Identified Flying Object over LA

Discussion in 'World Events' started by ElectricFetus, Dec 23, 2017.

  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    Oh no what could it be???



    I know and watched it on the web:




    Anyways fascinating watching people freak out, I plan to watch this closely over the next couple of days to understand better how people just make up bullshit.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,199
    I got the feeling
    he didn't know what it was
    but you don't see it every day
    and he'd never seen anything like it before

    Best description of a UFO EVER

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    And now the fun begins:

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
  8. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,199
    Any chance we can hook this person up with MR?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Match made in a heaven full of UFOs

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    ElectricFetus likes this.
  9. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,804
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    This is an instructive example that I really wish Magical Realist, in particular, would pay attention to.

    Watch the first video in the opening post and listen to what the woman taking the video says. I found a couple of points interesting.

    Notice she claims the object is landing, even though we know that the actual object was going upwards the entire time. This is an understandable error. She thought the object was closer than it was, and assumed its apparent trajectory downwards in her view was a real downwards trajectory. In fact, the trajectory was upwards and sideways, and in particular towards the local horizon.

    Also, notice how she starts off mentioning "smoke", which is absolutely what she was seeing. But when she can't explain why it is so bright, her description shifts and she jumps to the conclusion that "it's not ordinary smoke". It can't be ordinary smoke, because ordinary smoke doesn't glow brightly. Here though, we have another error. The smoke is not self-luminous; it is reflecting light from the ground below.

    If this video existed in isolation, what would a UFO believer like Magical Realist make of it? First, he would immediately assume, without even thinking about it, that this was a "paranormal" event. Second, he would immediately accept the woman's testimony of the event on the video as an accurate interpretation of what was seen, not bothering to consider alternative explanations. Third, he would insist that both the video and the testimony should be taken as unimpeachable and "compelling" evidence of extraterrestrial, technological "craft", simply because he couldn't possibly imagine what might look like this.

    This kind of thing is all too common in the UFO believer community of enthusiasts. The desired conclusion comes first. Gaps in knowledge are automatically filled with unprovable and often faulty assumptions. After a while the incidents become part of the accept canon of UFOlogy, with the "evidence" endlessly being trotted out with zero actual analysis or basic fact checking.
     
    Daecon likes this.
  11. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    this is a facetious thread with the spirit that assumes that all videos and all currently fringe (bundled) is bunk. it is like assuming everyone is a liar. some are legitimate and some are not. of course, most ufo sightings are not alien craft but no one really knows what could be out there just as not all supposed paranormal events are actually paranormal but have currently even well established rational explanations but some can be paranormal. paranormal not even in the outlandish sense that even skeptics even conclusively jump to either such as ghosts etc.

    but i can do the same to debunk a video. for instance, in this one, right off the bat, the guy who claims to be almost 3000 (even 300 is not believable) years from the future speaks exactly as we do, even with every currently common nuance intact. it would have even been more believable if it was at least some form of broken english. he underestimated all of his audience. people don't even speak the same a few decades ago as today from choice of words, lingo, tone and inflection.

     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2017
  12. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,804
    Won't happen. Monkeys need a lot longer to type Shakespeare.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    birch:

    Interesting you say that, because there's actually nothing in this thread that says anything about any "fringe" videos, let alone all of them. Nor is there anything here that says anybody is a liar.

    I understand that some believers in the paranormal get all offended and defensive whenever anybody tries to get them to think clearly about their beliefs. But trying to educate people to think more clearly is not the same as accusing them of telling lies or of being fraudulent in some way.
     
  14. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    your own ignorance is stated in your own beliefs that others are not thinking 'clearly' when it comes to the paranormal because your own assumption is that it's not real in the first place. you are entitled to your own beliefs on the matter though but that doesn't mean others will concede to your narrative of reality on matters you yourself are no authority or expert on, as anyone else, for that matter. it is fringe territory.

    i'm not obnoxious enough to talk or believe i'm an authority and expert on topics i don't know anything or much about or have little experience with.

    at first, i did concede that had i not experienced paranormal phenomena, that i would probably be as sarcastic and so sure of knowing all of reality as others here but i must take that back because i don't think i would be as rude even if i were unbelieving or skeptical. one thing is the more i know, the less i do.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2017
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    I mean, look at Demi Levato's tweet, posted above. She really has no excuse. The woman who posted the first video in the opening post didn't know what she was looking at, but Demi Levato did. She had heard it was a SpaceX rocket launch.

