|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 08/06/2007 : 19:28:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
On Fire for Christ.....(try Kool Aid ??)
A simple method is to take several hours, Google UFO's,and proceed to sort the wheat from the chaff. You will quickly learn many ways to narrow your search. There is a considerable amount of printed material, some out of print and not referenced on the Internet, but this requires a substantive time investment in a large public library
|
Oh, I see. So you can't actually reference anything for us? We're supposed to find what it is you want us to talk about on our own after a few hours' searching? Aren't you writing a book on the subject? Shouldn't you have something to go on here? |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 19:33:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck...
I refer only to the small but significant number of highly documented sightings of UFO aerial phenomena reported by large groups of ordinary people, groups of professional military or police, sightings verified by multiple radar trackings, groups of military pilots or astronauts; and those cases thoroughly examined by Condon et al, Project Blue Book, and other serious investigations, and NOT rejected as hoax or hallucinatory.
[...]
The most striking examples of mass perception of UFOs consist of hundreds of observers dispersed over a wide geographical area - an entire large city, for example - not a cohesive "crowd" of people gathered together at one specific place.
[...]
There have been numerous cases where large numbers of observers at widely disparate locations described remarkably similar phenomena.
[...]
In most of the reports that I have read, information has been collected over a period of days and weeks, not months or years.
Your comment regarding the need or desire for identification with a famous or unusual event is well taken. I am certain that this has happened to some degree in many, but probably not most of the reported incidents. Incidentally, in these kind of "mass sightings" a large percentage of the information was spontaneously volunteered, and recorded, not obtained by interview. |
How about you describe some of these particular situations. Provide links to more detailed information about each.
| A simple method is to take several hours, Google UFO's,and proceed to sort the wheat from the chaff. You will quickly learn many ways to narrow your search. |
It's your concern, bngbuck. Sort the wheat from the chaff for us. Most of us will follow a few links if you care to provide some, but we'll not likely invest several hours studying Google links to UFO's. After all, there are 38,000,000 hits on "ufo", 5,400,000 hits on "ufos", and 1,500,000 hits on "ufo's".
| There is a considerable amount of printed material, some out of print and not referenced on the Internet, but this requires a substantive time investment in a large public library |
It seems you've already assembled a base of information which you'd like to use as the examples for your monograph. Why don't you just be specific about the incidents in question and the sources of your information?
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 19:44:20 [Permalink]
|
I have not yet found examples where hundreds of people agreed in fine detail as to what they saw. I doubt if that is forthcoming. However, it is not quite as bad as the blind men and the elephant analogy. There have been numerous cases where large numbers of observers at widely disparate locations described remarkably similar phenomena.
|
I can't seem to find the exact part of the book, but I believe in The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan, he talks about the influence of the media on what people report as UFOs. For example, the first report of a "flying saucer" was actually a mistake. It was described as flying like a saucer, not looking like one. However, as soon as this hit the media, reports from all over started coming in about flying saucers. He also talks about the media and how people report what aliens look like based upon their depictions in the most recent Hollywood movies.
In short, there is an imagine in society as to what an alien or spacecraft looks like and does. We all know it. This is how such similar descriptions are possible. But even as such, many are contradicting. It'd make for an interesting sociological study, yes, but paranormal phenomena? Hardly. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 20:05:03 [Permalink]
|
GeeMack.....
Thank you for your comment on conjuring. My current focus is on UFOs, but I have a rough outline for the chapter on Magic, Conjuring, and Illusion. In brief, I am impressed by the sagacity of Arthur Clarke's
"law" to the effect that "any significantly advanced technology is indisdinguishable from magic".
Advanced technology does not purport to "intentionally create the appearance of a very particular occurance" Most technology is developed to advance knowledge, solve problems, make difficult tasks easier, etc., not to create appearances.
I did not intend to convey an idea of completely identical perceptions on the part of a large number of observers by using the term "mass perception". Only a high degree of similarity. Also, those cognizant of the conjurors art will perceive illusions markedly differently than will laymen. High technology certainly occurs by design and with the intent of the technologist.
I think you can see how some of these concepts may relate to UFO sightings, perhaps even certain "religious visions" |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 20:34:53 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist(Halfmooner thinks you have an axe to grind).....
The best way to satisfy your curiosity is to follow the advice I gave On Fire for Christ (not the KoolAid, the Go to Google). I am certain that after a few hours sorting out shit from Shinola, you will have a great deal of opinion to give me. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 20:39:38 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner (you're faster than you would like me to think).....
Thanks for the warning, but my mid has been cutoff proofed for years. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 20:58:29 [Permalink]
|
Moakley.....
My chapter on religious visions is way down the pike, but it sounds like The Miracle of the Sun qualifies for inclusion. Oddly enough, it appears that there is a considerable amount of source material in Eastern religious cultures never exposed to Catholicism. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 21:00:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Cuneiformist(Halfmooner thinks you have an axe to grind).....
The best way to satisfy your curiosity is to follow the advice I gave On Fire for Christ (not the KoolAid, the Go to Google). I am certain that after a few hours sorting out shit from Shinola, you will have a great deal of opinion to give me.
|
Here starteth the lesson.
You have made assertions. They are unsourced. You have told us to Google it. This is attempting to shift the burden of proof (in essence to do your homework for you) to us. This is logically invalid. You are the claimant, the burden of proof is on you.
Produce links and/or book references to support your assertations, please. If you are unwilling or unable to, do not be surprised if we consider your assertations the southbound product of a northbound male bovine. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 21:10:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by bngbuck
Cuneiformist(Halfmooner thinks you have an axe to grind).....
