The Bogosity Forum

The Show => Future Episodes => Topic started by: Real Captain Olimar on November 27, 2008, 12:04:49 PM

Title: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: Real Captain Olimar on November 27, 2008, 12:04:49 PM
Do I really need to explain?
Title: Re: Aliens
Post by: MrBogosity on November 27, 2008, 12:38:28 PM
Um, yes. The idea that aliens probably exist is not bogosity. The idea that intelligent aliens could exist is not bogosity. The idea that we could find them (a la SETI) is not bogosity.

So, are you just talking about UFOs, or something else?
Title: Re: Aliens
Post by: BZ987654 on December 10, 2008, 08:53:46 PM
I think Alien abduction would be a good one. Although I agree, the idea of aliens, possibly intelligent aliens, and finding them is not bogosity.
Title: Re: Aliens
Post by: Real Captain Olimar on December 11, 2008, 09:01:30 PM
Um, yes. The idea that aliens probably exist is not bogosity. The idea that intelligent aliens could exist is not bogosity. The idea that we could find them (a la SETI) is not bogosity.

So, are you just talking about UFOs, or something else?

just debunk the bogus stuff about aliens.
Title: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: Ex_Nihil0 on January 03, 2009, 11:39:17 PM
The great Lary King sets up Bill Nye with some rather insulting ufologis crackpots.  None of them can handle any review of any kind with out resorting to insults and false claims of ad hominem attacks from Bill.

Check it out and you'll see how these guys are bogus.

Http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=4x84QrZxRKE

See all four parts or watch the short version:
Http//www.YouTube.com/watch?v=YsI1fmOsbt0
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: 11mc22 on January 04, 2009, 12:59:24 AM
check this out

http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1258730
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: MrBogosity on January 04, 2009, 09:31:44 AM
Geez...if THAT'S evidence of alien intervention, then aliens have been messing with my computers ever since I've owned one!
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: Ex_Nihil0 on January 05, 2009, 07:33:23 PM
The gray aliens must have gone nuts during the development of vista.

But Shane, we have proof in a CIA storage facility run by the 32 degree Free Massons! I heard this on Coast 2 Coast with a special guest from a degree mill.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: Andy120290 on January 05, 2009, 07:58:11 PM
I saw the movie Independence Day! Damn it, I thought that was a documentary.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: IceSage on January 06, 2009, 02:02:46 AM
I briefly was about to say something about Bill Nye not being an actual scientist... But I was thinking of Beakman from "Beakman's World." I'm pretty sure Beakman was just an actor for television.

Without wiki'ing it, someone clarify it for me and tell me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: MrBogosity on January 06, 2009, 06:03:35 AM
Paul Zaloom (Beakman) was just an actor. Bill Nye has an honorary PhD, so he's not a "real" scientist, but closer to one than Zaloom.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: Tom S. Fox on January 08, 2009, 05:15:19 PM
He is also closer to one than Kent Hovind.

But then again, I am closer to being a scientist than Kent Hovind is.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: BZ987654 on January 08, 2009, 10:58:45 PM
He is also closer to one than Kent Hovind.

But then again, I am closer to being a scientist than Kent Hovind is.

Most of the world is closer to being scientists than Kent Hovind.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: MrBogosity on January 08, 2009, 11:01:44 PM
A lobotomized cow with BSE is closer to being a scientist than Kent Hovind is.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: Tom S. Fox on January 09, 2009, 10:01:20 AM
Did you just call me a lobotomized cow with BSE?
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: MrBogosity on January 09, 2009, 12:36:08 PM
How do you know I did that? Maybe I called a lobotomized cow with BSE Tom Fox!
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: Tom S. Fox on January 09, 2009, 12:40:42 PM
Yeah, but that would be a compliment for the cow!
For me, however, it is an insult!
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: Real Captain Olimar on January 10, 2009, 11:47:07 AM
The gray aliens must have gone nuts during the development of vista.

Oh, and not purple aliens, or green aliens, or ultraviolet or infrared aliens, or even RAINBOW aliens?!
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: Sinlingual on January 11, 2009, 07:44:22 AM
I think we can all agree that everyone in the world except real captain olimar is more qualified to be a scientist than kent hovind
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: Tom S. Fox on January 11, 2009, 08:55:06 AM
I know I do!
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: IceSage on January 12, 2009, 02:08:30 AM
I think we can all agree that everyone in the world except real captain olimar is more qualified to be a scientist than kent hovind

Nope, even RCO is more qualified than Kent Hovind.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: Real Captain Olimar on January 12, 2009, 07:24:54 AM
Nope, even RCO is more qualified than Kent Hovind.

Now, a global flood is impossible,the longest recorded lifespan on Earth is MILLIONS OF YEARS, and Hovind is, as Bill Cosby put it, "A big, fat, stinky doo-doo head!"
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: Tom S. Fox on January 12, 2009, 10:41:52 AM
Nope, even RCO is more qualified than Kent Hovind.

I seriously doubt this!
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: Real Captain Olimar on January 15, 2009, 07:32:52 PM
I seriously doubt this!
did you see what i put there?
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: Tom S. Fox on January 15, 2009, 07:48:04 PM
Yes, and I am not impressed.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: JaquesPlafond on July 09, 2009, 07:58:05 PM
Hi all,

First of all, i do enjoy all the bogosity episodes, especially the ones on the so-called moon-hoaxes.

So i decided to go and have a look at this forum, and found this topic, which i think is really interesting. I suppose this forum is frequented by a lot of people who call themselves 'skeptics', and usually that includes skepticism towards the subject of UFO's.

I thought the Larry King episode was really interesting. Here we have a bunch of former airforce personnel on a nuclear missile site, and they claim that a UFO was hovering over the base as several of the silos go out.

Here's a recap of the event:

In central Montana, Thursday morning March 16 1967, the E-Flight Missile Combat Crew was below ground in the Echo-Flight Launch Control Center (LCC) or capsule. During the early morning hours, more than one report came in from security patrols and maintenance crews that they had seen UFOs. A UFO was reported directly above one of the E-Flight Launch Facilities (LF) or silos. It turned out that at least one security policeman was so frightened by this encounter that he never again returned to security duty.

A short time later, the Deputy Crew Commander (DMCCC), a 1st Lieutenant, was briefing the Crew Commander (MCCC), a Captain, on the flight status when the alarm horn sounded. Over the next half-minute, all ten of their missiles reported a "No-Go" condition. One by one across the board, each missile had became inoperable,

From there on, as an ex-Missileer describes it: "All Hell broke loose!" Among the many calls to and from the E-Flight LCC one was to the MCCC of November-Flight which links to the equally dramatic story of what happened in another LCC that same morning.

In this case we have shutdown of strategic nuclear missiles coincident with UFO sighting over a missile silo! These were missiles lost to America's nuclear deterrent forces.


And here comes Bill Nye, who shows his complete ignorance when he suggests that there was a power-outage coinciding with whatever it was that caused the people at the base to see the UFO. Then he makes the classic mistake (when it comes to pathological UFO-skeptics anyway) of putting words in the mouth of the witnesses by stating that 'a lot of people see somthing that they can't identify, and they think it's an alien spaceship'. This is the typical red herring a lot of these skeptics come up qith.. in fact, what these airforce people are saying is that a weird flying light showed up and powerded down the missile silo's.. Now you tell me who or what could have done that in 1967.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: MrBogosity on July 09, 2009, 10:11:22 PM
Those very same people have said repeatedly that it's an alien spaceship. Nye knew that. They only played that "we never said that" card because they knew they were caught, and had to discredit Nye somehow. But they are very much on record as believing this.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: JaquesPlafond on July 09, 2009, 11:12:50 PM
Well, that may or may not be the case. The point i'd like to make that the interpretation of the event by the witnesses doesn't really matter too much. Nye and other skeptics use the 'alien spaceship' card all the time because it makes UFO proponents look like looney tunes.

What's important here is that -something- caused a 'no-go' situation in 10 missile silo's (which have triple redundancy when it comes to power) while there's something weird hovering over the base. Nye wants you to believe that it was just because of all those people misperceiving things, someone allegedly having a drink too many, and/or a 'normal' power outage (in several silos at the same time, with said triple redundancy), but if you look into the case a bit more deeply, you'll soon find that it's a bit more complicated than that.

Anyway.. doesn't it strike you as odd that a poorly informed 'skeptic' who wasn't a witness to the case is supposed to provide an explanation to this whole thing? Before he utters his opinions, he had better familiarize himself with the data before spewing his generalisations and making a fool of himself.

In fact, i suggest you read the following carefully, so at leats you're informed: http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: MrBogosity on July 10, 2009, 07:09:19 AM
If you knew anything at all about skepticism, you'd know how incredibly unreliable eyewitness testimony is.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: JaquesPlafond on July 10, 2009, 07:43:29 AM
I'm all for scepticism.. of the healthy kind that is. It's the kind of dogmatic skepticism as displayed by the likes of Jim Oberg, James McGaha (dumbest of them all), the late Phill Klass, Bill Nye (not too smart either)etc that i have a problem with.

To illustrate what i mean i guess this clip makkes the point pretty well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSkXYmExOnA
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: MrBogosity on July 10, 2009, 10:01:50 AM
"How do you know they were connected?"

"Because we couldn't see stars between them!"

Same answer as to the moon hoaxers: stars are DIM. Lights like that of ANY brightness will wash them out.

"It was a mile south of our house."

It is IMPOSSIBLE to judge such a distance visually. People see meteors all the time that seem to fall right near where they live when they really fall hundreds of miles away.

Etc. They were making BASIC mistakes, and THEY were the ones attacking HIM for pointing it out! THEY'RE the ones that are dogmatic, NOT him!!!
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: JaquesPlafond on July 10, 2009, 12:16:22 PM
It was also THEY who observed the object, so to state that they make MISTAKES in their observations is unwarranted, since it was THEM making the observations, not YOU, nor McGaha. What makes you so sure they were making mistakes?