    Now, Demi had two options available to her:

    1. Accept the obvious evidence that SpaceX is a company that launches rockets, that there was ample evidence of a rocket launch in the right place at the right time to account for the "UFO", and accept the simple and obvious explanation connecting the viewed rocket trail with the rocket launch that occurred.

    or

    2. Claim there is a vast conspiracy, of which SpaceX is a part, to suppress knowledge of alien spaceships visiting Earth, and therefore claim that the obvious explanation is a lie being perpetrated on the sheeple populous by The Man.
    ---

    In other words, she could act like a sensible, thinking human being with some common sense, or she could make herself look like a paranoid nutty person on her twitter feed.

    Guess which option she chose?
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    birch:

    No doubt you won't believe me when I tell you (again), but I don't assume that the "paranormal" is not real in the first place. I don't start with the conclusion; I start with the evidence and follow it where it leads.

    With all claims of the paranormal that I am aware of, that trail of evidence stops soon after the first piece of evidence is presented.

    You have a fuzzy photo of something that might be a ghost? OK, so what's next? You say you went to the haunted house and took the photo, and heard some unexplained noises and felt cold? OK, now what? Is that all we have? A fuzzy photo that might be a camera artifact or dust caught in the flash, along with an account of your subjective feelings at the time you took it, and an unverified claim that you heard some noises you couldn't explain. Is that good enough to throw science out the window and yell "Hallelujah! Ghosts are confirmed to be real!" I don't think so. You'll need to do better.

    The reason is that there's a much simpler mundane explanation for what happened here. There's no need to invoke ghosts to explain the available evidence. No need to throw science out the window. No need to assume the existence of miraculous, magical beings from beyond the grave. A bit of basic psychology and a little knowledge of optics and the behaviours of materials suffices.

    Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. You're quite free to jump to conclusions based on scanty evidence yourself, but don't expect other people to make the same unwarranted leap with you.

    As it happens, I am somewhat of an expert on such matters. I have become so over the years. But I am not asking anybody to accept my opinion based on any kind of authority I might have. I merely ask them to think about things clearly. I am quite happy to help by suggesting plausible alternatives. In turn, people are free to be like Demi Levato, and to make idiots of themselves on the internet by denying the glaringly obvious in order to preserve irrational belief systems.
     
  17. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    you just contradicted yourself and are not thinking 'clearly'. what particular phenomena are you referring to or are you just sweeping all phenomena (typical) as bunk? and what particular phenomena to "much simpler mundane explanation' are you referring to, again? who said they are invoking ghosts (besides the fact you don't know if it exists or not but believe you do)? didn't i say that not all paranormal phenomena has to do with ghosts as even skeptics stereotypically jump to as conclusions as well? this is because you don't have much experience with paranormal phenomena or haven't considered different angles or hypothesis behind these unexplained phenomena that don't always have cursory and easy trivial explanations so you expect and assume others believe they are all ghosts. see?

    in the case of paranormal phenomena, there is simply 'inconclusive' for most cases that can't be debunked. is that still rattling your chain? or is there still that itch to scratch to bring down an definitive hammer on it?

    besides, james r, i wonder if you are of the mind that blindly assumes that people who believe in paranormal, esp, astral projection/travel, astrology or even ghosts are all of average intelligence and therefore stupid and lack critical thinking ability. is that what you think? because i can assure you that that is not the case. there are also very highly intelligent people who believe in those things which may come as a shock to most people on this forum. they also have higher eq than most.

    as a matter of fact, there are just as many of lower to average intelligence who would side with you on these matters and are very literal and think all these subjects are silly, ridiculous and completely imaginary. this is because they also take the world at face value and if they did not experience something, they don't believe it either. it doesn't take a genius to be a literalist either. either side of the coin, brother.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2017
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    Thanks to this launch I'm am now a follower of lil' Mayo:



    Anyways Birch: it is not a issue of intelligence, but delusion: if you want to believe something you will deny all counter evidence and if you are intelligent you will create very a elaborate explanations for why your belief is valid. The ability to drop a belief in favor of one that fits the evidence better is separate from intelligence.

    I posted this because it a perfect example of an event, with extensive evidence, in which some people will develop contrarian and radical opinions because they are insane, some moronically insane, some intelligently insane. And that it is fascinating opportunity to track how this insanity emerges over time.

