|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
 Posted - 11/08/2005 : 18:53:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Then this entire UFO debate tank is pointless and I am wasting my time. You are shooting believing fish in a skeptic barrel to excercise your intellect. No one with a story of a sighting has any proof but unto themselves.
If you're just looking for people to confirm that the object you saw was alien or some super secret government technology then yes. Without further evidence we cannot come to a definitive conclusion and most people here aren't going to agree with you simply because you say it has no simple explanation. Reading through your posts I think you clearly have a UFO slant when presenting your story.
quote:
I have no proof, anymore than I can prove what I ate for breakfast last week. but i am a human, just like you, who uses his eyes, ears, and brain to figure out whats going on. that, on some level, is science. excercising faith in believing the honesty and sincerety of others does not make you cease to be a skeptic. it makes you human.
I still have the cereal box from my last weeks breakfast. And note, no one here is saying you didn't see anything. I think we all believe you saw something. The issue here is that we are not ready to say, "there is no simple explanation" based on your anecdote. Your story doesn't actually tell us much of anything.
quote:
"Did you receive or record any information beside your own senses?"
that would have been impossible insofar as the nature of UFO's is that we can only observe with our eyes and ears. that science does not formally acknowledge it takes away nothing from the reality of the phenomenon.
also...dont you realize the silliness of that statement? anything science will ever achieve came by way of the scientists' senses and intellect. if a measurement is made, it is recorded with the eyes and mind of a scientist. if evidence is presented, it is scrutinized by the eyes and by the hands of scientists. if a tool is created to take a measurement, that tool was created by an engineer, and percieved by a scientist. whats the common denominator in all these scenarios? all we have are our senses. they are the gatekeepers of the mind, and the harbingers of reality. it is innescapable.
You'll also note that we take measurements so that we do not have to rely on our senses alone. They can be highly inaccurate. If I concentrate hard enough about a familiar sound, I can actually "hear". Some harbinger of reality. You'll also note that before any measures are accepted, they must be scrutinised by many many scientists and experiments and measurements repeated. If anything, science is set up with the unreliability of humans in mind. |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 18:59:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
But i never claimed this was an extraterrestrial craft. it could have been a secret technology which the government was testing. the only conclusion i have drawn is that it could be one of the two. i am open to any plausible explanation. so far, i have not been offered a convincing one.
Unknown origin.
True. Why can't an unidentified flying object just be an unidentified flying object? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 19:17:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
Science will change without notice but not without empirical evidence. You have provided none which suggest that the lights you saw were anything but natural. I'll go so far as to call it a UFO for the time being, but stipulate that it is most likely natural or terrestrial."
Then offer me one plausible natural explanation.
One of the most important answer in science is: I don't know...
You saw something unusual, of unknown origin. Why don't you settle for I don't know as an answer? Stating that it was a UFO, and that its nature is unlikely to ever be revealed, is not inherently wrong.
quote:
No one with a story of a sighting has any proof but unto themselves.
I have no proof, anymore than I can prove what I ate for breakfast last week. but i am a human, just like you, who uses his eyes, ears, and brain to figure out whats going on. that, on some level, is science.
But you seem to forget that the more incredible the claim, the stronger evidence will be demanded. What you ate for breakfast last week is not especially interesting to us, nor will it have any relevance on scientific principles in general. The visitation of extra-terrestrials certainly have a major impact on how we view our world, thus the evidence have to be as extraordinary.
quote:
excercising faith in believing the honesty and sincerety of others does not make you cease to be a skeptic. it makes you human.
Critical thinking and the scientific method are there for removing bias that exists in all human beings. That's why you came here asking us for plausible explanations from a neutral source, wasn't it? Perhaps I have misunderstood your reason for being here.
quote:
"Did you receive or record any information beside your own senses?"
that would have been impossible insofar as the nature of UFO's is that we can only observe with our eyes and ears.