And you gotta love his question whether they are qualified observers.. lol.. who exactly would he deem to be a 'qualified observer'?

Now if you want to make a proper qualification of whatever happened in Stephenville, you'll have to deal with ALL the data.. not just a sweeping statement like 'the witnesses were making mistakes in their observations'. They may very well have, but the point is that once again SOMETHING was observed by multiple witnesses, independant of eachother, and it also showed up on radar. So the question is: what was it? What does the data tell you? you'd have to apply the scientific method to cases like this, not make sweeping statements that disqualifies the data before you even look at it.


This is what Watson (one of the witnesses) said: WATSON: 'It was probably like a mile south of our house. My two brothers and I witnessed, it was a V-shaped, like boomerang shaped, and it kind of like kind went in a little bit and then it was gone. There was no fumes. There was no evidence'.

So he's estimating it to be a mile.. Despite your statement, i think you can actually make an estimation of how far an object is from an observer. You can tell the difference between an object that's 10 miles away from you and an object that's 1 mile away from you. There's all sorts of factors at play here. I wouldn't compare observing a gigantic object flying around in your neighbourhood to meteors flashing through the atmosphere, and hopefully i don't have to explain why that is a silly comparison.

As for the connectedness of the object.. the object was flying straight over that witnesses house, and took several minutes to do so. This means they had the time to have a good look at it, and they looked straight up at it, and to them it looked like it was blocking out the stars. Your theory that the lights were washing out the stars is just a theory.. It could be the case, but it's still just an assumption on your part. In fact, your statement that lights of ANY brightness will wash out stars is just plain wrong. I've seen many things (such as satllites, the ISS, airplanes) fly past stars (visually) at night, and they didn't wash out the stars. It takes quite a bright object to do that to any meaningful extent.



I suggest you have a look at the full report of this case, so at least you have a grasp of it's depth and magnitude. The entire MUFON report can be found here: http://www.mufon.com/documents/MUFONStephenvilleRadarReport.pdf

McGaha disqualifies pilots as good observers.. maybe Astronomers would qualify? After all, they make their career watching and identifying things in the sky. Anyway, as a little extra, here is a list of astronomers 'seeing things' http://www.scribd.com/doc/16805639/A-List-of-UFO-Sightings-by-Astronomers
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: MrBogosity on July 10, 2009, 01:58:10 PM
It was also THEY who observed the object, so to state that they make MISTAKES in their observations is unwarranted,

FAR from unwarranted, it's PROBABLE! We know that these are EXACTLY the kinds of mistakes people make. Unless you're going to start siding with the moon hoaxers, too?

Quote
And you gotta love his question whether they are qualified observers.. lol.. who exactly would he deem to be a 'qualified observer'?

Meaning, understanding enough about the sky to be able to identify most of the known phenomena, as well as knowing things that can cause observations to go awry, like the examples I gave.

Quote
They may very well have, but the point is that once again SOMETHING was observed by multiple witnesses, independant of eachother, and it also showed up on radar.

No one is questioning that SOMETHING was there. The only argument is WHAT. Look at how adamant they were that it could NOT be several objects, that it could NOT be further away than they thought, etc. This makes their evaluations extremely unreliable at best!

Quote
This is what Watson (one of the witnesses) said: WATSON: 'It was probably like a mile south of our house.

Again, there's no way to judge these kinds of distances visually.

Quote
My two brothers and I witnessed, it was a V-shaped, like boomerang shaped,

Based on the fact that they couldn't see the stars between them, which I have already debunked. Also, things flying in a V-formation are hardly unknown.

Quote
So he's estimating it to be a mile.. Despite your statement, i think you can actually make an estimation of how far an object is from an observer.

Go download the latest Atheist Experience podcast (2009-07-05). Listen to Tracie's story about seeing a meteor and how she COMPLETELY underestimated the size and distance. This is a KNOWN PHENOMENON! We underestimate distances in the "up" direction. THIS (and not the bogus explanation about comparing it to objects) is the reason why the moon appears bigger on the horizon: we see it as the same area in our FOV, but interpret it as being further away than we do when it's overhead.

Quote
You can tell the difference between an object that's 10 miles away from you and an object that's 1 mile away from you.

NO, YOU, CAN, NOT!!! In fact, really the ONLY way to tell distance is with either sonar/radar type equipment, or with multiple observers recording it from multiple locations (photogrammetry). You CANNOT TELL IT BY LOOKING! NO ONE can!!!

Quote
There's all sorts of factors at play here. I wouldn't compare observing a gigantic object flying around in your neighbourhood to meteors flashing through the atmosphere, and hopefully i don't have to explain why that is a silly comparison.

Except that it's NOT silly, for reasons I've pointed out.

Quote
Your theory that the lights were washing out the stars is just a theory.

No, it's a CERTAINTY. The stars are DIM. The DARK part of the moon is brighter than the brightest star!

Quote
McGaha disqualifies pilots as good observers.. maybe Astronomers would qualify? After all, they make their career watching and identifying things in the sky. Anyway, as a little extra, here is a list of astronomers 'seeing things' http://www.scribd.com/doc/16805639/A-List-of-UFO-Sightings-by-Astronomers

Yes, well, why aren't MORE of them seeing things? Why do they see things to a MUCH SMALLER degree than ordinary people do?
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: JaquesPlafond on July 10, 2009, 03:13:49 PM
FAR from unwarranted, it's PROBABLE! We know that these are EXACTLY the kinds of mistakes people make. Unless you're going to start siding with the moon hoaxers, too?

Unless there was really something there which fits their description, as is likely because several witnesses independently describe the same object. And no, your attempts to connect me to the moonhoax people aren't going to work. In journalism this is known as smear-journalism, or yellow journalism. I hope you don't feel the need to keep on doing it.

Quote
Meaning, understanding enough about the sky to be able to identify most of the known phenomena, as well as knowing things that can cause observations to go awry, like the examples I gave.

Well, you seem to have different criteria than McGaha does then.. he disqualifies pilots as good observers.. one should expect that they are familiar with most known phenomena one is likely to observe in the sky, since they spend their entire career there.

Quote
No one is questioning that SOMETHING was there. The only argument is WHAT. Look at how adamant they were that it could NOT be several objects, that it could NOT be further away than they thought, etc. This makes their evaluations extremely unreliable at best!

Well, could their being adamant on what it's NOT be due to their having seen something other than the other theories offered?

Quote
Again, there's no way to judge these kinds of distances visually.

Based on the fact that they couldn't see the stars between them, which I have already debunked. Also, things flying in a V-formation are hardly unknown.

Go download the latest Atheist Experience podcast (2009-07-05). Listen to Tracie's story about seeing a meteor and how she COMPLETELY underestimated the size and distance. This is a KNOWN PHENOMENON! We underestimate distances in the "up" direction. THIS (and not the bogus explanation about comparing it to objects) is the reason why the moon appears bigger on the horizon: we see it as the same area in our FOV, but interpret it as being further away than we do when it's overhead.

NO, YOU, CAN, NOT!!! In fact, really the ONLY way to tell distance is with either sonar/radar type equipment, or with multiple observers recording it from multiple locations (photogrammetry). You CANNOT TELL IT BY LOOKING! NO ONE can!!!

Not a precise evaluation you can't. But you can estimate the distance of an object. The witness stated that it was about a mile away, indicating that is wasn't terribly close, nor was it extremely far away. maybe it was 2 miles, or even 20 miles (which would make it a gigantic thing), but that's not the point. The point is that the statement of it being about a mile away illustrates what it looked like to the witness.. it gives a feel of the perceived distance. To me that gives me a mental image of what was observed, and i think that's the point of such a statement.

Quote
Except that it's NOT silly, for reasons I've pointed out.

Well, looks like evolution equipped us with stereoscopic vision and holophonic perception of sound in vain then.

Quote
No, it's a CERTAINTY. The stars are DIM. The DARK part of the moon is brighter than the brightest star!

You mean you don't see stars next to where a satellite might be flying? Or an airplane? Sure, straight on landinglights will wash out a few nearby stars, and theoretically fainter objects might do so too.. it all depends on the brightness of the lights, the configuration, weather conditions, etc. Your THEORY is that the brightness of the lights were the singular cause of the stars being blocked, but OBJECTS (one might assume that the light was attached to an object) also have a tendency of blocking light.. The question then is: what was the object, and how big was it, and (if applicable) whose object was it?

Quote
Yes, well, why aren't MORE of them seeing things? Why do they see things to a MUCH SMALLER degree than ordinary people do?

What's your basis for that assumption? Did you actualy see the list? I thought it was pretty big!

Also, you have to keep in mind that only a very small percentage of people actually report anomalous sightings (UFO's). One reason for that is the giggle-factor (thanks to the media and the 'skeptics' ridiculing UFO-witnesses whenever they can), and these people often have a career, so the last thing they need is to become 'Joe the UFO-guy'. Often it means professional suicide. Despite this, there's still that list of courageous people (in this case astronomers) who did report whatever it is they saw.

Another factor is that they are actually what McGaha would call 'qualified observers', so they're less likely to misperceive other phenomenae as UFO's. Truth be told, a lot of people aren't familiar with celestial events, so a LOT (like 95%) of 'ufo sightings' are actually known stuff. So astronomers are more likely to report genuine UFO's (in the literal sense, doesn't mean they're spaceships from Zargon, even though they might ;) )

Here's a video with a host of FAA recordings of pilots 'seeing things'. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4398747992022736462

Enjoy :)
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: MrBogosity on July 10, 2009, 03:55:36 PM
Unless there was really something there which fits their description, as is likely because several witnesses independently describe the same object.

No, they describe the same SIGHT. What it was--including whether or not it was one or many objects--is, without more hard evidence, a matter of interpretation.

Quote
And no, your attempts to connect me to the moonhoax people aren't going to work.

But they make the EXACT SAME CLAIM!!!

Quote
he disqualifies pilots as good observers.

There's nothing that shows that they are.

Quote
Well, could their being adamant on what it's NOT be due to their having seen something other than the other theories offered?

