IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th June 2009, 03:16 PM   #1
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,325
UFO'S: A possible explanation

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?
makaya325 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 03:25 PM   #2
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Explaining an unknown with another unknown based on no evidence isn't skeptical.
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 03:30 PM   #3
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
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.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 03:32 PM   #4
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
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
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 05:52 PM   #5
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
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.
makaya325 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 07:49 PM   #6
learner
Graduate Poster
 
learner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,695
Originally Posted by makaya325 View Post
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?
__________________
"I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous" - My Mate Dave
" How do you expect me to use my initiative if you wont tell me what to do?" - Dave again
learner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 07:50 PM   #7
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by learner View Post
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!
makaya325 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 07:50 PM   #8
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by learner View Post
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.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 07:52 PM   #9
learner
Graduate Poster
 
learner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,695
Originally Posted by makaya325 View Post
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
__________________
"I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous" - My Mate Dave
" How do you expect me to use my initiative if you wont tell me what to do?" - Dave again
learner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 07:53 PM   #10
learner
Graduate Poster
 
learner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,695
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
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.
__________________
"I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous" - My Mate Dave
" How do you expect me to use my initiative if you wont tell me what to do?" - Dave again
learner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 07:55 PM   #11
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by learner View Post
Il take your wise advice as well. Might be catching, goodnight.
I am. GOOD night! One hell of a lacrosse game!
makaya325 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2009, 08:00 PM   #12
kittynh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,634
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.
kittynh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 03:53 AM   #13
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
 
jakesteele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rain City
Posts: 2,181
Originally Posted by kittynh View Post
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.

Hereís 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, ďWell, 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 havenít received training in aircraft silhouette identification, etc.ď Thatís a double standard. Itís like youíre 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 Ďfor realí alien UFO. Itís like trying to pull the eye teeth out of an angry gorillaís mouth. A truly objective skeptic will say, ďAnd, yes, folks, we canít rule out the possibility that it was of alien origin.Ē

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

Life is Godís funniest joke
And we are the punchline
jakesteele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 03:58 AM   #14
foxholeatheist
Graduate Poster
 
foxholeatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,155
Suddenly the burden of proof has shifted to the skeptics?
__________________
You start wearing the blue and brown and
You're working for the clampdown
-The Clash

My Band!
The Heimlich County Gun Club
foxholeatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 04:03 AM   #15
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Got that, folks? When you hear about a UFO sighting, especially from a pilot, remember: Aliens first, simple explanations second.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 04:34 AM   #16
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,590
Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
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.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 05:05 AM   #17
Spektator
Watching . . . always watching.
 
Spektator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southeastern USA
Posts: 1,901
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.
Spektator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 06:31 AM   #18
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,457
Originally Posted by makaya325 View Post
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.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 06:51 AM   #19
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
Hereís 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, ďWell, 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 havenít received training in aircraft silhouette identification, etc.ď Thatís a double standard. Itís like youíre 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
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 07:58 AM   #20
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
 
jakesteele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rain City
Posts: 2,181
Originally Posted by foxholeatheist View Post
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.
__________________

Life is Godís funniest joke
And we are the punchline
jakesteele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 08:04 AM   #21
Unlike a Bull
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 224
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.

Last edited by Unlike a Bull; 12th June 2009 at 08:05 AM.
Unlike a Bull is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 08:17 AM   #22
Ersby
Fortean
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,881
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.
__________________
"Once a man admits complete and unshakeable faith in his own integrity, he is in an excellent frame of mind to be approached by con men." David W. Maurer, "The Big Con"
Ersby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 08:17 AM   #23
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
 
jakesteele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rain City
Posts: 2,181
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
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.
__________________

Life is Godís funniest joke
And we are the punchline
jakesteele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 08:29 AM   #24
Ashles
Pith Artist
 
Ashles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The '80s
Posts: 8,692
Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
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...)
__________________
With extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. - Jeffrey Burton Russell
It is obvious to any scientist that the bumblebee can fly because experiment proves it. - Zetie 1996
Ashles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 08:30 AM   #25
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
 
jakesteele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rain City
Posts: 2,181
aaaaaa
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
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.
__________________

Life is Godís funniest joke
And we are the punchline
jakesteele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 08:39 AM   #26
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
 
jakesteele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rain City
Posts: 2,181
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
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.
__________________

Life is Godís funniest joke
And we are the punchline
jakesteele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 08:46 AM   #27
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,590
Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
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.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 08:58 AM   #28
Cainkane1
Philosopher
 
Cainkane1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 8,859
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.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.
Cainkane1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 09:16 AM   #29
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,457
Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
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.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 09:35 AM   #30
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
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.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 10:20 AM   #31
foxholeatheist
Graduate Poster
 
foxholeatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,155
Originally Posted by jakesteele View 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.
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
You start wearing the blue and brown and
You're working for the clampdown
-The Clash

My Band!
The Heimlich County Gun Club
foxholeatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 10:32 AM   #32
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
 
jakesteele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rain City
Posts: 2,181
[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
__________________

Life is Godís funniest joke
And we are the punchline
jakesteele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 10:33 AM   #33
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
 
jakesteele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rain City
Posts: 2,181
Originally Posted by Ersby View Post
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.
__________________

Life is Godís funniest joke
And we are the punchline
jakesteele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 10:40 AM   #34
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
 
jakesteele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rain City
Posts: 2,181
Originally Posted by Ashles View Post
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?
__________________

Life is Godís funniest joke
And we are the punchline
jakesteele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 10:59 AM   #35
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
 
jakesteele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rain City
Posts: 2,181
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
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.
__________________

Life is Godís funniest joke
And we are the punchline
jakesteele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 11:04 AM   #36
foxholeatheist
Graduate Poster
 
foxholeatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,155
http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/woo

Sorry. It is a real world, er, word.
__________________
You start wearing the blue and brown and
You're working for the clampdown
-The Clash

My Band!
The Heimlich County Gun Club
foxholeatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 11:05 AM   #37
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
 
jakesteele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rain City
Posts: 2,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cainkane1 View Post
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?
__________________

Life is Godís funniest joke
And we are the punchline
jakesteele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 11:07 AM   #38
foxholeatheist
Graduate Poster
 
foxholeatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,155
Then it wouldn't be a UFO then would it? It would be a SPACESHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
You start wearing the blue and brown and
You're working for the clampdown
-The Clash

My Band!
The Heimlich County Gun Club
foxholeatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 11:14 AM   #39
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
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. 1285Ė1349) 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
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2009, 11:46 AM   #40
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
I am not sure what this has to do with UFOs.

Last edited by Astrophotographer; 12th June 2009 at 11:50 AM.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.