That is a misconception of yours. UFOs aren't ghosts or spirits. It's just a flying object that hasn't been identified. Within the UFO-designation is the possibility of an experimental secret aircraft. None the less, it could be photographed, and audio (infra- and ultra-sound recorded) of it, etc.
quote:
that science does not formally acknowledge it takes away nothing from the reality of the phenomenon.
A phenomenon which at the moment we have no explanation for. Common sense (and sceptic thinking) demands that we do not draw conclusions as to its origin.
quote:
also...dont you realize the silliness of that statement? anything science will ever achieve came by way of the scientists' senses and intellect. if a measurement is made, it is recorded with the eyes and mind of a scientist. if evidence is presented, it is scrutinized by the eyes and by the hands of scientists. if a tool is created to take a measurement, that tool was created by an engineer, and percieved by a scientist. whats the common denominator in all these scenarios? all we have are our senses. they are the gatekeepers of the mind, and the harbingers of reality. it is innescapable.
Now you are just being silly.
We use recording devices in order to get an accurate and objective account of the observed.
If you insists that your mind is the harbingers of reality, then you don't have much grasp of what science is, and you could possibly still be having problems with your Matrix-input-device. Since the reality as you know it could actually be a simulation.
(Edited formatting.) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/08/2005 20:30:46 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 19:17:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey...
"Firefly"
"Thai wedding lamps"
"Glow-in-the-dark Frisbee"
"Swamp gas"
"Were you recently kicked in the head by a horse perhaps?"
"God could have made you see lights"
"The Matrix was experiencing technical difficulties."
"You're still dreaming"
...you mean these good suggestions, right?
We have exactly as much evidence for some of these as we have for your sighting being one of...quote:
[...] two options: extraterrestrial, or high tech governmental craft.
And try this: There are hundreds of commonly known causes of hallucinations. These might include molds, mildews, fungi, spores, foods, poisons, chemicals, inhaled or ingested, intentionally or by accident, and can occur in nearly every environment. Hallucinations can be caused by illness, psychological or physiological. They can last for days, or for seconds. Some hallucinations can be so vivid and clear that one wouldn't know them from "real life". So let's consider the "astronomical improbability" of a hallucination. If there's only one in a billion chance that your sighting was a hallucination, six other people on Earth could have been experiencing it at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 19:59:15 [Permalink]
|
You probably did not see Iridium flare; however, I have to correct a few misconceptions:
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
Iridium flares do just that: flare up. this was a point of light that never got dim, was never flashy, and never disappeared.
Fine, but despite the name, Iridium flares can also appear at points of light without flaring up. They can flash, fade-out, etc. - and they have been seen to simply appear at a point of light.
quote:
I have seen many iridium flares, and they are always short-lived. some do indeed last a long time, but they eventually die out as they leave the sun's light.
Then they are not "always short-lived" if some "last a long time". This is a bit confusing, but again, you likely didn't see an Iridium flare.
Could it have been a secret aircraft? Well, the technology that would allow an aircraft to do what you described is not very secret. In fact it is over 40 years old. A Harrier can fly, slow, stop, hover at altitude, and is surprisingly quite. There are much newer aircraft that can do that too. The hovering part is usually done at lower altitudes, but it is possible to hover higher.
Ockam's razor comes into this as to why such an aircraft or a newer design would be flying in your area by itself at that time of night.
Believe it or not, a kid's balloon could also appear as a point of light that hovers, stops motionless, and goes the other way due to shifting air currents. It could be at low altitude but appear to be at a higher altitude. If it were light colored or Mylar and reflected some lights from below at night, it might look just like what you saw. (I'm not saying that's it.)
It is much more exciting to believe that the Air Force is testing secret advanced aircraft over you. (I'm glad you didn't say back-engineered from alien ships, which is totally disproved when studying the advances of real aviation history.) And it is very exciting to imagine alien ships coming to Earth. But the simplest explanation is usually the strongest. As others have pointed out, skeptics don't deny that advanced aliens might exist, and secret aircraft are always being developed, but if other explanations don't satisfy, that doesn't necessarily mean that the most fanciful explanations are automatically true.
|
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 20:28:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have no proof, anymore than I can prove what I ate for breakfast last week.
