky lightening.

THere are so many variables for UFOs. Most people are unfamiliar with what the night sky looks like. Rarely do amatuer astronomers see UFOs that they go "oh aliens!" Think of the thousands and thousands of amateur astronomers out there. Heck anyone can buy a telescope.

I always tell people that see UFOs a lot to join the local amateur astronomy club. Most towns have one. If you go out on a clear night and just really LOOK for 20 minutes you'll usually see something that makes you go "ok WHAT is THAT".

ALso big jump from UFO to alien traveller from outerspace. That's the problem. Aliens hyperjumping through worm holes to reach us hasn't been proven anymore than unicorns. Could by flying unicorns in those things (there is much historical evidence for unicorns as opposed to say aliens).

People that know the sky, don't see aliens flying around.

there are many people who 'know the sky' do see unexplainable sightings, that's why the amateur astronomer explanation is weak.

There have been many examples of pilots at all levels of skill and experience that have reported seeing UFOs. Also, there are planes of some sort in the air 24/7 that are flying at or near the approximate heights that UFOs do. They also have a much wider field of vision than astronomers do. But to you their word seems to mean nothing. But at the same time you will accept anecdotal evidence from amateur astronomers as being golden, as in the Phoenix Lights situation.

Here’s what I find ironic; if an amateur astronomer came to you and said they had seen a UFO, you would immediately go into the debunking mode and say something to this effect, “Well, he is an amateur after all. He can only look to the heavens for 8 hrs. max out of the day. And odds are high they haven’t received training in aircraft silhouette identification, etc.“ That’s a double standard. It’s like you’re making up two different sets of rules that benefit you and not the other guy. Here are the typical rationalizations that a CSIOPtic will give for UFO sightings:

1. ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENON

2. BALL LIGHTNING

3. SWAMP GAS

4. METEORS

5. MASS HALLUCINATION:

6. HOAX

7. WEATHER BALLOONS

8. FLARES (the new weather balloons)

9. FLOCK OF BIRDS

10. LIE

11. (anything I might have missed)

I always get a chuckle out of the James Randi style of debunking when it comes to UFOs (or anything, for that matter). You will never hear them say that it could also be a ‘for real’ alien UFO. It’s like trying to pull the eye teeth out of an angry gorilla’s mouth. A truly objective skeptic will say, “And, yes, folks, we can’t rule out the possibility that it was of alien origin.”

In other words, the simplest explanation is not always the best.

[foxholeatheist]

Suddenly the burden of proof has shifted to the skeptics?

[desertgal]

Got that, folks? When you hear about a UFO sighting, especially from a pilot, remember: Aliens first, simple explanations second.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by jakesteele

there are many people who 'know the sky' do see unexplainable sightings, that's why the amateur astronomer explanation is weak.

Of course, that doesn't actually address what Kitty said at all. No-one claimed that they don't see things they may not be able to explain, she simply said they don't see aliens. This is because people who know what they're talking about know that there are always going to be plenty of mundane things that it's not possible to identify due to lack of information. For example, if you see a bright light in the sky but don't look any closer at the time or note where and when it was, you will never know what it actually was. That doesn't mean it was an alien, it simply means you don't have enough information.

That's the important difference between believers and sensible people. One will say "I saw something in the sky, but I don't have enough information to work out what it was.", the other will say "I saw something in the sky, and since I couldn't immediately tell what it was it can't possibly be anything normal and must have been an alien.".

On a related note, I think I actually saw my first weather balloon the other day. Fortunately we had binoculars handy and could make out an orange blob with a shiny thing underneath it, but it did look very strange to the naked eye since it was a very bright light in the middle of the day that couldn't be any astronomical phenomenon but didn't behave at all like an aircraft.

[Spektator]

One evening on the local college campus a clump of students staring at the sky attracted my attention. They were staring at a bright UFO and were dazzled by the aerobatics it was doing--swooping and swaying and swinging.