Except that as I have shown, there is no way they could have made a proper evaluation. They don't have video from multiple angles that can verify the distance. They don't have cameras made with the right settings to show the background stars. They don't have ANYTHING they need to support that assertion.

Quote
But you can estimate the distance of an object.

NO YOU CANNOT!!! If you KNOW the distance you can estimate its size, and vice-versa, but they're trying to DETERMINE BOTH!!! That CANNOT BE DONE!!!

And the WHOLE reason they were saying it had to be a single object (aside from the bogus stars bit) was because the lights stayed in the same place relative to each other without drifting; but of the objects in formation were further away than they thought, then any drift would not be noticeable!

Quote
Well, looks like evolution equipped us with stereoscopic vision and holophonic perception of sound in vain then.

Evolution only equipped us to be able to make that determination within 50-100 FEET. Ask ANY optician.

Quote
You mean you don't see stars next to where a satellite might be flying?

A satellite is in ORBIT, you IDIOT!!! It's HUNDREDS of miles away AT A MINIMUM!!!

Quote
Your THEORY is that the brightness of the lights were the singular cause of the stars being blocked, but OBJECTS (one might assume that the light was attached to an object) also have a tendency of blocking light.

Haven't you ever seen two lights coming down the road, and they appeared to switch from being two motorcycles to one car?

Quote
The question then is: what was the object, and how big was it, and (if applicable) whose object was it?

WRONG! We still have to establish that it WAS an object to begin with!!!

Quote
What's your basis for that assumption? Did you actualy see the list? I thought it was pretty big!

Fallacy of numbers. What's the proportion to the TOTAL number of astronomers? And how does that compare to the percentage of the population who has claimed to see UFOs?

Quote
Often it means professional suicide.

Because it's a sign of gross incompetence.

Quote
Another factor is that they are actually what McGaha would call 'qualified observers', so they're less likely to misperceive other phenomenae as UFO's. Truth be told, a lot of people aren't familiar with celestial events, so a LOT (like 95%) of 'ufo sightings' are actually known stuff. So astronomers are more likely to report genuine UFO's (in the literal sense, doesn't mean they're spaceships from Zargon, even though they might ;) )

You're still assuming that there ARE genuine UFOs! YOU SAID IT YOURSELF: they're "less likely to misperceive," but less likely is NOT IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: JaquesPlafond on July 10, 2009, 04:45:50 PM
No, they describe the same SIGHT. What it was--including whether or not it was one or many objects--is, without more hard evidence, a matter of interpretation.

Except that it corroborates RADAR data:

In the MUFON report, we read the following concerning the Radar data:

1: The object that shows up at 6:15pm on radar matches up directionally with what four witnesses saw between about 6:10 and 6:20pm on January 8, 2008

2: The high rate of speed seen by the witnesses from Selden, Chalk Mtn, and Lake Proctor is supported by the radar data, which calculates a minimum mvelocity of 2100 mph. The lack of high velocity in the object from the perspective of the Gorman witness may be due to the point of time that it was observed as the object was seen both stationary and moving at a high rate of speed

3: The object is large. The smallest calculated value of the objects'size was 524 feet. This supports the impression of all witnesses

4: Little can be said about the altitude of the object other than all the calculations indicate that it was of sufficient rate to be detected by primary radar.

This analisys was based on the data from 5 different radar sites.


So what we have here is corrobororative data from eyewitnesses and radar. This data doesn't tell you what was observed, but it does tell you that a big object was observed at those times over Stephenville. I really suggest you have a look at the Mufon report for all the details.

Quote
But they make the EXACT SAME CLAIM!!!

Umm nope.. not quite ;)

Quote
There's nothing that shows that they are.

Well that's your opinion then. I sure hope pilots know what they're doing when they're up there, and that they don't get startled by balloons, swampgas, birds, meteorites, or what have you ;)


Quote
Except that as I have shown, there is no way they could have made a proper evaluation. They don't have video from multiple angles that can verify the distance. They don't have cameras made with the right settings to show the background stars. They don't have ANYTHING they need to support that assertion.

Except there's the corroborative radar data (see mufon report).

Quote
NO YOU CANNOT!!! If you KNOW the distance you can estimate its size, and vice-versa, but they're trying to DETERMINE BOTH!!! That CANNOT BE DONE!!!

And the WHOLE reason they were saying it had to be a single object (aside from the bogus stars bit) was because the lights stayed in the same place relative to each other without drifting; but of the objects in formation were further away than they thought, then any drift would not be noticeable!

That's a possible explanation, but is that really what happened? What do you think those lights were anyway? Airplanes? F16s?

Quote
Evolution only equipped us to be able to make that determination within 50-100 FEET. Ask ANY optician.

Well your claim was that we can't estimate any distance at all.. lol

Seriously, i don't have to ask anyone in a white coat whether i can estimate a distance. When i'm driving my car, i sure can anticipate abjects coming towards me, even if they're more than 100 feet away. The farther they are, the harder it becomes, that's true.

Quote
A satellite is in ORBIT, you IDIOT!!! It's HUNDREDS of miles away AT A MINIMUM!!!

So? It's still a luminous object, right? (well, reflecting light actually).

Quote
Haven't you ever seen two lights coming down the road, and they appeared to switch from being two motorcycles to one car?

Sure. But i've also seen trucks with lights and all blocking other lights.

Quote
WRONG! We still have to establish that it WAS an object to begin with!!!

Maybe YOU still have to do that, but the radar data already did that long ago ;)

Quote
Fallacy of numbers. What's the proportion to the TOTAL number of astronomers? And how does that compare to the percentage of the population who has claimed to see UFOs?

Who cares? The point is that astronomers aren't excempt to seeing what can only be termed as UFO's. In fact they're seen by all walks of life, even by skeptics sometiumes (who then henceforth aren't skeptical about UFO's anymore).

Quote
Because it's a sign of gross incompetence.

That's what the church told Galileo as well.

Quote
You're still assuming that there ARE genuine UFOs! YOU SAID IT YOURSELF: they're "less likely to misperceive," but less likely is NOT IMPOSSIBLE!!!

The fact that they're less likely to misperceive gives weight to their UFO-reports, and also explains why there's likely a lower percentage of them reporting UFO's. Average Joe isn't as familiar with celestial events, and is more likely to report a UFO, hence the fact that about 95% of reported UFO's turns out to be explainable in conventional terms.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: MrBogosity on July 10, 2009, 05:28:56 PM
2: The high rate of speed seen by the witnesses from Selden, Chalk Mtn, and Lake Proctor is supported by the radar data, which calculates a minimum mvelocity of 2100 mph. The lack of high velocity in the object from the perspective of the Gorman witness may be due to the point of time that it was observed as the object was seen both stationary and moving at a high rate of speed

Or it means it was FURTHER AWAY THAN THEY THOUGHT!!!

Quote
3: The object is large. The smallest calculated value of the objects'size was 524 feet. This supports the impression of all witnesses

"Smallest" means IT COULD BE LARGER!!!

Quote
Well that's your opinion then. I sure hope pilots know what they're doing when they're up there, and that they don't get startled by balloons, swampgas, birds, meteorites, or what have you ;)

Then DON'T go and read the reports of pilots who report UFOs that turn out to be explainable meteorological pheonomena. Better to just live in denial...

Quote
That's a possible explanation, but is that really what happened? What do you think those lights were anyway? Airplanes? F16s?

What is it about the answer "I don't know" that completely fails to enter some people's ears???

Quote
Well your claim was that we can't estimate any distance at all.. lol

Never said that. Now you're just lying.

Quote
So? It's still a luminous object, right? (well, reflecting light actually).

Ever heard of the Inverse Law? If an object is twice as far away, it's half as bright!

Quote
Sure.

Then my point is made.

Quote
Maybe YOU still have to do that, but the radar data already did that long ago ;)

No, the radar data just says there was something there, which we already knew and no one is disputing. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION it tells us NOTHING of the nature of the object OR OBJECTS.

Quote
Who cares?

Who cares? THAT POINT FITS MY CONTENTION, NOT YOURS!!! You can't just wish it away with "Who cares?"

Quote
The point is that astronomers aren't excempt to seeing what can only be termed as UFO's. In fact they're seen by all walks of life, even by skeptics sometiumes (who then henceforth aren't skeptical about UFO's anymore).

Yes! I'VE seen UFOs! What does it mean? NOTHING!!!

Quote
That's what the church told Galileo as well.

First of all, that's not at all true, and second, you're doing EXACTLY what you falsely accused ME of doing above!

Quote
The fact that they're less likely to misperceive gives weight to their UFO-reports,

NOT when those reports are proportionately FEWER!!! Learn some basic statistics.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: JaquesPlafond on July 10, 2009, 06:35:48 PM
"Smallest" means IT COULD BE LARGER!!!

Very observant!

Quote
Then DON'T go and read the reports of pilots who report UFOs that turn out to be explainable meteorological pheonomena. Better to just live in denial...

Well yah, that happens too, and i'm not saying that pilots never misinterpret those things, i'm just saying that they're more trained to recognize them. Maybe you've experienced the phenomenon of when you see something you don't immediately recognize, and you notice your mind going trough the mental pictures of things it knows, trying to fit it in. I think a pilot has a bigger database, so to speak, and is also more familiar with them.

Quote
What is it about the answer "I don't know" that completely fails to enter some people's ears???

Well, that technically makes it a UFO then, which is my entire point. Something was observed by multiple witnesses and by radar, and we don't know what it is.

Quote
Ever heard of the Inverse Law? If an object is twice as far away, it's half as bright!

Well since i'm twice the half distance from you, i may not be so bright.. :P

The object(s) had lights.. so does that mean the witnesses would have been unable to see a possible body to the object? I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

Quote
Then my point is made.

Except that that's not the whole story..

Quote
No, the radar data just says there was something there, which we already knew and no one is disputing. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION it tells us NOTHING of the nature of the object OR OBJECTS.