Well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you say you ate porridge, I'll believe you straight away. If you say you ate ET, you will need to substantiate that.
quote:
but i am a human, just like you, who uses his eyes, ears, and brain to figure out whats going on. that, on some level, is science.
It is not necessarily science at all.
quote:
excercising faith in believing the honesty and sincerety of others does not make you cease to be a skeptic. it makes you human.
Agreed. But honesty and sincerity does not equal "right". |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Patrick Hennessey
New Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 20:32:47 [Permalink]
|
"I already explained how you might perceive a stationary object as moving in the very first response in this thread. If you were looking straight up at a point of light with no horizon or anything in your periphery, it would be very difficult to discern movement or direction, and very easy for your eyes to play tricks on you."
if you read my posts clearly, youd have noted that this occured at night, with a clear sky. i.e. there were stars. and this one was moving among them. i know it stopped because i watched it stop, back up between two other nearby stars (it stopped inside of a triangle formed by three nearby stars), then went forwards again.
"there are several very good explanations for such phenomena that do not require invoking such an unlikely cause.Occam's razor cuts out the "alien spacecraft theory" precisely because it is more improbable than dozens of alternatives."
then tell me these "good explanations". ive yet to hear any, and i dare say ive shot down everything else pretty well (no one has argued a great deal about this, but if you disagree with my "analysis", please tell me)
"But if none of the proposed explanations will do, then a skeptic must conclude that we simply do not know what it was you saw. You cannot decide "alien spacecraft" is the correct answer by process of elimination. You must have positive evidence to support such a conclusion. A strange light in the sky is not evidence of that."
i agree.
"I'm sorry if you feel you must have an answer for every single thing you will perceive in your life."
it warms my heart that you are sorry for me. if jumping to conclusions were an olympic sport, youd have won a gold medal for that faithful leap. surprise: i dont need an answer for everything. i do want an answer for strange maneuvering lights over my house.
"If not having an answer makes you so unconfortable that you simply must latch onto some explanation, any explanation at all, then I would suggest picking a more reasonable one."
I believe that the ET explanation is perfectly reasonable.
"But becoming angry with us because we aren't willing to accept a tiny light in the sky as evidence that an advanced alien civilization has traversed the enormous reaches of space, entered our atmosphere, drove a like a senior citizen in a Walmart parking lot and then zipped off again undetected, speaks volumes more about your frame of mind than ours."
again, your psychoanalysis would make sense...if i were the only one who sees these things, and if i had only seen it once. this is clearly not the case. one tiny light is nothing. hundreds off thousands (yes thats right) of sightings reported across the globe over the last century constitutes a great deal more than you seem willing to acknowledge.
and do i sound angry? ha! lighten up! i enjoy picking apart conversations as much as you do. but angry?
"Reading through your posts I think you clearly have a UFO slant when presenting your story."
That is because I am not alone on this. if it were just little old me, thats one thing. when your uncle, your friends, your co-workers and boss all have had similar experiences...when youve seen the video testimony of airline pilots and ex-military retirees talking about it, and providing credentials...this is not a "slant". if you view the previously attached link, you might understand my motives better.
"If I concentrate hard enough about a familiar sound, I can actually "hear". Some harbinger of reality."
your definition and my definition of reality are clearly different. thinking of a sound, and "hearing" it, makes it real. thats what reality is: your preception thereof. your definition of reality is whats "out there". my definition does not exclude things like emotions, sounds, thoughts. these are all as real as the sun, but funny how hard they are to prove.
"Your story doesn't actually tell us much of anything."
tell "us"? do you speak for everyone here?
I told you everything i know about what i saw. that it doesnt tell you "much of anything" isnt my fault.