I couldn't see the movements the students thought they saw. Fortunately, a physics teacher came strolling up and identified the UFO: it was Venus. Not swooping, swaying, or swinging at all--just very bright in the evening sky. The students didn't believe him, so he led us all to the physics building, broke out a four-inch telescope, and let us have turns looking at the planet (it was crescent-shaped). Even after that, some of the students were still insisting that the planet HAD been swooping around in the sky.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by makaya325

While skeptics do not attribute the alien explanation to ufo's, do they ever consider, or even praise explanations such as: Plasma Vortex's, Ball Lightning, Sprites, etc?

I suggest that you read the Condon Report.

Below are a few introductory paragraphs,

"As indicated by its title, the emphasis of this study has been on attempting to learn from UFO reports anything that could be considered as adding to scientific knowledge. Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.

It has been argued that this lack of contribution to science is due to the fact that very little scientific effort has been put on the subject. We do not agree. We feel that the reason that there has been very little scientific study of the subject is that those scientists who are most directly concerned, astronomers, atmospheric physicists, chemists, and psychologists, having had ample opportunity to look into the matter, have individually decided that UFO phenomena do not offer a fruitful field in which to look for major scientific discoveries.
This conclusion is so important, and the public seems in general to have so little understanding of how scientists work, that some more comment on it seems desirable...."

Take especial note of the second paragraph. It applies just as well to other "woo" subjects as it does to this one.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by jakesteele

there are many people who 'know the sky' do see unexplainable sightings, that's why the amateur astronomer explanation is weak.

There have been many examples of pilots at all levels of skill and experience that have reported seeing UFOs. Also, there are planes of some sort in the air 24/7 that are flying at or near the approximate heights that UFOs do. They also have a much wider field of vision than astronomers do. But to you their word seems to mean nothing.

Yes, and there are plenty of pilots who have caused plane crashes because of pilot error. Pilots and astronomers can make errors in observations. Astronomers DO report UFOs but most of the reports presented by EXPERIENCED amateurs and pros are usually lights of an unknown nature and nothing like the reports you read on the internet. Often they turn out to be something mundane like a rocket launch, a fuel dump of a rocket in orbit, a low earth orbit satellite (or a very high orbit), etc. etc. I can give dozens of examples but you probably will not listen anyway.

Originally Posted by jakesteele

But at the same time you will accept anecdotal evidence from amateur astronomers as being golden, as in the Phoenix Lights situation.

Not exactly. In the Phoenix situation (and lets not rehash the particulars in this thread), the testimony of Mitch Stanley agreed with what most of the eyewitnesses reported in the raw reports in the NUFORC database. There was also supporting testimony from others to indicate his observations were accurate. Since this was the case, it is far more likely that the Phoenix event had to do with a formation of aircraft than a huge wedge shaped object flying over the city with lights that turned invisible when it passed in front of the moon.

Originally Posted by jakesteele

Here’s what I find ironic; if an amateur astronomer came to you and said they had seen a UFO, you would immediately go into the debunking mode and say something to this effect, “Well, he is an amateur after all. He can only look to the heavens for 8 hrs. max out of the day. And odds are high they haven’t received training in aircraft silhouette identification, etc.“ That’s a double standard. It’s like you’re making up two different sets of rules that benefit you and not the other guy.

How do you know how I would treat such a report? I have been listening to these UFO stories for years.The first thing I would do is get the particulars (time, date, direction of travel, angular speed, angles of elevation, magnitude, etc.) and see if I could offer an explanation. If I could not, I certainly would not suggest swamp gas. Sometimes I can offer an explanation and sometimes I can not. If I can not, it remain "unidentified" (not alien spaceship) because I was not there or don't have enough information to resolve it.

Feel free to keep that mind closed to possibilities. While you are at it, watch this video:http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8u...indedness_tech

[jakesteele]

Originally Posted by foxholeatheist

Suddenly the burden of proof has shifted to the skeptics?

I did not state that the burden of proof has shifted at all, I don't know how you got that out of my post

I am saying there is a tendency for CSIOPtics to have double standards. They have accepted that the antecdotal evidence of ameuter astronomers as part of the 'proof positive' because it gives them the 'evidence' for the Phoenix Lights. But if someone on the other side of the fence presents antecdotal evidence then it's some kind of fallacy...that's double standards.

I notice that nobody addressed my list of CSIOPtic explanations for UFO sightings. That must mean it pretty much covers all of the that you are willing to condiser. The point is that when these pat answers are given they always leave out one of the obvious...alien technology.