    Step 1 appears to be see something truly strange in the sky, that you have no understand of, though in this case it was the launching of a satellite into polar orbit at dusk (so as to be in a continiously light sun tracking orbit), this created a very brightly illuminated cloud of exhaust in the night sky by the light off the sun and earth because it is above the horizon and the observers are below. Then there is the fact this rocket had RCS thrusters for guided re-entry and return to the surface, as well as the fairings are recoverable as well and had their own RCS thrusters for re-entry. So there was the cloud of the first stage, the cloud of the second stage, puffs and smoke rings from the second stage RCS thusters and even puffs from the fairings, created a concert of illuminated smoke and hazy bodies that looked like aliens were getting really really stoned in orbit.

    Here what the fairing was seeing though:



    Step 2 is coming up with ones own conclusion: aliens getting really stoned

    Step 3 is being told and shown the truth, most people go "oh so that what happened" but some rather stay stuck to their initial belief (why?)

    Step 4: Conspiracy!
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    birch:

    I haven't referred to any phenomena as bunk.

    My entire previous post invited you to follow evidence where it leads, rather than making assumptions. Did you miss the point?

    I wasn't referring to any particular phenomena. Often, we need to investigate on a case-by-case basis, because there are often different kinds of mundane explanations and various ones are applicable in different cases.

    What I am saying is that if mundane explanations can't be ruled out, then there's no need to introduce paranormal explanations, in any given case.

    I was only making up an example that happened to use ghosts there. Substitute any paranormal phenomenon you like, the principle is the same.

    I'm not sure what you're saying here. I have already told you that I have quite a lot of knowledge of the so-called paranormal, accumulated over the years, so in that sense I have quite a bit of experience in examining paranormal claims.

    On the other hand, maybe you're saying that if I only experienced paranormal phenomena directly myself, then I'd be a believer, and that my lack of direct experience is why I don't believe. In other words, you might be saying that only people who claim to have had paranormal experiences are qualified to discuss the reality of the phenomena. The problem with that is that personal experiences are inevitably subjective. People are prone to misinterpreting what they see, hear and otherwise sense, under the right conditions. People can also be "primed" by their own prior knowledge and conceptions to misinterpret things in particular ways. In other words, people are fallible, and direct experience is no guarantee that one's interpretation of an experience is the correct interpretation.

    This is why Magical Realist is so very wrong when he claims that eyewitness testimony of the paranormal "stands on its own". It never does. It stands with all the falibilities and biases of the eyewitnesses. This is why objective evidence is so important. It is why independent confirmation is important. It is why, in many cases, repeatability (preferably under controlled conditions) is important.

    To stick with ghosts as an example, it can be far easier to just label a fuzzy blur in a photo, that looks like a face, as a ghost, rather than thinking about what else could have caused a face-like blur. The paranormal is often lazy. It starts with an assumption and rarely investigates beyond that.

    I thought I'd already had this discussion with you, but maybe I had it with somebody else.

    Just to be clear: I'm quite comfortable with uncertainty. I'm quite happy to say "I don't know what that fuzzy blob in the photograph is". I find that, in general, it is the true believers who want to insist that the blob must be a ghost or an alien spacecraft or whatever. I recognise that many cases are actually impossible to resolve one way or the other, due to lack of sufficient evidence. But the believers always default to: "If it can't be debunked, then it counts as evidence of the paranormal". It doesn't.

    Not at all.

    It's not a matter of intelligence. Michael Shermer wrote a book on this called Why People Believe Weird Things. I agree with what he says there. People who believe in the paranormal don't necessarily lack intelligence. The problem is often that they start believing for basically irrational reasons, and then apply their intelligence to defend their unsupported belief by rationalising it in various ways to other people and, more importantly, to themselves.

    If you're a conspiracy theorist, for example, then you might be very intelligent indeed. You might be able to come up with lots of good reasons why the government would want to suppress information and control people, and you might find ingenious ways to explain various facts to fit your favorite conspiratorial ideas. If you believe in a CIA conspiracy to shoot Kennedy, then you might well be able to fit all the known facts into that theory, although it will require you to make a whole raft of unproven assumptions. At the family BBQ, you'll be able to counter all objections to the conspiracy theory. You'll have an answer for every objection to your theory. But you won't be able to prove your core assumptions. So what's wrong? What's wrong is that you started with a set of unproven assumptions, and then built the rest on that shaky foundation.