"You'll also note that we take measurements so that we do not have to rely on our senses alone."
my point is not that we should scrap instruments in favor of senses. my point is that senses are the last step in the process of scientific evaluation. the last bit of data will always be subjected to something called interpretation, which takes place in the mind of a human (a very dark and mysterious thing if you ask me). this isnt to say that math isnt accurate, and measurements cant tell us something or that the intellect is to be distrusted, but that the sensory issue is always and ever present.
"Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous."
i am certain that we are not alone in the universe. call me ridiculous. i am certain that my mother loves me, and that theres not a bounty on my head. call me ridiculous.
"One of the most important answer in science is: I don't know...You saw something unusual, of unknown origin. Why don't you settle for I don't know as an answer?"
because i have seen too many of these things to pass it off to the i-dont-know box. if you have seen what i have seen, you wouldnt settle for "i dont know". the possibilities are much more interesting.
"The visitation of extra-terrestrials certainly have a major impact on how we view our world, thus the evidence have to be as extraordinary."
wrong. extraterrestrials are not a theory. they are not a principle, a law of physics, or a state of matter. they are, by definition, knowing, thinking, discerning indivduals who will react to us in a manner that is not predictible, not measureable, not classifiable. were dealing with a concept of a higher intelligence. the evidence is entirely subject to their cooperation on the matter, and the breakdown starts to impinge on politics, rather than science. ET is the final fronteer, and the forerunners of this fronteer will not likely be the scientists, but people mature and loving enough to deal.
how do you get to know your aboriginal neighbor, who is new to the block? burst in the front door, showing off your gadgets? or shining lights in his window every so often, over time showing him you are there, and that he has nothing to be afraid of?
"Now you are just being silly. We use recording devices in order to get an accurate and objective account of the observed. If you insists that your mind is the harbingers of reality, then you don't have much grasp of what science is, and you could possibly still be having problems with your Matrix-input-device. Since the reality as you know it could actually be a simulation."
already adressed. if you knew a bit about quantum physics, my silliness wouldnt seem quite so silly after all. i dont have any problems dealing with reality, its just that since science cant address it all, its up to me from then on out. i have an adequate grasp of science. science does not dictate reality. reality dictates science.
"So let's consider the "astronomical improbability" of a hallucination. If there's only one in a billion chance that your sighting was a hallucination, six other people on Earth could have been experiencing it at the same time."
you are throwing out the hundreds of thousands of reports of experiences identical, or similar, to mine. this would lead me to decline that possibility. one in six billion is astronomical whether or not five other people are having the experience. i have no history of hallucinigenic experiences. i stand as the only judge to that posibility, so believe what you wish. i know it was real. |
| Edited by - Patrick Hennessey on 11/08/2005 20:50:35 |
|
|
|
Patrick Hennessey
New Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 20:53:56 [Permalink]
|
"Well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you say you ate porridge, I'll believe you straight away. If you say you ate ET, you will need to substantiate that."
eww! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 21:10:16 [Permalink]
|
You were looking at things through binoculars? There is a commonly missed concept with optics, chromatic aberration. http://www.microscopyu.com/tutorials/java/aberrations/chromatic/ (I never can figure out how to do a link properly, so that its one word rather than the whole address. I picked this one because of the interactive tutorial on axial and lateral aberration.) Additionally, while looking through binoculars are you using the field of vision for reference in movement? Remember that your body continually makes small adjustments in balance, moving the binoculars slightly. Hence, giving the appearance of movement to the object when it is technically 'stationary'. Unless your binoculars are mounted to prevent movement?
Anyway, not discounting the concept of alien, but with our current understanding of physics, one must ask, why a supposedly 'advanced' species would be interested in expending the resourses to cruise by our relatively uninteresting star and do the things of which they are accused? I think I'd rather check out something in terms of a binary system. Definitely different from our boring little corner of the universe.
