Evidence & Absence

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

A little quiet in the old pseudoscience section as of late. Thought I would share a website that I came across recently that has a great deal of high quality information.

http://www.hyper.net/ufo.html

Check this out, if you are at all intrigued by the UFO phenomenon and all the surrounding phenomena that relates to it, this won't disappoint.

I truly look forward to possible ensuing discussions and debate here concerning matters that may be inspired via this site.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Flying spaghetti monsters.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what did pilots call them during WW2? foo fighters?
the allieds thought UFOs was some kind of psychological warfare.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They certainly have been used as such, that's for certain.

 

Odd, don't you think, that with air travel far more prevalent than WWII flights these days, we don't see foo fighters anymore?

Something to do with the stress of combat sorties, do you think?

 

i doubt it.
modern aviators have seen them too.
radar has picked them up which proves that they are real objects.
as to their nature i have no idea.

 

Your not going to make me post an abundance of pilot, commercial/millitary sightings are you?..don't worry, I'm not...if you want to see them you can find them I'm sure

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You say some wierd things sometimes.

 

RADAR does not prove something is 'real', and as passenger planes are full of passengers, why don't we get passengers reporting seeing foo fighters. We should see fr more reports, as there are more people in the air to see them, but we get less now than we did in WWII.

 

You could just post the relative numbers, with respect to the numbers of people in the air. I think you'll find that with many thousands of people flying, and looking out of aeroplane windows, the numbers of sightings is vanishingly small, and far less than the number reported during WWII.

I'd have to ask you why with more potential witnesses, we see fewer foo fighters.

 

By whom?
No one has "claimed" responsibility for them.

 

During the cold war Russia and the United States were CONSTANTLY at odds claiming responsibility for unconventional aircraft (UFOs) so as to give the other side a perceived disadvantage.

During WWII the Germans CONSTANTLY boasted of being responsible for flying saucers and all manner of Occult sciences for which they never provided solid evidence to support working models.

basic propaganda

 

Phlog
I stated before and I will again. "Foo Fighter" was just a WWII term for UFO. It was a military SWAG as to the origin of the UFOs being sighted. There is no such thing by strict mechanical definition, or observed description, as a "Foo Fighter". The glowing or fiery balls and various shapes were just one type of Foo Fighter. Pilots also reported silver, polished metallic saucer shaped objects and these were referred to as Foo Fighters as well. Nothing new or different since really.

 

Yeah, I know that. It doesn't matter what we call them, what matters is with far more people in the air at any time now, than during WWII, we do not get more reports, we get less.

That doesn't add up, does it? More people flying should equal more reports.

What is your explanation for this?

 

I would be interested to see the statistics to back up what you are claiming. I personally don't believe this is the case at all. In fact we seem to get far more descript sightings and pursuit encounters from pilots than ever.

One aspect with respect to Phlog's claim is that since obviously the old flight by sheer means of visibility days are long gone.

I wonder if someone could actually fill me in on how much less pilots are actually able to use their own powers of visibility with respect to the speeds they travel and maneuver at, let alone cockpit design.

With respect to extremely cutting edge combat aircraft, how much real side to side visible periphery is available to pilots these days?

 

I'm not talking about pilots today, but the thousands of civilian passengers looking out of the windows, enjoying the view.

There far more people in the air these days, I've flown a fair bit myself, but never seen anything out of the ordinary. Why is that?

 

I think with some certainty I can state that those who are credible commercial pilots, having claimed to observe a UFO, are still within a vast minority. However, I must say that I am honestly uncertain as to this statistic itself.

When it comes down to what is one person's (yourself) singular lack of observed UFO activity, I would whole heartedly refer back to the title of this thread.

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

 

they probably fear ridicule and loss of their jobs.
take sciforums for example, all you gotta do is say science has not proven how life came to be on this planet and you are laughed at, put on ignore, accused of being delusional etc.

 

leopold99
I "hear" what you are saying here, but remember, without extreme adversity there can be no extreme improvements with respect to our own logic and philosophical base.

You can also find great solace in many of the typical skeptical refutes to be found here and abroad concerning our personal views.

Take for instance most of the quick typical skeptical responses that are wore like armor by the "many"

IE. "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof in evidence"

If that's not a cop out, I've never considered one. If this claim were functionally accurate, what is REAL science would cease to exist today.

IE. "you can't prove (and furthermore don't need to) a negative"

What a load of hogwash. That and .50 cents will by you a cup of coffee (providing you have a time machine)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you can't prove a negative, why does the term exist prior to the consideration to prove or disprove it?

why does a photo have a negative?

which came first? The negative or the positive? The answer is that they BOTH must exist simultaneously in order for the exclusionary premise to be used as an alibi for the skeptic mentality to begin with.

bottom line: Despite commonplace empirical bullshit, negatives require just as much substantiation as do positives in EVERY case where they are presented as a legitimate refute. One CANNOT exist without the other. Therefore, logically, the negative MUST be proved or the positive has never been substantiated to begin with. Like a dog lost in the cyclic motion of chasing it's tail, the average skeptic has practically NOTHING to stand on but the teetering imbalance of their own circular logic.

Skepticism is nothing more than an ego based exclusionary self defense mechanism.

It is NOT critical thinking. REAL, critical thinking is the type of reactive thinking that instinctively can save your life in dire circumstances. It's very fast, intuitive, inventive, and improvisational. It's literally spot on experimental.

What is considered contemporary "pop" critical thinking is just more empirically imposed peer derived nonsense that excludes the ultimate component of human scientific advancement. Namely the human GIFT of imagination.

Skepticism is more so a religion used by it's believers to ward off the demons of change and challenge.

The skeptic attempts to be a lawyer in a courtroom minus a a truly impartial judge and jury, but rather weakly falls back on the personal ghosts of empirical peer acceptance.

Personally, I would rather go to my grave "not knowing", than "pretending I do"

Take pride in KNOWING that it is us that are the few and the skeptics are the many. It has ALWAYS been the few that made the largest and most dramatic improvements within science. Don't let them ever kid you.

The only real strength in numbers is the one over looked by the bulk rate mathematicians. Skeptics are a bulk rate commodity to be certain. Only the rogue, the fledgling few, can manage the strength necessary to press forward, despite the adversity of skepticism, and thus improve upon the complacent flaws of the many and their past mistakes.

Bank on it.

 

Oh right yeah. people see UFOs but don't report them. They don't take pictures or video for the same reason I presume.

Come on kids, it's the 21st century. People have mobile phones with cameras on, we have CCTV everwhere, where's the evidence?

 

come on phlog you aren't that stupid.
i hand you a bonafide photo of a UFO and what are you gonna do?
1. that's not a UFO it's venus.
2. that's not a UFO it's a lens flare.
3. that's not a UFO it's faked.