Occam's Razor is a great tool as a starting poin but it is not necessarily always the right solution/explanation.

Example: If a man's wife is murdered they look at the husband because of the statics. If the husband has an iron clad albi, they know one thing for sure; the husband didn't physically do it. That, in and of itself, does not rule out that the husband didn't hire someone to do it. That line of inquiry remains open. After the husband they look at immediate famly, friends, co-workers, etc. Then it becomes: Was she getting threatening phone calls, were there a strange man hanging around, etc. But in some cases the least likely answer is the correct one. Example: it could be a tragic coincidence like Bill Cosby's son or Michael Jordan's father.

Here is a perfect example of what I mean. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvEPeGPxeU.

The link is a History Channel program on Human Levitation. Go to about 1 minute 15 seconds and watch one of your guys step on his dick and screw the pooch at the same time.

You cannot open mindly dismiss or ignore an obvious possibility and consider yourself a True Skeptic.

[Unlike a Bull]

I live in central Florida. Several times I've seen a huge flame rising into the sky. I, of course, immediately assumed it was the second coming Jesus and started with my emergency "last minute prayer of forgiveness and acceptance of Jesus" I have memorized in case of my own death or His second coming. It's good to have these kind of things planned out just in case.

Turns out I live near Kennedy space Center and they launch rockets and shuttles. So, that explains why there wasn't any Jesus in those flames.

I still say my prayer when I see them. Sure, the Space center theory explains every other sighting I've had but the next one could be Jesus.



That could be a Boeing Delta II rocket, or it could be Jesus. Just seeing the light, you don't have enough data to say which. So it's better to be safe and pray.

Edit: The image didn't post, so here's the link: link.

[Ersby]

I'm fascinated by UFOs, but in order to research them properly I'd have to learn about astronomy and meteorology and that's an awful lot of work. Especially seeing the paucity of most of the evidence out there.

[jakesteele]

Originally Posted by desertgal

Got that, folks? When you hear about a UFO sighting, especially from a pilot, remember: Aliens first, simple explanations second.

Attack of the giant Strawmam.

[Ashles]

Originally Posted by jakesteele

Also, there are planes of some sort in the air 24/7 that are flying at or near the approximate heights that UFOs do.

Wow, so UFOs suddenly have an average approximate flying height?

(Which is ironically the same as the average flying height of... aeroplanes. I feel I might have an explantion...)

[jakesteele]

aaaaaa

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Of course, that doesn't actually address what Kitty said at all. No-one claimed that they don't see things they may not be able to explain, she simply said they don't see aliens.

Quote:

This is because people who know what they're talking about know that there are always going to be plenty of mundane things that it's not possible to identify due to lack of information.

Wow, does that mean ameuter astronomers know what they are talking about and highly skilled and experienced pilots who report UFO sightings don't know what they are talking about?

. For example, if you see a bright light in the sky but don't look any closer at the time or note where and when it was, you will never know what it actually was.

Quote:

That doesn't mean it was an alien, it simply means you don't have enough information.

And part of the "don't have enough information" also includes the possibility of something alien or way, way, incredibility advanced that the government is not revealing.

Quote:

That's the important difference between believers and sensible people.

I don't think you are getting something. CSIOPtics are also true believers. They believe nothing is paranormal, UFO, etc.

One will say "I saw something in the sky, but I don't have enough information to work out what it was.", the other will say "I saw something in the sky, and since I

Quote:

couldn't immediately tell what it was it can't possibly be anything normal and must have been an alien.".

Jesus H. Christ, that is ********** up logic.


On a related note, I think I actually saw my first weather balloon the other day. Fortunately we had binoculars handy and could make out an orange blob with a shiny thing underneath it, but it did look very strange to the naked eye since it was a very bright light in the middle of the day that couldn't be any astronomical phenomenon but didn't behave at all like an aircraft.

[jakesteele]

Originally Posted by EHocking

Quote:

I suggest that you read the Condon Report.

I suggest you read the "Neuropsychology of Psuesoskeptics"

http://ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.c...do-skepticism/

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...edscience.html





Below are a few introductory paragraphs,

"As indicated by its title, the emphasis of this study has been on attempting to learn from UFO reports anything that could be considered as adding to scientific knowledge. Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.