Did you know that Colorado has a 'hot spot' for UFO activity. It's in a small valley in the mountains that has minimal light pollution affecting visibility. People go out there and see all kinds of UFOs, and they all see the same things. The problem is, that they have very little understanding of what they are seeing because they don't see as much of the night sky in light polluted cities. Several of the astronomy clubs in CO go out there for star parties, simply because they've set up platforms for telescopes and etc. It's set up really nice for star gazing.
I would guess that part of it is, you saw something you couldn't explain once, so you began looking for other unexplainable things and found them. Whether you did this consciously or not is irrelevant. You are actively looking for the unusual in the night sky and finding it. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 21:26:27 [Permalink]
|
Posted by Pat:
... already adressed. if you knew a bit about quantum physics, my silliness wouldnt seem quite so silly after all. i dont have any problems dealing with reality, its just that since science cant address it all, its up to me from then on out. i have an adequate grasp of science. science does not dictate reality. reality dictates science ...
If you have an adequate grasp of science, perhaps your grasp of probability is lacking. What aspect of quantum mechanics relates to this, and how? Please explain. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 21:55:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey...
you are throwing out the hundreds of thousands of reports of experiences identical, or similar, to mine. this would lead me to decline that possibility.
Are you suggesting that hundreds of thousands of people have seen things that they aren't able to explain, therefore those people must have seen extraterrestrial or high tech governmental craft? If so, what is it about "no evidence" that leads you to that conclusion?quote:
one in six billion is astronomical whether or not five other people are having the experience. i have no history of hallucinigenic experiences.
The point is we have substantiated evidence, testable and repeatable, showing that people can, and do, experience hallucinations. We don't know what you saw that night, or what those "hundreds of thousands" of other people saw. But there are at least a few possibilities that fall fully within the realms of what we know and understand. Is it more reasonable to guess that their sightings, and yours, are the result of some of these things we do know, or more reasonable to guess these sightings are creatures from space cruising around in our skies?
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 22:26:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
Don't worry, "La lune ne garde aucune rancune"
Thanks, nice to know there is no grudge. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 23:03:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
"Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous."
i am certain that we are not alone in the universe. call me ridiculous. i am certain that my mother loves me, and that theres not a bounty on my head. call me ridiculous.
I'm also pretty confident that life exists elsewhere in the universe. I don't consider that ridiculous, but probable. But it's a VERY large step from there to them visiting us.
quote:
"One of the most important answer in science is: I don't know...You saw something unusual, of unknown origin. Why don't you settle for I don't know as an answer?"
because i have seen too many of these things to pass it off to the i-dont-know box. if you have seen what i have seen, you wouldnt settle for "i dont know". the possibilities are much more interesting.
Do these things you have seen always behaved in the the same manner? At least one of your descriptions sounds like it could have been a meteor, but since I wasn't there, I can't say for sure. If they have behaved differently, how can you say they are the same thing?
quote:
"The visitation of extra-terrestrials certainly have a major impact on how we view our world, thus the evidence have to be as extraordinary."
When I read this quote I realise that I've made a writing error. It should have read: "The visitation of extra-terrestrials certainly would have a major impact on how we view our world, thus the evidence have to be as extraordinary."
quote:
wrong. extraterrestrials are not a theory.
No they are not. quote:
they are not a principle, a law of physics, or a state of matter.
You didn't get my point... I don't know why, perhaps I wasn't making myself clear enough.
The existence of Extra-Terrestrials by itself wouldn't change much other than confirm our suspicion that emergence of life is fairly common. That they actually came here, to Earth, in vessels that seem to defy the physical laws as we know them, that would be a sensation. It would prove to us that much of what we know about physics are misconceptions.
quote:
they are, by definition, knowing, thinking, discerning indivduals who will react to us in a manner that is not predictible, not measureable, not classifiable.
That's just speculation on your part though, since you have never met any of them.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Patrick Hennessey
New Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 23:28:43 [Permalink]
|
"You were looking at things through binoculars?"
when did i say that?