Nope.. i'm not making any claims to the nature of the objects.. just that they were there, witnessed by the witnesses and tracked on radar, and showing extraordinary properties (size and speed). So technically it's a UFO.

Quote
Who cares? THAT POINT FITS MY CONTENTION, NOT YOURS!!! You can't just wish it away with "Who cares?"

I'm not sure how those percentages would affect the fact that astroners, like other people, sometimes observe phenomenae with properties they can't explain in conventional terms. I alreaqdy explained why there is likely to be a lower percentage of astronomers reporting UFO's than let's say 'regular' people.

Quote
Yes! I'VE seen UFOs! What does it mean? NOTHING!!!

The meaning depends on what made you conclude it was a UFO.

Quote
First of all, that's not at all true, and second, you're doing EXACTLY what you falsely accused ME of doing above!

NOT when those reports are proportionately FEWER!!! Learn some basic statistics.
[/quote]

So if like 5% of the genral population reports UFO's, then that percentage should be the same for astronomers? Or else?
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: JaquesPlafond on July 10, 2009, 06:41:21 PM
btw:

Quote
WRONG! We still have to establish that it WAS an object to begin with!!!

Quote
No, the radar data just says there was something there, which we already knew and no one is disputing. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION it tells us NOTHING of the nature of the object OR OBJECTS.

Which is it?
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: MrBogosity on July 10, 2009, 06:45:11 PM
Very observant!

And yet you fail to see how it destroys your (and their) point.

Quote
Well yah, that happens too, and i'm not saying that pilots never misinterpret those things, i'm just saying that they're more trained to recognize them.

But they aren't! They're trained to fly planes.

Quote
Well, that technically makes it a UFO then, which is my entire point. Something was observed by multiple witnesses and by radar, and we don't know what it is.

Right. And they're making all sorts of claims about it that are not called for by the evidence.

Quote
The object(s) had lights.. so does that mean the witnesses would have been unable to see a possible body to the object?

That's the most likely outcome. Occam's Razor.

Quote
Except that that's not the whole story.

But it DOES mean that this point CANNOT be used to corroborate their story.

Quote
Nope.. i'm not making any claims to the nature of the objects.

THEY are. They're making very certain claims about size, distance, and nature that they quite simply cannot know.

Quote
So technically it's a UFO.

But UFOs are no big deal!

Quote
I'm not sure how those percentages would affect the fact that astroners, like other people, sometimes observe phenomenae with properties they can't explain in conventional terms.

More likely to understand phenomena = less likely to misinterpret them. I would have thought that was obvious. Especially since you're trying to make the exact same point with pilots...

Quote
I alreaqdy explained why there is likely to be a lower percentage of astronomers reporting UFO's than let's say 'regular' people.

And I'm saying your explanation is bogus unless you account for this effect first.

Quote
The meaning depends on what made you conclude it was a UFO.

It was in the sky, and I didn't know what it was. That's a UFO. That's ALL it is. If you've ever seen something in the sky, and didn't know what it was, congratulations--you've seen a UFO!

Quote
So if like 5% of the genral population reports UFO's, then that percentage should be the same for astronomers?

No, the percentage should be LOWER for astronomers! Please pay attention...
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: JaquesPlafond on July 10, 2009, 07:11:15 PM
First of all, thanks for the interesting discussion.. Hopefully we can keep it civil, and perhaps even learn something along the way :)

And yet you fail to see how it destroys your (and their) point.

Apparently.. please enlighten me

Quote
But they aren't! They're trained to fly planes.

And as they fly around, they see stuff.. a whole lot more than us streetdwellers would, since they're up there in the sky all the time.. hence they are more familiar with them.

Quote
Right. And they're making all sorts of claims about it that are not called for by the evidence.

Either that, OR they're just reporting what they witnessed.. which happens to be corroborated by Radar.

Quote
That's the most likely outcome. Occam's Razor.

The outcome of OR depends on the circumstances. How many lights were there? How bright were they? How far apart were they? How dark was it? etc. To simply claim that because there were lights mentioned, the most likely explanation for blocking the stars were the lights isn't the whole story.

Quote
But it DOES mean that this point CANNOT be used to corroborate their story.

See previous

Quote
THEY are. They're making very certain claims about size, distance, and nature that they quite simply cannot know.

But they observed it nevertheless, and it didn't fit any known paradigm they had, so they made a report of it.. and it turns out that MORE people had observed it, and that it was tracked on radar.. now isn't that interesting?

Quote
But UFOs are no big deal!

Depends on what they actually represent.

Quote
More likely to understand phenomena = less likely to misinterpret them. I would have thought that was obvious. Especially since you're trying to make the exact same point with pilots...

And with astronomers, which was the reason i brought them in the mix, and which i thought i explained

Quote
And I'm saying your explanation is bogus unless you account for this effect first.

Didn't i explain that already? Not sure if i understand your question.

Quote
It was in the sky, and I didn't know what it was. That's a UFO. That's ALL it is. If you've ever seen something in the sky, and didn't know what it was, congratulations--you've seen a UFO!

Well, i've seen a few interesting things myself too, but i'm not saying it's alien spaceships either. Theoretically UFOlogy should be about objectively researching such phenomena.

Quote
No, the percentage should be LOWER for astronomers! Please pay attention...

Well, i agree, for reasons i stated earlier
Title: Re: Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on July 10, 2009, 07:19:35 PM
Is the idea that there might possibly be aliens that are more advanced than us bogosity? How about them being able to travel great distances?
Title: Re: Aliens
Post by: MrBogosity on July 10, 2009, 07:32:23 PM
It's extremely unlikely that they'd be able to travel here routinely, given relativity and the great distances involved. And if they did, it's even MORE extremely unlikely that they'd only be seen by the odd hayseeds and not definitively imaged by now. And it's CERTAINLY more extremely unlikely that they'd try to communicate by mashing down patterns in wheat fields!
Title: Re: Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on July 10, 2009, 07:55:07 PM
It's extremely unlikely that they'd be able to travel here routinely, given relativity and the great distances involved.

Because you can't think of way for them to do it?

Quote
And if they did, it's even MORE extremely unlikely that they'd only be seen by the odd hayseeds and not definitively imaged by now.

Well, if UFO's represent aliens, then you'd have to say we've moved out of the obscurity of the 'odd hayseeds'. Presidents see them, astronauts, pilots, astronomers, pretty much all walks of life. And they may have a different agenda than whatever it is we expect them to have.

Quote
And it's CERTAINLY more extremely unlikely that they'd try to communicate by mashing down patterns in wheat fields!

lol.. i'll give you that ;)

Mind you, this is all a bit hypothetical
Title: Re: Aliens
Post by: MrBogosity on July 10, 2009, 08:04:56 PM
We've got video cameras EVERYWHERE. If there were an ACTUAL alien spaceship or ANYTHING of the kind, then why hasn't it been video recorded--IN FOCUS--from 87 different angles and put on YouTube?
Title: Re: Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on July 10, 2009, 08:29:12 PM
I think footage has actually been filmed in several angles by different witnesses.. i remember a case in mexico where there were at least 4 videos of the same object filmed in 4 angles.. i'd have to do some research to locate it, if it's on youtube at all.

In the meanwhile, i think this documentary gives food for thought too:

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=5545276251937701731&hl=nl

Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: Real Captain Olimar on July 21, 2009, 05:39:05 PM
To JaquesPlafond:

SHUT UP YOU MORON!
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: Tom S. Fox on July 22, 2009, 11:38:00 AM
SHUT UP YOU MORON!

… said the pot to the kettle.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: Travis Retriever on July 22, 2009, 09:49:25 PM
True, but at least RCO doesn't go around spouting bogosity the way these guys do...He's more a drop a single annoying line kinda guy.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: BZ987654 on July 23, 2009, 12:40:36 PM
Long posts are long
Title: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: MrBogosity on July 31, 2009, 09:27:21 AM
Combining threads on this subject into one. I may do this in the next batch.
Title: Re: UFOs on Lary King Live and the fine art of ganging up on Bill Nye
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 18, 2009, 06:14:47 PM
To JaquesPlafond:

SHUT UP YOU MORON!

lol.. is there still a place somewhere that's free of idiot youtube-kids? Oh well.. here's some candy, and now stop whining ok?


In the meanwhile, check this out:

British government published 4,000 pages documenting 800 UFO encounters

LONDON (AP) - The deputy commander of a U.S. Air Force base in England was baffled by what he'd seen: bright, pulsing lights in the night sky. Britain's defense ministry couldn't explain it either, but concluded that the unidentified flying object posed no threat.

The National Archives on Monday released the government's complete file on the "Rendlesham Forest Incident" of December 1980, one of Britain's most famous UFO sightings.

It was among more than 4,000 pages posted online Monday documenting 800 alleged encounters during the 1980s and 1990s. Over the past three years the Ministry of Defense has been gradually releasing previously secret UFO papers after facing Freedom of Information demands.

The Rendlesham file contains U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Charles Halt's first-hand account of the event, which has been public knowledge for many years. The file includes the conclusions of a British government investigation and a letter from a former defense chief urging officials to take UFOs more seriously.

Halt reported that two servicemen had noticed "unusual lights" about 3 a.m. in the woods outside the gates of RAF Woodbridge, a U.S. base in eastern England. He wrote that patrolmen sent to investigate saw "a strange glowing object" in the forest.

The metallic, triangular object "illuminated the entire forest with a white light," he wrote.

The next day, investigators found depressions in the ground and unusual radiation readings. That night many personnel - including Halt himself - saw a pulsing "red sun-like light" in the trees that broke into five white objects and disappeared.

The Ministry of Defense could offer no definitive explanation for what the Air Force officers had reported seeing, but also found no evidence of "any threat to the defense of the United Kingdom."

Nothing had registered on radar, and "there was no evidence of anything having intruded into U.K. airspace and landed near RAF Woodbridge."

A 1983 letter in the file proposes a possible explanation involving a combination of the nearby Orford Ness lighthouse, a fireball and bright stars. Case closed, as far as the ministry was concerned. But not everyone was convinced.

