i saw one Continued !!!

First of all im 13 !!!
And about the craft i saw i dont think it was a plane or US craft okay ?!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have aircraft recogniton tables in Jr. High do you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Everyone has an instinctive knowledge about things that fly from what we observe and experience, just as we have the instinctive knowledge to walk and use our hands. Human broad-jumpers instinctively use outstretched arms to maintain balance and stability in the air.

In this modern day and age, we have instinctive knowledge of flight by watching birds, airplanes, frizbies, helicopters, rockets, and pretty much anything else that moves. Most people know instinctively how an airplane looks from far away during flight, based on dozens, perhaps hundreds of them we have seen in our lifetime.

If something looks out of the ordinary or unusual, then that is a very fair assessment on the part of the observer. Weather ballons by comparison for example, look unusual as do high flying blimps, sattilites, and a dozen other things. Even then, our minds have some framework for understanding how these things would look and behave in the sky. We know for example, that a sattilite will only be seen at night and will stay on one course across the sky. We've all seen the Goodyear blimp, too. We've seen it up close and can easily imagine what it might look like from fruther away.

If Ali says she saw something that does not fit any of these descriptions in her experience, then it is very reasonable to take her at her word. Now when she says "I saw ET" then we have cause to be skeptical certanly. But if she said she saw soemthing she can't explain and did not appear to match anything in her mind that could possibly account for it, then she probably did see something unusual.

The next course of action is not to assasinate her character, but start asking questions. Data is nesassary to properly check her claim

What did it look like?
Can she draw a picture of it for me, in relation to what is aroud it?
What time of day or night was it?
Where was she standing, and what was nearby?
What was the weather like?
How did it move?
What color was the object?
Did it have any blinking lights on it? What color were those and where on the object?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and yet statistical probability alone tells me that in the end ill probably be right for not beliving him, so I'm going to stick with that and make up for it by being open minded about something else all together.

 

On that point you're right, Spymouse. It's only about 1 in 100 UFO sightings which turn out to be something spectacular. That is therefore the last thing one should expect. But, that 100 out of 1,000 add up.

I am waiting for AlienAli to respond to my quarry. I'll say for the record out of all the reported cases I've seen at Sciforums in the almost 2 years I've been here now, ALL have been either Hoax or Insufficient Data. Then again, this isn't MUFON. We don't get nearly as many sighting reports here at all, so the statistical sample isn't much. So what do I do? Keep looking.

 

.. and it is exactly that preconception that misleads us! We have heuristics which we believe the world works by, and when we experience something beyond that, we jump to conclusions. Wrong conclusions. We hardly ever question our world view, but invent all manner of bizarre theories to account for what we saw, rather than admit, that we are rather poor at relating fiorst hand experiences, and everything we remember is tainted by our personality and past experiences.

An illustration. I have two dogs. I walk them every morning, and my usual route takes me along a canal that leads to a nature reserve. In winter, it's often misty, as the canal water keeps it heat wrt the air. So, my dogs go and chase each other, dogfighting, whirling round, and in the mist, in the half light, at 06:00hrs, sometimes, if I didn't know they were my dogs playing, that the swirling shape hovering above the ground (they have light coloured legs which get lost in the mist, only their bodies are visible) I could be led to believe I wa seeing a willo the wisp, or something else strange. But I know what I'm looking at, so I understand it.

You must have seen a picture if an item too, that you didn't instantly recognise. the image seems jumbled, strange, and then, you get it, and it's clear, simple, understandable.

It's our cognizance that makes us give these flamboyanrt descriptions of stuff we half see, that causes us to fill in detail that _must_ have been there, because we can't entertain the item otherwise. It's simply, because our outlook, and experience, are lacking.

 

Originally posted by Xevious
Human broad-jumpers instinctively use outstretched arms to maintain balance and stability in the air.
This has nothing to do with instincts concerning flying. This as a baby you learn to walk, and your brain learns how to balance your body. You also outstretch your arms on the ground.

Most people know instinctively how an airplane looks from far away during flight, based on dozens, perhaps hundreds of them we have seen in our lifetime.
Most people do, except witnesses of UFOs. Project bluebook is proof of this.

 

i am amazed that a 13 year old should have better manners than
those who claim to be more learned though literary skills
combined with age

staying on topic would be a good show of maturity and intellegence without as Xevious put it character assasination

Persol
it was my understanding from the main stream media release of
military documents that project blue book was mearly a collection point for information to apease the genral public and had very little accurate data collation for cross analysis
but that is just my interpretation from what was in the media

phlogistician
i assume you have read "hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" book series
the bassis of your logic self excludes those things/ideas/concepts/items that are unfamiliar to a point of indeterminable definition thus rendering a diversional extreem that would maintain an inconsistant bassis for analysis
and to them establish that as a norm of equative construct is rather .... well conceptualy understandable however not anywhere close to a genral philisophical definition of the term "scientific rendition"

there is an exact example that defines this basis as a conceptualisation but is mealry a symptom of a greater
"philisophical illness" (as one might call it)

anywho...
thats my 50,000 dollars worth (inflation accounted for incorperating disproportionate price to wages increases)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

AleinAllei
maybe you could give a basic discription
and groove on

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thank you, rippleofdeath. You nailed exactly what I was going to say so I won't bother reporting it.

I want to say as well that out of all those in the room, only ONE is properly applying scientific methodology to refute or confirm Ali's claim. You cannot claim to have a scientific position on the subject and do otherwise.