    Take astrology as a different example. Suppose you get your horoscope done and it seems to accurately predict some events in your life. So, you decide that astrology works. You don't have to be stupid for that. Your horoscope really did say you'd meet a new man this week, and you really did, so there must be something to it, right? So you decide to study up on it. You read a lot of books. You go to astrology conventions. Maybe you set yourself up as a professional astrologer, casting horoscopes for other people who often tell you that you got it right. But in your studies you also learn that astrological prediction is a tricky business. The stars can be misinterpreted. Sometimes you don't see things in the stars because you don't look hard enough in the right way, but after the events that occur you can make it make sense, you understand where you went wrong that time. It takes intelligence to keep all the exceptions and flaws and complications of the astrological system in mind; it's a big, complicated area of study. So what's wrong here? The same thing as with the conspiracist: you started with the unproven assumption that astrology works, and built up from there, based on what is actually, provably, a shaky foundation. Maybe you didn't know about the power of coincidence. Maybe you blinded yourself to how vague a lot of astrology is. Maybe you counted the hits and forgot the misses too many times.

    So, we've covered intelligence. It's not about lack of intelligence.

    As for critical thinking, that's a different matter. People believe weird things uniformly because they don't think critically, at least not about the right things. They don't think critically about those foundations. Rather, they take the foundations as a given. Aliens are visiting earth. The Illuminati control the world. Homeopathy cures diseases. Or whatever.

    Critical thinking is not an automatic skill. It's a learned skill. And the best method we have for evaluating evidence properly is the scientific method. So, training in how to think like a scientist is vital (even if it's not explicitly described that way). It also needs practice.

    That is true. Lots of people believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman, and they accept that as a foundational fact, without knowing much about the evidence that supports the idea. The fact that they are most likely correct does not necessarily mean that they are capable of making a convincing argument for their theory. That, too, requires knowledge of the evidence and the ability to evaluate it.

    One other thing I should add is that in many cases we lack personal expertise to decide what to believe about things. So what we do instead is trust somebody else to tell us what is true. This can be a problem if the trusted person or organisation is actually unreliable, or built on its own shaky foundation. There's no easy solution to this. Trust is necessary. Trusting the right people is important. Knowing how to tell who is trustworthy is difficult. But intelligence and critical thinking can help a lot with that, too.
     
  20. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    what is truly silly is how so-called skeptics on this forum (and they are not true skeptics but mere reactionists) is the repeated conflation of truly made-up beings as the tooth fairy, santa claus, unicorns and bigfoot (in my book) with paranormal phenomena including ghosts ( a way to describe apparitions).

    i've not heard or read of any random sightings of the tooth fairy, santa claus, unicorns etc. why not? because they are not real. however, paranormal phenomena have been going on for time immemorial and there is definitely something to them and people having many unexplained experiences, yet the ones who are the most silliest on this forum are those who think it is the same as grimm's fairy tales and disney characters. there is nothing even remotely in common.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,897
    Bigfoot, Yeti, UFO Aliens, Loch Ness Monster, Skinwalkers, Cupachabras, whatever the sighters call the little folk of Iceland, and so forth, are frequently sighted to this day.

    In ages past unicorns were not only encountered, but were the source of physical evidence (narwhal tusks, say), leprechauns were frequently seen, and fairy-world minions left real life changelings in cribs or even in marriage beds (before Capgras syndrome had been carefully described).

    The question is not whether people experience these phenomena. The question has always been: what's going on?
     
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    I've been abducted by aliens, no joke repeatedly, as a teenager, but I have come to believe it was a figment of my imagination, my obsession at the time with aliens-UFO culture, and sleep paralysis.

    Also I have hear of many sightings of fairies, santa claus, unicorns, etc, bigfoot, jackalop, dropbear, etc, either these things are real... or a outlet for our imaginations and superstitions, occums razor favors the former. but it could be a little of both in some cases, for example:



    What it looks like is there is some truth that is then exaggerated into supernatural phenomena, so a real phenomena that is then imagined to be much more, like a beautiful rocket launch being interpreted as aliens.
     
  23. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    I thought that is where autistic children were thought to come from?

    http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/3/271
     

Share This Page