A 1985 letter from Lord Hill-Norton, former head of Britain's armed forces, to then-Defense Secretary Michael Heseltine, complained that the "puzzling and disquieting" episode had never been explained properly.

Hill-Norton said if the sighting was genuine, "British airspace and territory are vulnerable to unwarranted intrusion to a disturbing degree." The alternative explanation was that "a sizable number of USAF personnel at an important base in British territory are capable of serious misperception, the consequences of which might be grave in military terms."

Britain's defense ministry has charted UFO sightings since the 1950s, when a Flying Saucer Working Party was established. More files are due to be released by the archives through 2010.

Some of the newly released events came with easy explanations.

In 1993 and 1994, the ministry received numerous reports of a "brightly illuminated oval object" over London. It turned out to be an airship advertising a new car.

More mysterious was a UFO "attack" on a cemetery in Widnes, northwest England, in July 1996. A police report said a young man - "a sensible sort of lad and genuine" - reported seeing a UFO firing beams of light into the ground. A police officer sent to the scene found a smoldering railway sleeper. "It does look rather odd," reported the officer, whose name was blacked out in the document.

The files include a little grist for conspiracy theorists.

The head of the ministry's UFO desk wrote briefing notes in 1993 reporting a spate of sightings in southwest England and speculating whether they might be connected to Aurora, a secret U.S. spy plane whose existence has never been officially admitted.

Atop one of his letters, someone scrawled: "Thank you. I suggest you now drop this subject."

The files reveal a 1996 spike in UFO sightings: 609 that year, up from 117 the year before. David Clarke, a UFO historian and consultant to the National Archives, said it was probably no coincidence that the supernatural TV show "The X Files" was popular in Britain at the time, and that alien-invasion movie "Independence Day" came out the same year.

"It's evident there is some connection between newspaper stories, TV programs and films about alien visitors, and the numbers of UFO sightings," Clarke said.

"Aside from 1996, one of the busiest years for UFO sightings reported to the MoD (Ministry of Defense) over the past half century was 1978 - the year 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' was released."

On the Net: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

(Copyright ©2009 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)



Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: MrBogosity on August 18, 2009, 06:27:45 PM
And still we're left with, "People see stuff and don't know what it is."

Conversation over. If you've got evidence for aliens, bring it, but like creationists you UFO nuts rely on your "aliens of the gaps."
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 18, 2009, 08:24:34 PM
Well, it doesn't seem to be as simple as 'people seeing stuff and don't know what it is'. Sure, that happens a lot, but when those things display properties that indicate technologies that are beyond our present technology, then i think such a phenomenon needs to be looked into. There's no point in denying that it even exists.. for anyone who looks at the data (and i don't mean tabloid filler crap) this should be blatantly obvious real quick. So with this in mind, i'm wondering how familiar you actually are with this subject?

I don't mind you calling me a UFO nut.. i'm in good company, so call me or all those other millions of people who don't share your opinion whatever you like.. i don't think that will be a very fruitfull enterprise though ;)

So do we have evidence for aliens? You tell me.. what we do have evidence of is objects flying around our skies which represent a technology apparently beyond that which we officially know. There are gazillions of sightings of so-called 'black triangles' for instance, and they too display properties beyond our own. What craft do we have that's the size of a football-field (and bigger), capable of flying at ultra-low speeds (even hovering), and then zipping off into infinity within the blink of an eye? The only ways 'skeptics' can handle this kind of data is by simply ignoring/changing the data or blackballing the witnesses (like calling them 'believers' or 'UFO-nuts'). The data is still there though.

It's interesting that you bring up creationists though, because i spot a very interesting similarity between them and ' ufo-skeptics'... namely that both have a theory which they have to manipulate data around to make it fit their theory/ideology. For creationists it's that God created everything in 6 days, 6000 years ago.. so they go around trying to find data that fits this idea, and ignore/deny/change everything that doesn't fit.

In the case of UFO-skeptics, their ' ideology' is that IF there are aliens, they are too far away and therefore they can't come to earth and hence anyone reporting 'aliens' or 'spaceships' is nuts, a hoaxer or a liar. Therefore, any data that hints to anything that doesn't fit the theory has be 'explained' away, or written off as a misperception, or whatever

The sad thing is that this strawman prevents those 'skeptics' to even look at the data (with at least an open mind anyway).. and i notice you bring up this same fallacy as well: you want the aliens and the spaceships, not the actual data that's already present.

You may have noticed how 'skeptics' like to go on and on on how bad people are observing/perceiving things, and how easily they ignore data that doesn't fit their theory (i can give you some examples if you wish.. Phill Klass, Michael Schermer, James McGaha etc have served us well in that respect). It's the exact same thing creationists do! They go on and on about how untrustworthy dating techniques are, how the evolution theory makes no sense.. you know the drill.

So basically it comes down to this: they (creationists/skeptibunkers) start with the theory (there can't be aliens coming to earth / God created everything) and then look for data to make everything 'fit', and ignore/distort everything else.

I suggest we start with the data, then do the science (research, analize the data as much as we can), and then see what conclusions we can draw from that.. let the chips fall wherever they may. 

As luck would have it, such an effort is already underway. You may want to look at this site for instance:

http://www.ufoskeptic.org/ (An information site on the UFO phenomenon by and for professional scientists.)

And yes, it says 'skeptic' there, as long as you remember this:
Skeptic - One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.

Enjoy :)
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: Travis Retriever on August 18, 2009, 08:29:25 PM
Well, it doesn't seem to be as simple as 'people seeing stuff and don't know what it is'. Sure, that happens a lot, but when those things display properties that indicate technologies that are beyond our present technology, then i think such a phenomenon needs to be looked into. There's no point in denying that it even exists.. for anyone who looks at the data (and i don't mean tabloid filler crap) this should be blatantly obvious real quick. So with this in mind, i'm wondering how familiar you actually are with this subject?

I don't mind you calling me a UFO nut.. i'm in good company, so call me or all those other millions of people who don't share your opinion whatever you like.. i don't think that will be a very fruitfull enterprise though ;)

So do we have evidence for aliens? You tell me.. what we do have evidence of is objects flying around our skies which represent a technology apparently beyond that which we officially know. There are gazillions of sightings of so-called 'black triangles' for instance, and they too display properties beyond our own. What craft do we have that's the size of a football-field (and bigger), capable of flying at ultra-low speeds (even hovering), and then zipping off into infinity within the blink of an eye? The only ways 'skeptics' can handle this kind of data is by simply ignoring/changing the data or blackballing the witnesses (like calling them 'believers' or 'UFO-nuts'). The data is still there though.

It's interesting that you bring up creationists though, because i spot a very interesting similarity between them and ' ufo-skeptics'... namely that both have a theory which they have to manipulate data around to make it fit their theory/ideology. For creationists it's that God created everything in 6 days, 6000 years ago.. so they go around trying to find data that fits this idea, and ignore/deny/change everything that doesn't fit.

In the case of UFO-skeptics, their ' ideology' is that IF there are aliens, they are too far away and therefore they can't come to earth and hence anyone reporting 'aliens' or 'spaceships' is nuts, a hoaxer or a liar. Therefore, any data that hints to anything that doesn't fit the theory has be 'explained' away, or written off as a misperception, or whatever

The sad thing is that this strawman prevents those 'skeptics' to even look at the data (with at least an open mind anyway).. and i notice you bring up this same fallacy as well: you want the aliens and the spaceships, not the actual data that's already present.

You may have noticed how 'skeptics' like to go on and on on how bad people are observing/perceiving things, and how easily they ignore data that doesn't fit their theory (i can give you some examples if you wish.. Phill Klass, Michael Schermer, James McGaha etc have served us well in that respect). It's the exact same thing creationists do! They go on and on about how untrustworthy dating techniques are, how the evolution theory makes no sense.. you know the drill.

So basically it comes down to this: they (creationists/skeptibunkers) start with the theory (there can't be aliens coming to earth / God created everything) and then look for data to make everything 'fit', and ignore/distort everything else.

I suggest we start with the data, then do the science (research, analize the data as much as we can), and then see what conclusions we can draw from that.. let the chips fall wherever they may. 

As luck would have it, such an effort is already underway. You may want to look at this site for instance:

http://www.ufoskeptic.org/ (An information site on the UFO phenomenon by and for professional scientists.)

And yes, it says 'skeptic' there, as long as you remember this:
Skeptic - One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.

Enjoy :)
TL:DR
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 18, 2009, 08:49:13 PM
lol.. more youtube kids with an attention-span of about 1.3 seconds :P

It does explain a lot of what i was talking about though, so thanks.
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: Travis Retriever on August 18, 2009, 08:56:09 PM
I have a good attention span.  I don't don't find interest listening to a bunch of conspiracy nonsense and arguments from ignorance.

Cute.
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 18, 2009, 09:03:32 PM
You didn't read it, so what makes you conclude it's conspiracy nonsense and arguments from ignorance?

Once again, your methods are typical, and confirm my statements.

Now back to youtube with you! ;)
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: MrBogosity on August 18, 2009, 09:04:10 PM
No, you have people who see something they don't understand, and their brain tries to fit it into its model of the universe. Those "properties" come from that, NOT the observations.

We don't have a short attention span; we just understand that, how, and why eyewitness testimony is incredibly unreliable.
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 18, 2009, 09:15:53 PM
Is that so?

Investigation by proclamation, as they say. One helluva easy way to nullify all available data, including video, radar, multiple corroborating witness testimony, etc.

Could you tell me what this object, photographed, filmed, showing up on 2 F16 radars and observed by literally thousands of people in Belgium in the early 90s is?

(http://www.geocities.com/area51/vault/9054/ufobelg.jpg)

Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: Travis Retriever on August 18, 2009, 09:17:51 PM
No, you have people who see something they don't understand, and their brain tries to fit it into its model of the universe. Those "properties" come from that, NOT the observations.