It has been argued that this lack of contribution to science is due to the fact that very little scientific effort has been put on the subject. We do not agree. We feel that the reason that there has been very little scientific study of the subject is that those scientists who are most directly concerned, astronomers, atmospheric physicists, chemists, and psychologists, having had ample opportunity to look into the matter, have individually decided that UFO phenomena do not offer a fruitful field in which to look for major scientific discoveries.
This conclusion is so important, and the public seems in general to have so little understanding of how scientists work, that some more comment on it seems desirable...."

Quote:

Take especial note of the second paragraph. It applies just as well to other "woo" subjects as it does to this one.

The links above address not "true believer" woo woo, but rather, psuedoskeptic doo doo.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by jakesteele

aaaaaa

There are two points here. Firstly, the quote function really isn't difficult to use. Secondly, "CSIOPtic" is not a real word and I have no idea what you think it means. If you want to have a sensible conversation, you need to use the same language as the rest of us. In case you were wondering, that would be English.

[Cainkane1]

I've read that many UFO sightings come after tectonic activity such as an earthquake or a volcanic eruption and what we are seeing may be what scientists call plasma. I once saw a volcano near Mexico City have a minor eruption and perfect UFO'S came out of the dome. Then they went back in. Strange behaviour for a other worldly craft to be doing.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by jakesteele

The links above address not "true believer" woo woo, but rather, psuedoskeptic doo doo.

Did you actually take the time to read the Condon report?

It addressed the topic of this thread "UFO'S: A possible explanation".

If you have some issue with the content of the report regarding the OP's question wrt and the thread topic, I'll be happy to participate in a civilised conversation.

And before you ask, no, I did not read your links. Feel free to discuss the paragraphs I quoted with your own objections to their content.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by jakesteele

I notice that nobody addressed my list of CSIOPtic explanations for UFO sightings. That must mean it pretty much covers all of the that you are willing to condiser.

Nonsense. You are assuming too much. I dismissed your list for many reasons. The first is that your list was far too limited. There are so many possible explanations for UFOs that you can not make a hard and fast list.

[foxholeatheist]

Originally Posted by jakesteele

I am saying there is a tendency for CSIOPtics to have double standards. They have accepted that the antecdotal evidence of ameuter astronomers as part of the 'proof positive' because it gives them the 'evidence' for the Phoenix Lights. But if someone on the other side of the fence presents antecdotal evidence then it's some kind of fallacy...that's double standards.

The example you give was backed up not only by "ameuter (sic) astronomers" but also by The US Air Force (namely the the 104th Fighter Squadron), conflicting eyewitness reports, and even a hoaxer (http://www.azcentral.com/community/p...ights0422.html). NEXT!

You are right that it would be a double standard. Skeptics typically do not do that. They tend to leave the outside chance that something really amazing is going on. I know I do. It would be amazing if the lights were Elvis. Or Aliens. Or Unicorns. But it's more likely that the null explanation- the explanation that nothing paranormal is going on- is the correct explanation.

So the burden of proof rests solely on those that claim something paranormal is happening.

Wanna know what I think? I think that a bunch of the UFO reports are really UFOs- stuff in the sky which I cannot tell you what it is. The US Airforce is cooking all kinds of crazy stuff out in the deserts back there. These claims do have interesting evidence, like contrails and funding for blackops and the like. Cool stuff.

Check it out, if we're voting on visiting aliens then I am for it. But my emotions have nothing to do with the fact of the matter and the facts are is that nothing unexplainable has happened.

Originally Posted by jakesteele

I notice that nobody addressed my list of CSIOPtic explanations for UFO sightings. That must mean it pretty much covers all of the that you are willing to condiser. The point is that when these pat answers are given they always leave out one of the obvious...alien technology.

Should we also consider the second coming of Jesus, Elvis, Joe Strummer, The Easter Bunny, Santa... I mean those lights could have been Santa doing a dry run. Elvis we know exists, aliens not so much. He's got one point up already and plus he was The King.

Believe me man, if there was good solid evidence of actual extra-terrestrial contact no one would be more exited than I.