 

No, the claims were also investigated. The vast majority were caused by weather or man made aircraft. People who witness UFOs are saying nothing besides "I don't know what that is". There is no reason to put worth into their claims that it was alien, unless they have some kind of evidence.

 

I think I get what your run on sentence is stabbing at, however, I don't think a 13 year old has enough experience to judge what is beyond rational definition, and what probably has a mundane explanation. To be honest, I doubt the experience was that strange it _had_ to be caused by a UFO.

 

Xevious
you are most welcome

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Persol
i understand and accept the bassis of the investigation by such companys and organisations that the blue book used
on the bassis that they would most likely be looking for the most common definition rather than a scientific inference of the nature of the observation...
assuming the observer was of rational normal ability and not
directed by extreem need to prove or disprove the possibilty of the event being out of normal definition
it seems all too common that most people in such situations are required to SOLVE the observation rather than leave it to represent its-self in its aspects of reports made and found post event
the drive for a comfortable conclusion is somewhat tiresome to me in that aspect and a little outside the scope of true scientific discovery based on the manipulation of data rather than the preservation of it in its raw form

phlogistician
i accept that the proberbility of the event is most likely to lean on the side of normal phenomena
just like buying a lottery ticket
unless you know the winners in person you could easily doubt anyone wins ever
however there are certain aspects that might not be considered to a large extent in my opinion that are more along the lines of
true raw data
as you put it a 13 year old might not have any bassis for comparrison on some things given certain familiaritys of technical observation skills
the data as such is most likely to be not altered to suit a particular construct of defenition given the remnants of free thought and non biased neurological filtering systems re my previouse hinting in my prior post
maybe i should remind you of the collective result of negative reinforcement in regard to your method of quiry, re other posts

anywho enough of my rambling
when will our thread starter come back with more info?

groove on all

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

quote
SpyMoose
You have aircraft recogniton tables in Jr. High do you?
---
just a note...
i have met people of the same age who can drive racing cars and recognise more vehicles than most people 4 times their age

such things are soo varied
junior high or senior high
or even university
i have met people of all those groups and some know things others dont

groove on

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Recognising something that is common, ie the shape of a motor car, is vastly different from differentiating between a mundane aircraft, and a flying saucer.

Firstly, cars move slow, we see them up close, and we have plenty of pictures of them to memorise, and we see them around us a lot. So it's an easy job to recognise cars.

Aircraft, are faster, further away, obscured by more atmosphere, and we see them less often. So, you can't seem them that well, and then, given all the conditions, wind, weather, etc, have to discount every plane ever made, every other flying object known to man, to come up with a UFO. Take this alongside the fact that people report planets as UFOs, and you will soon realise that folks easily jump to conclusions, and don't even do half arsed job of discounting the mundane.

By the way, I live on the flight path of a commerical airport. I see strange looking sights, especially from certain airlines, who have shiny livery. When they catch in the sunlight, you can't see the wings, just a shiny blob traversing the sky. Now, unless UFOs use the same airlanes as regular planes, a lot of 'bright blob in the sky' UFO pics, are just shiny airliners.

Now, can we think of some companies that have shiny livery? Hmm, American Airlines? How many of those in the air at any given time?

 

I too can accept that their is a high probability it just might be a mundane phenomenon. However if we have a precidence for some UFO's being downright bizzar and unexplainable, then why does that probability jusitfy not looking in your mind? That seems far more to me like a lack of patience or willingness to accept dissapointments than it is a scientific approach.

Maybe video games got everyone used to instant gratification. On the other hand, maybe everyone took the lesson from "Scooby Doo" and assume there is some kind of prankster behind every ghost story.

I'm still waiting for AlienAli to come back and tell me what she saw. Some of us are willing to listen. If she is uncomfortable posting it openly (fear someone like Q might redicule) she can private message me, ICQ, whatever. I'm interested in her case.

 

hey im back

okay c i have been gone for like a week sorry !
But um Ripple thx for explaining ! luv yas !lol but i didnt see at my school sillys lol i saw it by my house okays !!!and one more thing i will type the way i wanna im not gonna try to be all proper !!Its a Free Web

 

If you're going to deliberately spell incorrectly, that's called wanton ignorance. You will therefore find it very hard to get taken seriously.

Believers are marginalised already, no need to make it more so by typing like a retard.

 

I've seen some very intelligent people who write A+ english papers write the way AlienAli does online. It is lasyness yes, but it is how they treat the Internet, not the subject they are talking about.

PseudoSkeptics are marginalized already, no need to make it more so by acting like a retard.

 

The way AienAllei writes is like a fad or something for young people
today, a "cool" way to write using dated terminology. I think it is
called "technospeak" or something like that.

 

No you haven't. Intelligent people don't deliberately dumb themselves down. It is not how they treat the internet, it's contempt for their audience. It's saying they don't have to make the effort to be correct, because what they have to say is worth struggling to read. Well, it hardly ever is. Also spare a thought for those where english isn't their first language. Give them a chance to get involved, please. If they make the effort to learn english, we should at least make an effort to write it.

Oh, btw, she signs herself 'AleinAllei', not 'AlienAli', so are you correcting her too?

Now, returning a lifted phrase is pretty childish, and in this case, rather inappropriate. I'm not a pseudo skeptic. I'm a skeptic.