We don't have a short attention span; we just understand that, how, and why eyewitness testimony is incredibly unreliable.
To aid our confused friend: 
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 18, 2009, 10:05:39 PM
Ok thank you all for explaining your points of view. It sure is interesting to see how people handle this kind of subject ;)

You are right that eyewitness testimonies all by themselves probably do little more than making interesting stories. However, i think they should be seen in the context of the other evidence, such as physical evidence, films, photo's, radar observations, historical accounts, etc. When you do that, a picture emerges of a phenomenon with anomalous properties which has been witnessed and reported by people for as long as we can remember.

Of course the unreliability of witnesses isn't exactly going to help, but that doesn't mean there isn't an actual phenomenon.

Your stance is kindof like the way it was in medieval times: Meteorites (the pieces that make it to Earth) were long ago thought to be cast down as gifts from angels. Others thought the gods were displaying their anger. As late as the 17th Century, many believed they fell from thunderstorms (they were nicknamed "thunderstones"). Many scientists were skeptical that stones could fall from the the clouds or the heavens, and often they simply didn't believe the accounts of people who claimed to have seen such things.

They dismissed accounts of people who saw it happen, perhaps on the exact same grounds as you do now. If the skeptics had their way, we'd still be calling meteorites 'thunderstones' and believe they were gifts from the gods, and dismiss those who say they witnessed a meteorite fall from the sky as a looney, a 'believer', a nutcase.. after all everyone KNEW that there weren't any stones in the sky, therefore they couldn't fall from the sky either. And do you think that eyewitnesses were any more reliable back then than they are now? Still their observations turned out to be correct.


@surhotchaperchlorome, i meant STAY on youtube, not post whatever crap you find there over here ;)
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: Travis Retriever on August 18, 2009, 10:34:35 PM
@surhotchaperchlorome, i meant STAY on youtube, not post whatever crap you find there over here ;)
I'll post what I want.
As if you have any kind of power over me, you condescending fuck.
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 18, 2009, 10:42:59 PM
I'll post what I want.
As if you have any kind of power over me, you condescending fuck.

Thanks for the compliment. I've seen 5 posts from you today, none with any substance, all condescending

If you like trolling, i'd rather see you do it over at youtube with the other idiot kids.

So this one's for you:

(http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/_files_troll_2.jpg)
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: MrBogosity on August 18, 2009, 10:44:47 PM
The difference is, we ended up with a LOT more evidence for meteorites than badly-remembered things and blurry pictures.

Did you know in Portugal about 100 years ago, something like 17,000 people saw the sun cleave in two and fall out of the sky?
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: Travis Retriever on August 18, 2009, 11:01:50 PM
If you like trolling, i'd rather see you do it over at youtube with the other idiot kids.

So this one's for you:
(http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/_files_troll_2.jpg)
Projection much?
Also, I'd like to know where you're coming from with your Alien shit, sadly, I can't seem to fit my head that far up my ass.

PS:  Eat shit and die.
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 18, 2009, 11:08:50 PM
The difference is, we ended up with a LOT more evidence for meteorites than badly-remembered things and blurry pictures.

Is that what you think all the evidence consists of?

And that's besides the point anyways. The fact that we did find more evidence for meteorites doesn't mean that the UFO phenomenon is invalid untill the day we find a flying saucer and aliens (which we apparently did in 1947, btw). You're simply dismissive of it for the same reasons those skeptics 300 years ago were... and from what i've seen you're not very well informed about the subject either, yet you have a very strong opinion about it.

Just another case of 'Investigation by Proclamation', the trademark of the skeptibunker.

Quote
Did you know in Portugal about 100 years ago, something like 17,000 people saw the sun cleave in two and fall out of the sky?

Well, i never heard of that specific event, unless you're referring to the Fatima event, which as far as i know has never been conclusively explained. Then again, i never really looked at it, since it somehow doesn't interest me too much. What we can say about this event however is:

1: something happened
2: People interpreted in their own individual way
3: we don't know what exactly happened

2 doesn't make 1 untrue however, nor does it provide a satisfactory explanatin for the whole event.




From Wiki:

The Miracle of the Sun (Portuguese: O Milagre do Sol) is an alleged miraculous event witnessed by as many as 100,000 people on 13 October 1917 in the Cova da Iria fields near Fátima, Portugal. Those in attendance had assembled to observe what the Portuguese secular newspapers had been ridiculing for months as the absurd claim of three shepherd children that a miracle was going to occur at high-noon in the Cova da Iria on October 13, 1917. [1]

According to many witness statements, after a downfall of rain, the dark clouds broke and the sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disk in the sky.[2] It was said to be significantly less bright than normal, and cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the shadows on the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds.[2] The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern,[2] frightening some of those present who thought it meant the end of the world.[3] Some witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry."[4]

Estimates of the number of witnesses range from 30,000-40,000 by Avelino de Almeida, writing for the Portuguese newspaper O Século,[5] to 100,000, estimated by Dr. Joseph Garrett, professor of natural sciences at the University of Coimbra,[6] both of whom were present that day.[7]

The miracle was attributed by believers to Our Lady of Fátima, an apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to three young shepherd children in 1917, as having been predicted by the three children on 13 July,[8] 19 August,[9] and 13 September[10] 1917. The children reported that the Lady had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them[11] and provide a miracle "so that all may believe."[12]

According to these reports, the miracle of the sun lasted approximately ten minutes.[13] The three children also reported seeing a panorama of visions, including those of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of Saint Joseph blessing the people.[14]




De Marchi claims that the prediction of an unspecified "miracle", the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely.[23] That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometers away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria, according to De Marchi.[23]

Despite these assertions, not all witnesses reported seeing the sun "dance". Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others, including some believers, saw nothing at all.[24] [25] No scientific accounts exist of any unusual solar or astronomic activity during the time the sun was reported to have "danced", and there are no witness reports of any unusual solar phenomenon further than forty miles out from Cova da Iria.[26]

Pio Scatizzi, S.J. describes events of Fátima and concludes

The ... solar phenomena were not observed in any observatory. Impossible that they should escape notice of so many astronomers and indeed the other inhabitants of the hemisphere… there is no question of an astronomical or meteorological event phenomenon …Either all the observers in Fátima were collectively deceived and erred in their testimony, or we must suppose an extra-natural intervention.[27]

Steuart Campbell, writing for the 1989 edition of Journal of Meteorology, postulated that a cloud of stratospheric dust changed the appearance of the sun on 13 October, making it easy to look at, and causing it to appear yellow, blue, and violet and to spin. In support of his hypothesis, Mr. Campbell reports that a blue and reddened sun was reported in China as documented in 1983.[28]

 
A parhelion in rainbow colors, photographed in 2005.Joe Nickell, a skeptic and investigator of paranormal phenomena, claims that the position of the phenomenon, as described by the various witnesses, is at the wrong azimuth and elevation to have been the sun.[29] He suggests the cause may have been a sundog. Sometimes referred to as a parhelion or "mock sun", a sundog is a relatively common atmospheric optical phenomenon associated with the reflection/refraction of sunlight by the numerous small ice crystals that make up cirrus or cirrostratus clouds. A sundog is, however, a stationary phenomenon, and would not explain the reported appearance of the "dancing sun". Nickell suggests an explanation for this and other similar phenomena may lie in temporary retinal distortion, caused by staring at the intense light and/or by the effect of darting the eyes to and fro so as to avoid completely fixed gazing (thus combining image, afterimage and movement). Nickell concludes that there was

likely a combination of factors, including optical and meteorological phenomena (the sun being seen through thin clouds, causing it to appear as a silver disc; an alteration in the density of the passing clouds, so that the sun would alternatively brighten and dim, thus appearing to advance and recede; dust or moisture droplets in the atmosphere, imparting a variety of colors to sunlight; and/or other phenomena).

Paul Simons, in an article entitled "Weather Secrets of Miracle at Fátima", states that he believes it possible that some of the optical effects at Fatima may have been caused by a cloud of dust from the Sahara.[30]

Kevin McClure claims that the crowd at Cova da Iria may have been expecting to see signs in the sun, as similar phenomena had been reported in the weeks leading up to the miracle. On this basis he believes that the crowd saw what it wanted to see. But it has been objected that McClure's account fails to explain similar reports of people miles away, who by their own testimony were not even thinking of the event at the time, or the sudden drying of people's sodden, rain-soaked clothes. Kevin McClure stated that he had never seen such a collection of contradictory accounts of a case in any of the research he had done in the previous ten years, although he has not explicitly stated what these contradictions were. [31]

Leo Madigan believes that the various witness reports of a miracle are accurate, however he alleges inconsistency of witnesses, and suggests that astonishment, fear, exaltation and imagination must have played roles in both the observing and the retelling. Madigan likens the experiences to prayer, and considers that the spiritual nature of the phenomenon explains what he describes as the inconsistency of the witnesses.[32]

Author Lisa Schwebel claims that the event was a supernatural extra-sensory phenomenon. Schwebel notes that the solar phenomenon reported at Fátima is not unique - there have been several reported cases of high pitched religious gatherings culminating in the sudden and mysterious appearance of lights in the sky.[33]

It has been argued that the Fátima phenomenon and many UFO sights share a common cause,[34] or even that the phenomenon was an alien craft.[35] see main article: The Fatima UFO Hypothesis

Many years after the events in question, Stanley L. Jaki, a professor of physics at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, Benedictine priest and author of a number of books reconciling science and Catholicism, proposed a unique theory about the supposed miracle. Jaki believes that the event was natural and meteorological in nature, but that the fact the event occurred at the exact time predicted was a miracle.[36]

The event was officially accepted as a miracle by the Roman Catholic Church on 13 October 1930. On 13 October 1951, papal legate Cardinal Tedeschini told the million gathered at Fátima that on 30 October, 31 October, 1 November, and 8 November 1950, Pope Pius XII himself witnessed the miracle of the sun from the Vatican gardens.[37]
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: MrBogosity on August 18, 2009, 11:12:26 PM
A post here was reported to the moderators, but it doesn't break Da Rules. Learn the rules, people, and grow a thick skin.
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 18, 2009, 11:24:28 PM
Ok will do...