Originally Posted by jakesteele

Occam's Razor is a great tool as a starting poin but it is not necessarily always the right solution/explanation.

True. So LGM's zipping around the jaw droppingly beautiful American Southwest is a likely explanation? How?

Originally Posted by jakesteele

Example: If a man's wife is murdered they look at the husband because of the statics. If the husband has an iron clad albi, they know one thing for sure; the husband didn't physically do it. That, in and of itself, does not rule out that the husband didn't hire someone to do it. That line of inquiry remains open. After the husband they look at immediate famly, friends, co-workers, etc. Then it becomes: Was she getting threatening phone calls, were there a strange man hanging around, etc. But in some cases the least likely answer is the correct one. Example: it could be a tragic coincidence like Bill Cosby's son or Michael Jordan's father.

Huh?

Originally Posted by jakesteele

The link is a History Channel program on Human Levitation. Go to about 1 minute 15 seconds and watch one of your guys step on his dick and screw the pooch at the same time.

Can't watch youtube because I'm in Iraq but if this is the same program that shows goofy ****nuts bouncing around claiming that they are levitating then one bumbling skeptic is not enough to convince me. Again, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

By the way, what in holy hell do you mean by "your guys"?

Originally Posted by jakesteele

You cannot open mindly dismiss or ignore an obvious possibility and consider yourself a True Skeptic.

Sure, it's a possibility but so is Elvis. I dismiss Elvis for a number of reasons, does that make me any less of a skeptic?

In any case, again, if there are aliens visiting Earth no one would be more excited than me. If it were up to a vote I am for it.

[jakesteele]

[quote=Astrophotographer;4805817]Y

Quote:

es, and there are plenty of pilots who have caused plane crashes because of pilot error

.

What does that have to do with the color of the moon?
We're talking about sightings and anecdotal evidence and the double standards that CSIOPtics use. Once again, you're saying that your anecdota levidence is righteous but the other guy's antecdotal evidence is bunk.




Pilots and astronomers can make errors in observations. Astronomers DO report UFOs but most of the reports presented by EXPERIENCED amateurs and pros are usually lights of an unknown nature and nothing like the reports you read on the internet. Often they turn out to be something mundane like a rocket launch, a fuel dump of a rocket in orbit, a low earth orbit satellite (or a very high orbit), etc. etc. I can give dozens of examples but you probably will not listen anyway.




Not exactly. In the Phoenix situation (and lets not rehash the particulars in this thread), the testimony of Mitch Stanley agreed with what most of the eyewitnesses reported in the raw reports in the NUFORC database. There was also supporting testimony from others to indicate his observations were accurate. Since this was the case, it is far more likely that the Phoenix event had to do with a formation of aircraft than a huge wedge shaped object flying over the city with lights that turned invisible when it passed in front of the moon.

Quote:

How do you know how I would treat such a report?

Because CSIOPtics are very predicable. You guys always apply the same 11 or 12 point cookie cutter template to all
all instances even being so bold as to include all of the alleged and/or multiple witness sightings since the beginning of time


I have been listening to these UFO stories for years.The first thing I would do is get the particulars (time, date, direction of travel, angular speed, angles of elevation, magnitude, etc.) and see if I could offer an explanation. If I could not, I certainly would not suggest swamp gas. Sometimes I can offer an explanation and sometimes I can not. If I can not, it remain "unidentified" (not alien spaceship) because I was not there or don't have enough information to resolve it.

Quote:

Feel free to keep that mind closed to possibilities. While you are at it, watch this video:

How in God's name did you come up with that StrawMan nonsense? You're the one who mind is closed to certall of the possibilities fre to keep that mind that is not open to all of the possibilities.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvEPeGPxeU

While you're at it, watch this video, it is a prime example of what I mean about the CSIOPtic version of debunking. It's one of your guys who already had his mind made up beforehand and bent and warped the scenario to conform to his reality map in order to maintain the structural integrity of his cognitive closure

[jakesteele]

Originally Posted by Ersby

I'm fascinated by UFOs, but in order to research them properly I'd have to learn about astronomy and meteorology and that's an awful lot of work. Especially seeing the paucity of most of the evidence out there.

Fair enough.

[jakesteele]

Originally Posted by Ashles

Wow, so UFOs suddenly have an average approximate flying height?