"one must ask, why a supposedly 'advanced' species would be interested in expending the resourses to cruise by our relatively uninteresting star and do the things of which they are accused? I think I'd rather check out something in terms of a binary system. Definitely different from our boring little corner of the universe."
your presumtion as to the motives of a hitherto undiscovered alien species borders on abject arrogance. what could you possibly know, or claim to know, about an intelligent alien civilization and their purported interest in us and our planet? we are not excited about this planet because WE live here. its old news. maybe we have ancestors out there. maybe our life forms are unique. maybe theyre taking genetic samples. who knows? this is not a valid excuse for disbelieving.
"I would guess that part of it is, you saw something you couldn't explain once, so you began looking for other unexplainable things and found them. Whether you did this consciously or not is irrelevant. You are actively looking for the unusual in the night sky and finding it."
Lucky for me your guess is totally off. activelly looking for the unusual does not guarantee that i will find something. in fact, i rarely, if ever, seek these things out. they have always (with one exception) blindsided me.
the first thing i saw was an amorphous glowing ring coast across the sky, and i was indeed interested. the next oddity was a triangle of lights (id just as soon call them stars, and thats what they looked like) moving in perfect unison, the stars betwen them unobstructed (i.e. three distinct lights several arcminutes apart). the list goes on. ive seen about twelve or so questionable things in the sky, not all of which i absolutely believe are extraterrestrial.
"What aspect of quantum mechanics relates to this, and how? Please explain."
Particles come and go in the fabric of space. quantum particles are, according to theory, waves, until there is an observer to look at it. some particles can be photographed to be in two places at once. at such small scales, the laws of physics break down, begging the question as to how "real" our percieved reality really is. its mostly empty space, as matter is quite insubstantial. i was getting at the vagueness of reality at this level, which was not directly related to this conversation, but was related to my comments on perception and its role in science.
"Are you suggesting that hundreds of thousands of people have seen things that they aren't able to explain, therefore those people must have seen extraterrestrial or high tech governmental craft? If so, what is it about "no evidence" that leads you to that conclusion?"
has you bothered to take a look at ufo footage available in a wide variety of videos or internet sites? call me crazy, but isnt video documentation evidence? perhaps you will understand why i have drawn a conclusion when you consider the plethora of photographic/video evidence and testimonials i have come in contact with.
"Is it more reasonable to guess that their sightings, and yours, are the result of some of these things we do know, or more reasonable to guess these sightings are creatures from space cruising around in our skies?"
an isolated incident is one case. repeated sightings that happen everywhere on the earth is, reasonably speaking, the result of some of these things we dont know. creatures? maybe. ball lighting? c'mon.
there are more than enough resources, conferences, associations, books, videos, websites, photographs and documents for you to pore over. stick your neck out a bit and seek out an answer contrary to your opinion. i have been on several "skeptic" sites, read hundreds (can you believe it?) of ariticles against the case for ET visitation. they all have one thing in common: they dont directly address the available evidence. they stick to armchair skepticism and balk about how improbable the distances are, or that we arent interesting so why would they visit...etc etc.. on some rare occasion, an actual study is done on the cases of reported sightings. in these scenerios, the results are usually the same: most sightings are explainable by some conventional method, but about 10% remain unexplained. this isnt always the case, but 10% is the average.
the wikipedia definition of UFO has a lot of good information, with a great deal of links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO
i recommend MUFON.com and ufoskeptic.com (of course i recommend them, as they more or less support my point).
if there is more debating to be had, i wont have much more to say, as im burnt out on typing.
my be all end all statement on the matter is this: it remains largely unexplained, and skeptics owe it to themselves and others to dig for clues, and find out for themselves, rather than deciding outright that it is not worth serious investigation. the implications are too severe to overlook. i am not a lunatic for making up my mind about it. it is a reasoned reaction to my experiences, which are all i or anyone else has. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