Umm so did you actually mean Fatima?
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: MrBogosity on August 19, 2009, 06:46:57 AM
Yes, I was referring to the Fatima "miracle." Can we all agree that, although they must have seen SOMETHING, it was NOT the sun cleaving in two?

(And actually, Joe Nickell has a pretty solid explanation for what it might have been.)
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 19, 2009, 11:14:53 AM
Yes, I was referring to the Fatima "miracle." Can we all agree that, although they must have seen SOMETHING, it was NOT the sun cleaving in two?

(And actually, Joe Nickell has a pretty solid explanation for what it might have been.)

Yah, we can agree on that much.

I don't know about Joe NIckells' 'explanation' though. I highly doubt that a sundog would get the panties of 100.000 people in a knot. But for a pathological skeptic, this kind of 'explanation' works. I'm all for investigating anomalous phenomena in a scientific way, but from what i know about Nickel, i'm not going to trust anything he says, exactly because it's far from scientific. For an example of his methods, you can have a look here: Joe Nickel and Roswell (http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sf-mufon-020309.html). He's still peddling the latest airforce 'explanation' for Roswell (the fourth, i think), which has been thoroughly debunked.
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: 11mc22 on August 19, 2009, 05:14:12 PM
Yah, we can agree on that much.

I don't know about Joe NIckells' 'explanation' though. I highly doubt that a sundog would get the panties of 100.000 people in a knot.

I've been to places like Medjugorje and trust me, even in this modern day and age the people there are willing to believe that water coming out of a crack in a bronze statue is a miracle
No matter how many people see it and believe it to be true its not always what they want it to be.

Thousands of people thought Uri Geller was for real

Were they right?
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: 11mc22 on August 19, 2009, 05:23:55 PM
Is that so?

Investigation by proclamation, as they say. One helluva easy way to nullify all available data, including video, radar, multiple corroborating witness testimony, etc.

Could you tell me what this object, photographed, filmed, showing up on 2 F16 radars and observed by literally thousands of people in Belgium in the early 90s is?

(http://www.geocities.com/area51/vault/9054/ufobelg.jpg)



I'm just going to throw a website in here

http://skepticreport.com/sr/?p=162

And WIKI gives this one. You probably have seen it though

http://gmh.chez-alice.fr/RLT/BUW-RLT-10-2008.pdf

Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 21, 2009, 10:41:36 AM
And here's a critical look at Marc Hallet's report:

http://www.cohenufo.org/analyhalletarticle1.htm

And if you're serious about looking into the Belgian events (beyond having a look at Wikipedia and linking a skeptical article), have a look here:

http://ufologie.net/htm/belgium.htm


I just found this video, which kindof superficially deals with the Belgian wave:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/11358/Belgium_Ufo_Triangle_1989/

At a certain point they have some 'skeptics' on (the usual suspects: McGaha and Schermer), and all they do is make dumb blanket statements, whilst showing silly pictures of aliens. That to me sums it up for those skeptics.

In fact i think Phill Klass does a good job of conveying the agenda of his ilk. He made this statement after familiarizing himself with the airforce's 'theory' of the aliens that were reportedly sighted by several witnesses at the Roswell crash. The Airforce claims that what those witnesses saw were actually some sort of crash test dummies, used for parachute tests. The one niggle is that those dummies only came into use a decade later, in the 50's.

So even UFO-skeptic Phil Klass doesn't believe that story, and makes the following remark:

"It is not a strong enough theory to try to explain some of the statements of the quote-unquote key witnesses," Klass said. "In my opinion, this report will not convince any flying saucer believers, and in fact, I suspect they will accuse the Air Force of trying to cover up and divert attention from the crashed saucer."

And that's a dead giveaway: the point is not to factually find out what happened in Roswell, but to concoct 'theories' that convince 'flying saucer believers'. (source (http://www.subversiveelement.com/Roswell_Crash_Dummies.html))


Here's some of the footage shot of the Belgian UFO. Does it support Leclet's helicopter theory? Does the picture i posted in a previous post support it? Do the picture and the footage show the same object?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpGc8w5Wu0Y

Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 21, 2009, 03:02:25 PM
I've been to places like Medjugorje and trust me, even in this modern day and age the people there are willing to believe that water coming out of a crack in a bronze statue is a miracle
No matter how many people see it and believe it to be true its not always what they want it to be.

Thousands of people thought Uri Geller was for real

Were they right?


So what's your point? That people can be easily fooled? Sure, i'll give you that, but what if there is actually an anomalous phenomenon out there, wouldn't people be reporting on it? And yes, people believe rediculous things (religion anyone?). Personally, i'm not too interested in the whole Fatima thing though, because i think there are much better cases.
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: MrBogosity on August 21, 2009, 03:24:29 PM
In this day and age, if there were such a genuine phenomenon, we'd have it from 17 different angles in high-definition.
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 21, 2009, 04:19:19 PM
That depends on the properties of the phenomenon. Once again you're defining what criteria would satisfy you, instead of looking what data is actually there.

However, with everyone having a camera nowadays, the amount of multiple witness UFO's being filmed is growing.

Here's a recent example of a multi-witness UFO being filmed by 2 independant witnesses. As it turns out, they filmed the exact same event from 2 different angles. In the last few minutes of the video, you can see how the events line up. If you can kindof comprehend Spanish, they also explain why in one video the orbs are black, whereas in the other they are bright (The video's are made in 2 different angles, one has the sun shining on the objects, the other is the shadow side).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjOigCDYr3s

So could this still be a hoax? Well, maybe theoretically. It hasn't been exposed as such, even if the involvement of Jaime Maussan (as the one who brings the videos to television) raises suspicions with some people. I think Maussan is just a businessman trying to make an interesting program though, and sometimes he brings stuff into the limelight that turns out to be a hoax.

It's not 17 angles, but it sure is interesting, i think.

Here's a version which has subtitles:

http://media.abovetopsecret.com/videoplayer/3871.swf
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: MrBogosity on August 21, 2009, 04:29:24 PM
Then let's see 'em! Let's see detailed high-definition footage from multiple angles! Let's see experts use photogrammetry to determine the exact size and shape of the object! Why don't we see that?

Maybe because if they actually did the photogrammetry the object would be shown to be a) not the assumed distance away and/or b) not a single coherent object at all?
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 21, 2009, 06:15:34 PM
Well, we know that the assumptions you're making are the reasons YOU'RE not looking into it. The footage is there, the witnesses are there, the locations they filmed it from are known.. From what i understand they were 6 to 8 miles apart, so that should be your first clue for the size of the objects. Those aren't insects or birds!

You could contact a guy called 'free spirit' who has some of the original footage. He's on ATS.. maybe this thread is a good place to start: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread479045/pg1

btw.. i think it's pretty rare that unplanned events like this are being filmed from multiple angles, not to mention in focus or high definition. Most people have crappy cams, and they never look up.. they look straight ahead or to the ground when they're walking... people are always in their head! lol.. always thinking about anything but that which they are doing or where they are.

Anyway, these videos were released very recently, and i'm sure the last word hasn't be said about them. I'm going to eat my hat if they turn out to be fake.. but you never know. It would the best hoax i know of so far anyway.
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: MrBogosity on August 21, 2009, 06:30:16 PM
I HAVE looked into it. So far there is NOTHING you've presented that I haven't seen. You're just like a pathetically ignorant creationist ranting on that we're "dismissing" things that have been debunked long ago.
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: MrBogosity on August 21, 2009, 06:32:05 PM
Okay, so here's a question for you:

Could you tell me what this object, photographed, filmed, showing up on 2 F16 radars and observed by literally thousands of people in Belgium in the early 90s is?

(http://www.geocities.com/area51/vault/9054/ufobelg.jpg)

There is NO FUCKING WAY that picture was initially framed like that. It's obviously cropped. Where's the uncropped version?
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 21, 2009, 08:54:27 PM
I HAVE looked into it. So far there is NOTHING you've presented that I haven't seen. You're just like a pathetically ignorant creationist ranting on that we're "dismissing" things that have been debunked long ago.

Nice blanket statement again.. lol. Is that the best you can do?

So who debunked those video's? How were they made? That Mexican video i posted was released just a few days ago, so i doubt you've seen it before i posted it here, and the skeptibunkers haven't had a chance to make up an 'explanation' for you to swallow hook, line and sinker yet.

Quote
There is NO FUCKING WAY that picture was initially framed like that. It's obviously cropped. Where's the uncropped version?
This is the biggest version of the triangle picture i can find, so for all i know that could be the full picture.

(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4f585ad9c2d3.jpg)

We've discussed witness reliability a bit before. To illustrate that in many cases their descriptions are actually pretty close, here are some drawings made by witnesses of the Belgian UFO. You'll notice that some of them drawings are spot on:

(http://www.grenswetenschap.nl/images/artikelfoto/TR%20Belgium%20UFO%20Drawing%20081223.jpg)

One guy mistook a helicopter for a UFO, but once you realize that what he saw was actually a blackhawk, the drawing is also spot on, including the open doors and the placement of the lights.

(http://skepticreport.com/images/headers/belgian2.jpg) (http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/381/18464168oi7.jpg)

So if the belgian case has been debunked, what do the pictures and the film clip show?

Awaiting next platitude with baseless assertions and some namecalling for good measure ;) I can't wait for the episode on UFO's you're going to make, because i'm sure it's gonna be a hoot!
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: MrBogosity on August 21, 2009, 09:31:32 PM
I can ASSURE you that's not the full picture. Look at the motion blur! There is NO WAY something's going to move like that and someone get it perfectly framed so tightly.

And it's HARDLY a coincidence that it JUST SO HAPPENS to match the configuration of lights on a French Army helicopter! Three in a triangle, red in the middle--it's PERFECT! It seems obvious to me that this has been cropped because the full picture would make it more obvious what it really is.
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 21, 2009, 09:41:46 PM
I can ASSURE you that's not the full picture. Look at the motion blur! There is NO WAY something's going to move like that and someone get it perfectly framed so tightly.