(Which is ironically the same as the average flying height of... aeroplanes. I feel I might have an explantion...)

I said at or near the approximate heights of planes. I didn't say anything about the 'average' height", you did. I believe that's either a Straw Man or a red herring. I know, it's a Straw Man fishing for a red herring.

It's like when airplanes have flown side by side with alleged UFOs. But you still won't give up the ghost and say one of the possibilities, although the least likely, is a UFO, will you?

[jakesteele]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

There are two points here. Firstly, the quote function really isn't difficult to use. Secondly, "CSIOPtic" is not a real word and I have no idea what you think it means. If you want to have a sensible conversation, you need to use the same language as the rest of us. In case you were wondering, that would be English.

Sorry, but when I hit the submit button it said something to the effect that I didn't have enough letters, so it wouldn't allow it.

CSIOPtic is a neologism, a phrase that I've coined. It's a politically correct way of saying psuedo-skeptic.

I find it very ironic that you accuse me of not using a real world when you guys use the neologism, woo woo. That's not a real word either, but you hear it over and over on this site. So maybe you should take your own advise and start talking English.

[foxholeatheist]

http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/woo

Sorry. It is a real world, er, word.

[jakesteele]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

I've read that many UFO sightings come after tectonic activity such as an earthquake or a volcanic eruption and what we are seeing may be what scientists call plasma. I once saw a volcano near Mexico City have a minor eruption and perfect UFO'S came out of the dome. Then they went back in. Strange behaviour for a other worldly craft to be doing.

I'm sure there are sightings after tectonics, etc. But I know there are many sightings that occur independent of tectonics.

Come on, give it up. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is usually the best. But Occam's Beard (neologism) says, "The simplest insn't always the best." That's a tool any sefl-respecting skeptic would have in their tool box.

I just want to hear you say it one time: A for real, UFO of alien origon is also a possibility, isn't it?

[foxholeatheist]

Then it wouldn't be a UFO then would it? It would be a SPACESHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by jakesteele

Come on, give it up. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is usually the best. But Occam's Beard (neologism) says, "The simplest insn't always the best." That's a tool any sefl-respecting skeptic would have in their tool box.

Looks like you don't even know what Occam's Razor is:

Quote:

William Ockham (c. 1285–1349) is remembered as an influential nominalist but his popular fame as a great logician rests chiefly on the maxim attributed to him and known as Occam's razor: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem or "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by jakesteele

What does that have to do with the color of the moon?
We're talking about sightings and anecdotal evidence and the double standards that CSIOPtics use. Once again, you're saying that your anecdota levidence is righteous but the other guy's antecdotal evidence is bunk.

Sigh...Pilots are just susceptible to errors in judgement for objects in the sky as anybody else. If a pilot can make a mistake flying a plane, he certainly can mistake a star, meteor, balloon for a UFO.

Originally Posted by jakesteele

Because CSIOPtics are very predicable. You guys always apply the same 11 or 12 point cookie cutter template to all all instances even being so bold as to include all of the alleged and/or multiple witness sightings since the beginning of time.

That's a load and you probably know this. List all UFO explanations ever given and show how they fit into these 11-12 cookie cutter templates. I will bust that line with the 2004 Mexican USAF FLIR footage. They were oil well fires. That is not in your list (unless you want the blanket other, which means there are a lot more than 11-12 potential explanations).

Originally Posted by jakesteele

How in God's name did you come up with that StrawMan nonsense? You're the one who mind is closed to certall of the possibilities fre to keep that mind that is not open to all of the possibilities.

I have yet to read a single UFO report that can be used as proof of an alien spaceship. Have you? I examine the actual evidence that is presented. Have you? I hear a UFO report and want to know more and not just accept that it is an alien spaceship? Do you? I would like to know what causes UFO reports? Do you? Are you blindly assuming every UFO report is an alien spaceship? Are you willing to dismiss an explanation because it contradicts what you want to believe? This is the definition of being close-minded. I at least look at possibilities. Like I said, just because a UFO report can not be readily identified does not mean it is an alien spaceship.

Originally Posted by jakesteele

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvEPeGPxeU

I am not sure what this has to do with UFOs.