The best way to satisfy your curiosity is to follow the advice I gave On Fire for Christ (not the KoolAid, the Go to Google). I am certain that after a few hours sorting out shit from Shinola, you will have a great deal of opinion to give me.
|
Here starteth the lesson.
You have made assertions. They are unsourced. You have told us to Google it. This is attempting to shift the burden of proof (in essence to do your homework for you) to us. This is logically invalid. You are the claimant, the burden of proof is on you.
Produce links and/or book references to support your assertations, please. If you are unwilling or unable to, do not be surprised if we consider your assertations the southbound product of a northbound male bovine.
|
Indeed, that's the way skeptical critical thinking works. State your extraordinary claims unambiguously, support them with evidence, prepare to be annihilated, or maybe to even have your conjectures accepted.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 21:19:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck...
Also, those cognizant of the conjurors art will perceive illusions markedly differently than will laymen. |
No, they will not, not in regards to people's perceptions of what they see. Both the magician and the non-magician will clearly realize the visual effect is a ball vanishing or a lady floating or a torn newspaper being restored. Both the magician and the non-magician are fully aware that the ball doesn't really vanish, the lady doesn't really defy gravity, and the newspaper doesn't actually transcend the laws of physics and become whole again after being torn to pieces. The difference is that usually the magician knows the method and the layman doesn't. Typically both understand how the performer intended the audience to perceive the effect, and typically neither believe it to be real magic.
| I think you can see how some of these concepts may relate to UFO sightings, perhaps even certain "religious visions" |
I understand very much about how people perceive what they see. I've studied it for decades. And there may be some relationship between how people perceive a magic trick and how people perceive an unidentified light moving across the sky. Unfortunately, considering what you've written so far, it doesn't appear you know enough about the conjurers' arts to make a valid connection.
But I'm happy to help you understand. Tell you what, go Google magic, illusion, the psychology of deception, and similar subjects. Spend a couple years, maybe five, sorting the wheat from the chaff. Then you might have enough of a handle on the art of magic to actually know what you're talking about.
Oh, and you've misunderstood the relationship between magic and technology in the Arthur Clarke quote, too.
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 21:29:13 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
I would say, in each case, that those people saw an unidentified flying object.
Thank you for the first post expressing an opinion that those people saw something real. I feel that this is genuine progress - to have a professed skeptic (albeit an evil one)admit that he/she felt that all was not hallucination, error or a non-event.
I feel my work today has been vindicated.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 22:03:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck...
Thank you for the first post expressing an opinion that those people saw something real. I feel that this is genuine progress - to have a professed skeptic (albeit an evil one)admit that he/she felt that all was not hallucination, error or a non-event.
I feel my work today has been vindicated. |
Of course Kil was only suggesting that if a lot of people saw something and couldn't identify it, it was unidentified. Duh. You actually find some vindication in that? Nearly all skeptics will agree that if a group of people saw something real, it was something real. No amazing revelation there.
By the way, bngbuck, your topic of this thread is "Opinions regarding select UFO sightings". Why is it that so far you've refused to describe a single, select UFO sighting?
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 22:36:03 [Permalink]
|
I do not see bngbuck attempting to claim that UFOs exist, that is, convince us of their extraterrestrial origin. Instead, I see him trying to get our perspective on what is the cause behind UFO sightings, specifically ones where multiple observers agree on what they saw. If this is the case, then I would request that people stop asking him to back up his non-existent claims. If it is not, could you point out where I overlooked?
Originally posted by bngbuck
Kil.....
I would say, in each case, that those people saw an unidentified flying object.
Thank you for the first post expressing an opinion that those people saw something real. I feel that this is genuine progress - to have a professed skeptic (albeit an evil one)admit that he/she felt that all was not hallucination, error or a non-event.
I feel my work today has been vindicated.
|
I have to say I'm a bit shocked. I have yet to meet one person, let alone one skeptic, who doesn't think that UFO sightings are at least partially caused by some unknown (to the observer) physical phenomena. I've got to ask, who are these other skeptics you are talking to? Perhaps you misunderstood them? |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 08/06/2007 23:42:50 |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2007 : 22:38:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
I have not yet found examples where hundreds of people agreed in fine detail as to what they saw. I doubt if that is forthcoming. However, it is not quite as bad as the blind men and the elephant analogy. There have been numerous cases where large numbers of observers at widely disparate locations described remarkably similar phenomena.
|
I can't seem to find the exact part of the book, but I believe in The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan, he talks about the influence of the media on what people report as UFOs. For example, the first report of a "flying saucer" was actually a mistake. It was described as flying like a saucer, not looking like one. However, as soon as this hit the media, reports from all over started coming in about flying saucers. He also talks about the media and how people report what aliens look like based upon their depictions in the most recent Hollywood movies.
In short, there is an imagine in society as to what an alien or spacecraft looks like and does. We all know it. This is how such similar descriptions are possible. But even as such, many are contradicting. It'd make for an interesting sociological study, yes, but paranormal phenomena? Hardly.
|
I recently saw a photograph of the guy who made that first report standing beside a drawing of what he claimed he saw (sorry no link - I can't remember where it was). They looked like boomerangs and he described them as moving like a saucer skipping across water. (you would think alien scapecraft would fly better than this - what was going - pilot induced oscillations?) During the early 20th century, nearly all sightings described cigar shaped objects. According to Joe Nickell, aliens became standardized after the Barney and Betty Hill "abduction", prior to that they came in all shapes and sizes and a long time ago it was faeries that were doing the abducting. As you say - an interesting sociological study. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Opinions regarding select UFO sightings
Topic Locked