And it's HARDLY a coincidence that it JUST SO HAPPENS to match the configuration of lights on a French Army helicopter! Three in a triangle, red in the middle--it's PERFECT! It seems obvious to me that this has been cropped because the full picture would make it more obvious what it really is.

Did you have a look at the movie clip? It shows the whole thing, but no helicopter to be seen there. Besides, do you think that the Belgian airforce is going to persue one of it's own helicopters and mistake it for a UFO? What kind of helicopter would that be anyway?

Another picture of the same object. Does that look like a helicopter to you?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/TriangleBelgium1990.jpg)
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 21, 2009, 10:09:19 PM
The picture of the triangle UFO has been analysed to death already, btw. Here's something to sink your teeth in:

The famous slide of Petit-Rechain was analysed in the 1990’s by several experts in scientific imagery, particularly by Marc Acheroy (Royal Military School, Brussels), François Louange (Fleximage company, Paris) and Richard F. Haines (Los Altos California); on Oct. 15th 2001, Patrick Ferryn of the SOBEPS gave us this slide, he wanted us to analyse it in our turn using the latest techniques of image numerical analysis, used in the Theoretical and Applied Optics Institute in Orsay. The purpose of this was to compare our results to the previous results, and to outline extra information and if possible draw conclusions about the authenticity of the document and about the nature of the object photographed

General obversation of the slide

In a first step, we have conducted a visual observation of the film after taking it out of its frame, then a digitisation by transparency using a flatbed scanner Agfa Duoscan T1200. Our observations match those previously made:
- The frame of the picture is perfectly neat and with no split even if it is seen with a very increased contrast; this excludes a double or multiple exposure during the photography.
- It is very difficult to consider faking with a model or any other similar process. This will be confirmed by numerical treatment (see below).
- Video processing or CGI can’t be imagined either: such pictures characteristics are not found on the slide, even by increasing enormously the contrasts.
Even if nothing can be excluded, it seems very likely that the picture is one of a solid object seen on a sky background, object of an unidentified origin to this day.

Digitisation of the picture
The second step was to precisely digitise the slide using a 35mm Canon film scanner with an optical resolution of 2720ppp, which brings a pixel size of under 10µm. That resolution is much bigger than that of the film (around 1µm) but greatly better than the smallest significant details in the picture, which are never under 20µm.
Other than the four very luminous stains, the picture is nearly black and had nearly no contrast. It was thus necessary to have, as early as the digitisation, a noise/signal ratio as good as possible, in order to catch the smallest differences, even in the darkest areas of the picture. For that purpose, we have used a technique consisting in averaging multiple consecutive digitisations: by digitising n times the slide in the same conditions, one reduces the noise part of the image due to the electronic equipment by a factor of 1/sqrt(n).
By digitising the slide in a normal position, then rotated by 90°, 180° and 270°, it is possible to average the fixed noise due to the structure of the equipment (non uniform answers from the bar photosites). To do that, you then need to reprocess the pictures up to the pixel, with an appropriate software, in order to superimpose them perfectly.
It is also possible to reduce the quantification noise influence (i.e. the pixels are coded by 8 bits per colour, that is 256 levels) by averaging the digitisation of the film in ‘positive film’ mode and ‘negative film’ mode, because the answer curves of the scanner are not the same in both modes.
Having then obtained a final average picture in its three components red, green and blue, we kept only a roughly 2 centimetres square, composed of 2430 by 2430 pixels. Finally, given the size of the smallest visible details (about 20µm as said above), we resized that zone to 1024 by 1024 by interpolation of pixels (fig 1.), in order to limit the size of the pictures and the calculation times.

Numerical treatments results

1. A contrasts increase brings out the object shape (fig. 2), particularly on the blue component (fig. 3). That outline is in the shape of an isosceles triangle ABC nearly squared angled on A, completed on its base by a quadrilateral BCED very similar to a rectangle. Taking into account the viewing angle, it is probable that angles A, D and E are square angles, and that the object is horizontal. On the object, very dark, are four very bright stains, that we will call lights to simplify. Three of those lights are close to A, D and E on the object, while the fourth one is situated roughly on the altitude AH of the triangle, from vertex A down to the DE base (fig. 4). It is not possible to estimate the size of or distance to the object, because there is no landmark.

Some areas of the outline are nearly neat while others are blurred, indicating a relative movement of the object and the film. The most believable explanation is that the object has executed a movement during the exposure time, the camera being fixed, but we can’t exclude a small movement of the camera. The two extreme positions are shown on figure 5.
The shape of the observed blurring can be explained by a rotation of the object in space, around an axis going through a point O nearly on the line BC and such that BO = O.25 BC (fig. 5). The rotation angle is close to 5°. We could simulate that blur effect by simulation (fig. 6).

The same rotation also allows to find the whole set movement the four lights underwent, supposed circular on the simulation. However, the three external lights show complex coloured structures and distortions that this global rotation do not explain: the obtained pictures necessarily imply independent movements for all of those lights in comparison with the object.

2. Various colour treatments allow to bring out a luminous halo around the object as well as light trails between the lights, particularly between the central light and the edge ones (fig 7.). However these treatments, in real as well as false colours, do not allow to draw a conclusion about the nature of that halo, nor to be able to precise what are those lights: lighting systems, signal lights or hovering/propulsion systems from the object.

3. Decomposition of the picture in brightness, hue and saturation provides rich information, particularly on the saturation component. This information is substantially improved through frequency filters and colour compositions. Processes have allowed to show privileged directions, especially in the halo that surrounds the object (fig. 8, 9, 10, 11). These directions correspond to the orientations of small luminous grains which, on the picture, compose a sort of rotation around the object, to be compared to snow flakes being flown around in a wind vortex. We can also compare it to iron filings that would be oriented in the lines of a magnetic field. Would that be electromagnetic perturbations, an air ionisation process? Without any available elements, the nature of that phenomenon is difficult to precise, even more because it is practically unspottable on the red, green or blue components of the image. These new observations are even more interesting because they seem to reinforce some theories, like those of the ionic plasma waves, theory used by Auguste Meessen, Professor Emeritus at Louvain University, about the object propulsion (magnetoplasmadynamic propulsion).

Anyway, the existence of those “force lines” is a heavy argument against a faking, which would then be particularly elaborated. Moreover one doesn’t see well a reason why a hoaxer would have undergone the effort to imagine and realise such a complex phenomenon, particularly since it is only perceivable with a sophisticated image processing.

Conclusion
 
The numerical processing that we executed in Orsay on the Petit-Rechain slide have confirment the major observations already made. They also brought new surprising results about the luminous halo surrounding the object, showing a process in the appearance of a whirl. The nature of the physical phenomenon corresponding could, according to some authors, be linked to the particular propulsion system of the object. That question ought to be investigated further.  (source (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread380231/pg1))


Oh, and yet another slightly larger version of the picture, showing STARS in the background where the rest of the helicopter should have been if that's what it was.

(http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1107/images/lookatthat.jpg) (http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1107/images/starchart.jpg)

(http://www.utahskies.org/deepsky/constellations/maps/taurus.jpg)

Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: 11mc22 on August 22, 2009, 04:54:11 AM
Here's some of the footage shot of the Belgian UFO. Does it support Leclet's helicopter theory? Does the picture i posted in a previous post support it? Do the picture and the footage show the same object?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpGc8w5Wu0Y



The video right there is so dark and I suspect it to be zoomed in quite a bit
All you see is the light on and not any outline of any sort
Its almost impossible to say whether this is a helicopter or a flying saucer.

The picture you gave earlier does have and outline of a triangle
But then again too blurry and it looks like this UFO is spinning possibly blurring out some features of the helicopter while the light illuminates the center( I dunno thats just my guess)
Do you have some sort of expanded picture?

I'm just going to use my Occam razor and say that the Helicopter hypothesis is more likely the case.

But with the picture I don't think we can determine anything with it.
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: 11mc22 on August 22, 2009, 05:07:32 AM
One guy mistook a helicopter for a UFO, but once you realize that what he saw was actually a blackhawk, the drawing is also spot on, including the open doors and the placement of the lights.

(http://skepticreport.com/images/headers/belgian2.jpg) (http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/381/18464168oi7.jpg)

So if the belgian case has been debunked, what do the pictures and the film clip show?

Awaiting next platitude with baseless assertions and some namecalling for good measure ;) I can't wait for the episode on UFO's you're going to make, because i'm sure it's gonna be a hoot!

I looks more like a view from the side than some one looking up at a helicopter
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: MrBogosity on August 22, 2009, 12:03:56 PM
All you see is the light on and not any outline of any sort

That's exactly what we would expect if it's a helicopter.
Title: Re: UFOs and Aliens
Post by: JaquesPlafond on August 22, 2009, 05:09:08 PM
(http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1107/images/lookatthat.jpg)

Once again.. i'm wondering what KIND of helicopter you guys are talking about? Are there any other pictures of it that show the same properties as the 2 famous pictures of the triangle? Or were these 2 pictures a fluke?

btw.. eyewitnesses state that the blurryness of the edges of the triangle was actually a property of the triangle.

None of the people who analyzed the pictures seems to think it's a helicopter.

Leclet doesn't mention the Petit Rechain nor the Henrardi pictures in his study for a good reason: they don't support his helicopter hypothesis.

I don't see how occams razor would dictate how something that doesn't look like a helicopter would be a helicopter.. lol.. then again, maybe it makes sense to you guys. It'd make more sense if you thought it was a stealth bomber/fighter.. but then again, why would they fly those over urban areas for everyone to see?

Here's a video of a blackhawk flying and landing at night: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=56710748

One thing that's immediately apparent is that they're NOISY, and the lights hardly show up on video.. nothing like the lights in the pictures of the triangle. Maybe you guys can find something more convincing though.